[EGreg]

HN anathema: crypto and blockchain — can and does trivially solve the issues Patrick writes about. You can easily make sure the account has enough money, without knowing whose account it is. Crypto is “buyer beware”. The traditional fintech system is “seller beware”. But crypto is programmable and in theory you could easily make use of arbitration, resolution of disputes, and periodic payouts etc. All without being forced into the bundle of services you don’t control, that banks saddle you with.

[ranger207]

Crypto and blockchain by itself does not solve any of these problems. It's merely a payments system that happens to be on a computer natively. There's nothing technical preventing banks from getting together and making Open Banking a well-supported thing like they're supposed to be doing; it's all just code and contracts in the end. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't, and they won't for business and political reasons. Crypto is subject to the same pressures but doesn't have the same regulations to constrain their actions. Crypto's better ability to eg do international payments is not because of any technical reason but simply because they don't have the same regulations and inertia of the traditional banking system. While the traditional banking system has problems with its regulations making things too hard to do, many people prefer it to the easier to screw up wild west of crypto payments. Lots of people like the FDIC making sure their savings aren't wiped out if the bank lies on its balance sheet, or the ability to claw back money transfers if someone breaks into their account. Crypto could certainly provide those services and backstops, but they haven't yet, and based on the prevailing attitude amongst the major participants, it's unlikely they will anytime soon. The only real difference between crypto and banks as a payments system is whether or not you want to start from scratch and build up, or start with the existing morass and tear down. The latter is the safer option which many people prefer when it concerns their money

[toenail]

The idea that I’d need anybody’s permission or a regulation to allow me to give my money to somebody else is the problem.

[fragmede]

As an honest person, that makes sense. Unfortunately, the world is filled with people who are not. If I have to give my money to Alice to give it to Bob because Alice is the only person with a way to get it to Bob, I'm trusting Alice to just do that. But Alice is a business woman and is doing this for lots of people. One day, Alice just disappears with everybody's money. All of the people that relied on Alice to get money to Bob just got screwed. So then they make a bunch of rules and regulations so that doesn't happen again.

MTLs, money transmission licenses exist to say you can’t legally handle other people’s money without proving you’re trustworthy, solvent, and compliant with anti-crime laws.

[victorbjorklund]

Who's permission do you need to be allowed to accept $10 in cash? I mean there are regulations but that is usually not related directly to the cash payment itself but rather that you know you might need to pay taxes or there is regulation that you can't commit terrorist acts and you know that could be the blocker but then it's not really the cash payment that is needing permission. And again, nothing that Bitcoin or other crypto is solving because you still would have to have the same kind of permission or just not care about the permission but you can do that with cash too.

[zihotki]

You still can - make a wire transfer or give them cash. Or what is your actual problem?

[toenail]

My actual problem is that the central bank devalues the money I earned. I'm glad to hear that the financial system works for you, and that you have zero problems making transactions to anybody on the planet. That's not true for a lot of people.

[astrange]

The second law of thermodynamics devalues the money you earned. There's no way you can have $10 that always and forever buys the same things $10 currently does.

Central banks keep its value higher than the alternative, as anyone who doesn't have oppositional defiance disorder would notice from the fact that we haven't had a Great Depression lately. Because it really gets devalued if there's an economic collapse and all the businesses you trade with cease to exist.

[toenail]

Have you ever heard of gold? That didn't continuously lose value. I'm sorry to hear you believe the nonsense modern economists, bankers and politicians tell you.

[ryanackley]

Anytime I've tried to buy something with crypto, the fees have been an order of magnitude higher than interchange (credit card) fees. And unlike credit cards, the cost is put on me not the merchant.

[afroboy]

There one Blockchain is used for memes, but it's actually very efficient one and the fees are very low. Where i live we use to move USDC between accounts very easily.

[astrange]

You can't be sure of anything just because a crypto wallet appears to have a number in it, because the legal system exists, and judges don't care what you think a number means if they think something different.

Mainly this comes up during bankruptcy, but they can also just order you to return stolen funds you've received even if you would prefer not to do that.