One potential obstruction to this is probably the speed of transaction confirmation. I believe it takes about an hour for a transaction to be confirmed. If we equate that to a current fiat currency based transaction confirmation which takes just a fraction of a second, we are way off. I may be wrong in this comparison. What I do understand is that, you can't have the blockchain and also the speed of a fiat currency based transaction confirmation. What I don't understand is - Is this confirmation so crucial. I see blockchain as more amenable to existing workflows that takes eons to complete, such as an approval in an organization.
Every major blockchain is trying to shard or find other solutions to increase scalability of confirmations. Most coins have it on the 2018 roadmap to deliver lots of these improvements which will bring the transaction times way down. If some coins stay slow, then others will be used instead for situations where you need to compete with the speed of a wire transfer.
SEPA has basically no fee and is usually next day, with SEPA SCT Inst it'll soon be 15 seconds (and no more than 20 seconds) with the same fees, after which bitcoin can't compete on that anymore.
ACH transfers take days; wire transfers take minutes to hours and cost tens of dollars. There's ever possibility of running a digital currency that can clear transactions on the order of minutes with minimal cost. Bitcoin isn't well suited to that, partially because it hasn't been managed well.
A credit card would still pre-authorize against a balance at an institution, but it would settle between the customer and merchant bank on the same schedule (when the merchant cleared their transactions for the week) or faster (eg, on the order of minutes). That makes credit cards considerably closer to cash (fast) than what they are now, like checks (slow).
And for people who wanted it to settle immediately or treat it like cash, they could make a direct transfer, and have it clear on the order of minutes. (Not great for coffee, but something like buying a car.)
Digital currencies can be those things, they're just not.
Can you please elaborate on this a bit more. What is direct transfer and how is it different from bitcoin /ethereum payments. From what I understand, they are the same.
Because we can't. Given that there are trade imbalances between countries (and assuming we want the economy to actually continue to run, as opposed to transfer all the wealth in the world to first one country, then one person, and then stop alltogether)
That means trade imbalances must be forgiven. Our current system does that through credit creation and crashes (bankruptcies). Bitcoin simply ignores the problem. Therefore bitcoin economic model is designed to transfer all the wealth to the rich and stop.
At some point. When this hype and unstability will have allowed for tools and bridges to be built, it will be not be welcome anymore.
That makes sense. Maybe BC is just the sacrificial starter we needed to ultimately result in adoption of a blockchain that works better. And some people will make a lot of money from BC, some people will lose a lot, and in the end we'll get something better.
You have the PoS folks, IOTA's got an interesting strategy and some other paradigms but for now its still conjecture. Decentralized distributed technologies will likely always be slower than centralized monoliths.
There is a great irony in the fact that cryptocurrencies are designed to be finite in size to ensure their value, yet the number of potential cryptocurrencies in the world is pretty much infinite.
If we could run the economy on blockchain, why not?
Like you say, blockchain as a concept has many desirable traits that make it superior to a fiat currency. But if Bitcoin in particular were designed in a way that allowed it to avoid rapid fluctuation, I could see it slowly rising in use, until after many years it's powering a lot of commerce instead of the US dollar. As it is, it's going to reach a ceiling of usefulness that a differently architected blockchain wouldn't have.