Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nmrm 4355 days ago
> ACH is infuriatingly slow.

Tell me about it.

> If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

Right. It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. OR the inherent risk to consumers which comes with lack of regulation.

> The real benefit is time of transfer.

To what extent does this benefit come from not being subject to regulation? (edit: not rhetorical; I've no idea)

> If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

But the check still arrives on Friday, so the benefit is really to the business rather than the employee. This negates the employee-centric benefits you mention in the next paragraph (pay day loans, credit cards, etc.)

That is, unless the business is giving advances on payroll. But I think that's something companies don't do for reasons unrelated to choice of currency and transfer time. (edit: I suppose another alternative is that you could pay your employees more often because the process is cheaper and faster. That would be a big win. But I think other cash flows would in some cases prevent this from happening unless everything is done in BTC.)

edit: Die off is a bit harsh? I don't want fiat->btc->fiat because it's just silly, but of course if btc causes reforms in the banking industry I sincerely hope btc companies make a huge amount of money in the process :-)

edit2: Also, thanks for the link!

2 comments

>It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions.

>If I just want to transfer some cash to someone, I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it.

You've made that point twice in different comments, and I feel it has to be addressed. Firstly, the inefficiencies you've alluded to here are inefficiencies of the traditional banking system. Secondly, and most important, bitcoin IS money, it does not always have to be converted to something else.

Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency. For example, if a person receives bitcoin and a store they want to use accepts bitcoin, then there is no need for an additional wasteful conversion step. And what if the store's suppliers also accept bitcoin or some of their staff are paid partly in bitcoin? What if these people are in different countries? Goodbye foreign currency exchange fees, remittance fees, bank charges.

This goal may be unattainable, and the current situation is certainly far from it, but each time a company like Dell or Newegg announces it accepts bitcoin payments or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful.

I don't think being paid 100% in bitcoin will be a good idea for most people any time soon, because they would just have to convert the bulk of it back to fiat currency. However, receiving a small percentage in bitcoin is quite practical in some places. A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. For example, have a look at https://spendabit.co and try searching for random products.

edit: TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems, not because we agree with the dominant ideology of early adopters. Setting aside politics, if the problems Bitcoin solves are easier and cheaper to solve with a simpler solution, then we should use the simpler solution.

> Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency

I mean, I started my post acknowledging these claims exist.

So, you can interpret my comments as "suppose that the only justification for bitcoin is its utility as a transfer medium..." and leave political discussions in other threads.

edit: also, this is totally appropriate for this thread, because in most states of the US, actually paying employees in bitcoin would not be legal and employees would need to convert back to usd to pay taxes, rent, food/bar tabs in most situations, etc. So, USD -> BTC -> USD is pretty clearly the intended use case for this product...

> if a person receives bitcoin and a store

The problem with foreign currency conversion isn't small amounts of cash for consumer transactions, at least in my experience. I can convert currency by using an ATM without thinking about it at a reasonable exchange rate, and the fees are often lower than what I would pay in the U.S.

Ditto for online services, but even more so.

The problem is larger amounts of cash, or transfers to third parties you won't visit in person. Queue discussion below.

> A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat.

> or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful.

I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion.

I'm -- and I suspect most people in the world are -- more interested in the actual underlying pain points than broad-stroke discussions which invariably ground-out in political, ideological discussions about monetary policy.

Ostensibly, personal opinion on national and international monetary policy isn't the best of standards for choosing a payroll provider. edit: also, that's where companies are focusing. For the obvious reason that political selling points, aren't.

And more importantly, that's not how this product sells itself. Nor should it.

>> or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful.

>I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion.

I expect so. It's also great if you believe that the legacy financial system is inefficient and may improve if it is threatened by external competition. From your comments here, you do believe that, I think?

As you've said, casting this as a discussion of politics or monetary policy distracts from the practical issues. So let's avoid that. Your comment, which I cited above, seems to be assuming that my interest in this is political or ideological. It's not.

In fact, based on that comment, you appear to be assuming that anyone who 'supports' Bitcoin does so purely for political reasons. Is that really how you feel? I think that is far from the truth, anyway.

To be honest, I know very little about Bitwage. I replied to you because I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat. As I have used cryptocurrencies extensively, I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions.

