[javert]

Because it's sort of like an old-time telegraph company saying, "Telephones? Hey, let's get in on this by offering a service where we transcribe telephone conversations and send them out to the other party as a telegraph." In other words, totally missing the point.

[betterunix]

Do you actually think there is no need for money services with Bitcoin? I think you need to stop for a moment and think about this: what would Bitcoin be worth if there were no Bitcoin exchanges?

Western Union can provide a lot of relevant services: escrow, conversion to obscure currencies (or just general exchange), fraud mitigation, etc.

[olefoo]

> fraud mitigation

Ah yes. The fraudsters favorite service for irreversible cash transfers will certainly have an advantage there.

[veidr]

Ok fine, fraud facilitation then. Also a lucrative segment.

[javert]

I'm not trying to diss Western Union here, I'm just explaining why the other guy said that.

But OK, I'll take the bait :).

Yes, Western Union can provide a lot of relevant services, but so can _anybody_, and there are already a number of Bitcoin exchanges.

To assume that Western Union ought to provide Bitcoin services is like assuming that a horse-and-buggy company ought to start making cars. I mean, sure, it might be a really good idea, but cars are a _revolution_ of the horse-and-buggy, not an _evolution_. Likewise, Bitcoin is a revolution compared to traditional money transfer, not an evolution.

[kzrdude]

I don't agree. WU has offices all over the world, which can be of a great service to customers, with USD or bitcoin.