I agree, blockchain is revolutionary because of what you said. But if we only use it for transactions, not as a store, then we have to switch it in/out of traditional fiat currencies at each end, which seems inefficient, rather than both storing it in blockchain and transacting in it.

I hope we eventually have a blockchain that could serve both purposes.

I'm critical of BTC but I think this is true. It is a technological breakthrough in this regard. I'm not entirely sure that the transaction costs are so low that most people would prefer to do it via BTC and not through a third party, however, especially if remittance services start competing by using similar technology in their backends.

There are specific instances where people do not have remittance services available to them -- getting money across some borders, completing illegal transactions, etc. For BTC to be a mainstream money transfer method, however, it will need to be obviously better than just doing it the old way -- paying a 3rd party to clear the transaction.

It's an elegant technological breakthrough in search of a killer app, I think, and that killer app can't just be illegal or extralegal transactions. If that's all it ends up being, governments are going to crack down even more than they already have.

> especially if remittance services start competing by using similar technology in their backends

It's not a technology problem. Transfers could be instantaneous and nearly free without a blockchain. The reason they are not is because of several reasons. Fraud prevention is one. Another is that the cash being held during the transfer is used for investments.

Bitcoin makes this faster because there is no middle man or regulations slowing it down, not for technical reasons.

They won’t want to though, so long as the value continues to skyrocket.

the blockchain depends on a third party running it

That's like saying a house party requires friends to run it.