> From your comments here, you do believe that, I think?

I think bitcoin-as-exchange-medium is reasonable.

I think bitcoin-as-a-currency or bitcoin-as-money per se is not workable, or at the very least is a solution in search of a problem.

> Is that really how you feel?

If it were, I simply wouldn't read bitcoin stories.

> I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat.

What are the material advantages to using bitcoin for anything other than as an exchange mechanism?

All of the pain points of the modern banking system you and others have proposed are mostly about currency conversion and sending money across international borders, and my original post addresses what I believe the likely outcome for this use case is (although, see the thread with baddox as well).

I didn't claim you cannot use bitcoin in other capacities. I just stated the extra intermediate currency doesn't make any sense because there's no competitive advantage to existing (safer) mechanisms. Maybe I'm missing something?

> I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions.

What would really convince me to let go of this assumption is a compelling reason to use bitcoin as money.

>> Is that really how you feel?

>If it were, I simply wouldn't read bitcoin stories.

Then your statement, 'I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion', doesn't fully represent your actual point of view about the topic you were referring to (the growth of the bitcoin ecosystem)?

This one of several issues that I'm finding quite confusing. You've said you personally would love to see bitcoin have some limited growth because that might force improvements in the existing financial system[1], but then you've dismissed all other people's possible pleasure at bitcoin's growth as being purely politically motivated[2]. These two positions seem to contradict each other.

>What are the material advantages to using bitcoin for anything other than as an exchange mechanism?

I could give a trivial example, but do you mean the material advantages for you, or for some other person? I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to insist that bitcoin must be good for you personally. It's quite possible that it's worse than useless for you in its current form.

[1] "I'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8079622

[2] "I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081114

> I could give a trivial example

Please do, because this thread is hard-to-read deep and the only examples you've given were discussed at length in other subthreads before you even posted them.

> but do you mean the material advantages for you, or for some other person?

I would prefer "here is a problem" and then "here why bitcoin is the best available solution to the problem".

Rather than the more common "here is a problem" and "here's a way that bitcoin could solve the problem", and then completely ignoring hundreds of other less-complicated, safer and some-times even already well-established solutions.

Or solutions that are actually just ways to circumvent regulation, and probably aren't legally sustainable or financially scalable (see post #1).

> I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to insist that bitcoin must be good for you personally.

If you re-read my original post, my reasoning is explicitly selfish. The reasoning goes "I want X to happen because that's best for me."

> but then you've dismissed all other people's possible pleasure at bitcoin's growth as being purely politically motivated[2]

Um, yeah. In the post I'm responding to, you started with the assumption that bitcoin is good, and then reasoned from that assumption that we should use bitcoin in specific circumstances while ignoring arguments that it's not the best technology for addressing those specific problems.

But this reasoning is really silly. Because then every time I point out there's a better technology for solving problem X, you say "yeah, but Bitcoin solves lots of problems! So if we use it as the solution for X, then there's more adoption and we solve all these other problems."

But of course the only "other problems" you've mentioned all have better alternatives. And if even a significant portion problems have much better alternatives, then your argument falls apart and becomes "use bitcoin for X because bitcoin is inherently good", which is a political judgement and not a pragmatic judgement.

>> It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking

Do you realize that your beloved banks caused the GFC and many huge financial scandals like the Libor in Europe or the HSBC money laundering in USA?

There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC or any other cryptocurrency but the real issue here is who controls the money.

Strawman.

I'm not advocating for large banks, and even specifically mention non-bank fiat->fiat cash transfer companies as a viable and even more likely alternative to BTC.

> There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC

Yes! Exactly! Bad Things Done By Banks is only an accidental benefit of BTC.

If BTC becomes regulated and banks are the better equipped to deal with these regulations, then BTC becomes dominated by banks or de jure criminals.

Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology.

>>Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology.

Disagreed, it should be solved/prevented by regulations / laws but it wasn't. BTC don't need regulations.

> BTC don't need regulations.

Yes, it does. For the same reason that any other mechanism for transferring arbitrary sums of money across international borders needs regulation.

(It's also worth mentioning that I "bank", even international, with a small local credit union. So your choice between huge abusive banks and BTC is false.)