I'd argue that's not a problem that cryptocurrencies somehow uniquely solve, and in fact even this is solved inefficiently by them. Enormous amounts of energy have to be expended to facilitate a fairly low number of transactions. There are zero technical reasons why non-crypto/non-blockchain technologies wouldn't allow instantaneous money transfer. And in many places of the world, they do. I can instantly transfer money from one bank account to another in Europe. The only reason this is not the case in many parts of the world is that the banking system still runs on archaic technical and procedural frameworks.

And finally: > without the need to rely to the "system" of banks, governments etc I consider this a severe bug. When hackers empty out your wallet, you'll wish there was a system of banks and governments that provide some sort of insurance - like most western banks and governments do.

The sole case that can be made for cryptos is that alongside enabling money laundering and tax dodging, their unregulated nature allows people in oppressive regimes to funnel out money. I'd say that may be a valuable tradeoff, but somehow it's not the one being discussed usually.

In Europe, you cannot send wire transfers to Japan on weekends in a couple seconds. So the problem is not solved in Europe. Posting "there's no technical reason why every bank cant coordinate to provide a non-terrible experience eventually in a hundred years" is not helpful. We have working international settlements for any origin to any destination for any amount of money in seconds today.

Proposing cryptocurrencies as somehow uniquely capable of solving this problem is incorrect. Furthermore, there are also valid reasons why payments may take longer when crossing certain national boundaries. E.g. KYC/AML checks and so forth.

I do not propose cryptocurrencies as uniquely capable of solving the problem. I propose them as actually solving the problem today. Similarly, I don't propose that you *couldn't* travel internationally using a personal jetpack or an ornithopter. I just think that a passenger jet is a likely to be better choice for now.

My experience with international wire transfers so far is that KYC/AML performed at the time of the transaction is cursory. They're just slow because I have to wait for business hours at the sending bank, then wait for the bank to call me (if it's my personal bank rather than my business bank which just sends them automatically), then wait for the funds to make their way to the recipient through intermediary banks who will skim off an unknowable-up-front amount of money.

We can say that when it will be easy to withdraw the transferred coins (convert them into real, offline currencies such as dollars, euros, and so on). Right now you need to confirm your identity, pass the KYC procedure - no difference in comparison to real banks.

My real bank won't send a wire transfer on a weekend with settlement time measured in seconds, so no, it's not like a bank.

I’m talking about withdrawal only.

But it's not like a bank, I agree - a bank gives some protection to your money, because they have responsibilities.

Worked great in Greece, when people couldn't withdraw more than 60 euro from their bank accounts.

Withdrawal as in obtaining cash? Most payments don't use cash so it seems like a bit of a red herring.

No, just converting crypto coins into real currencies. I wrote it in the first comment.

Alright. This happens by default if I take no actions when I deposit USDC at FTX - the USDC is redeemed for dollars and added to my dollar balance. I can head over to the FTX OTC desk to trade my dollars for other fiat currencies at competitive rates provided by their HK banking partner. So the process of withdrawing to fiat takes a few seconds.

It's funny how you are trying to ignore my words about identity confirmation and KYC. For me, while this is required, the whole point of “crypto” is nullified. And this process is not fast. And I hate to share such information.

Sorry about that. I guess I mean to say, it improves over banks in X dimension, while being no better than banks in Y dimension that you really care about. I've sort of become desensitized to this sort of thing after sending a hundred or so people my passport and TIN this year alone.

There are bitcoin ATM s where you can withdraw real money without any of these things.

Given the very limited scale of cryto currency, and limited usability in the real world isn’t it pretty much a failed revolution?

Bitcoin is still the biggest crypto currency, and compared to Euro, dollars and other currencies, it’s practically useless. The network can’t compete on scale, compared to VISA, MasterCard or AMEX. The crypto currencies try to solve problems much of the western simply don’t have.

The tech will live on an small pocket, such as money transfer between banks and large organisations, but it won’t be useful to the public at large.

Technology takes time to mature and see widespread adoption. Whether you believe this will ever happen with cryptocurrency or not, you can't ignore that it's grown (by users, development, and many other metrics) faster than most other technological revolutions.

The internet took roughly 20-30 years to reach mass adoption. Cryptocurrency is about 10 years in, and while there are many active users, there user experience is still behind that of most payment options, and smart contracts which enable a host of other decentralized financial primitives are really only a few years old.

I disagree. Of course you can't just give (or receive) crypto to anybody. However, moving crypto between two crypto-aware parties is simple and fast. Definitely easier than using the "system" (especially if your are not part of it; consider how difficult is to open a bank account).

So I will be more specific and say that it is a revolution for the people that use crypto. I don't know if it will be a revolution for the general population but my belief is that it won't be. The "system" will find ways to crush crypto then it starts to become more popular. Right now it doesn't care that much ...

> The network can’t compete on scale, compared to VISA, MasterCard or AMEX.

Yes it can. Bitcoin Lightning solves this. They're using it in El Salvador right now.

And really banks or large organisations don't need crypto for money transfers. They are already doing it in vey well established systems, with well defined contracts and so on. Blockchain adds nothing, when piece of paper or electronic record saying "hey we owe you this much" or "this loan is debt obligation is now yours"...

That's a bit like saying that paragliders allow you to fly from one country to another, without the 'system' of aviation, airports, passports, customs, etc. Apart from the fun of it, or for smuggling drugs, it's not that practical for everyday use - just use 'the system'.

Bitcoin was the only way for WikiLeaks to accept donations back when they were cut off from all payment processors.

The issue of payment processors cutting off perfectly legal and valid organizations, individuals, or whole classes of activity is a separate issue.

Since they provide what should be considered essential infrastructure, they should be required to provide service to anything legal, IMHO.

Why is it that the rest of the time we should solve problems and this time we should wait for the state to solve them?

it isn't 'just this time'. It's the same principle as law, vs lynch mob.

sure. so uber shouldn't exist and we should all be paying more to local taxi monopolies who don't have mobile apps, and so on.

uber is perfectly legal the last time I checked?

And let's see how that story pans out actually. I don't agree with the taxi mafia, but uber are not exactly knights in shining armor either, and are only really viable because of a Venture Capital subsidized attempt to create a monopoly.

Is your argument that bitcoin circumvents established institutions, particularly the unjust ones? I see the appeal, but those should be attacked directly; legally, and politically, IMHO. Not with tech hacks, the ultimate consequences of which are quite unpredictable, but also quite likely to just shift the concentration of power to a different set of people.

uber was not perfectly legal in all jurisdictions at all times. I would guess they were operating illegally in almost every jurisdiction when they began operating there. They in fact had teams dedicated to illegal activities in specific regions. There's an article about that here by Mike Isaac who also wrote a pretty good book about Uber: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...

It seems like if we ought to be waiting for the state to fix payment processors, we should also be waiting for them to fix taxis, instead of operating illegal "ride share" apps.

My argument isn't about Bitcoin because Bitcoin isn't a technology that provides cheap settlement of dollars. Other technologies do though, and they additionally avoid the need to pay e.g. 3.6% (!!) to Stripe, which seems like it makes them worthwhile on its own.

You shouldn't just be waiting for govt to fix anything. Govt acts through the mandate of the people, so if you want it to do something you should be lobying and voting for it.

Private enterprise quite legitimately alters the playing field by introducing new products, services and business models. LEGALLY. When it does so illegally, it should be stopped.

That is exactly my argument, bad institutions should be disrupted by legal competition, or (better), legal or political pressure. Not by illegal circumventions.

I don't think you have to do anything illegal to send or accept payments in crypto.

It doesn't seem very fast or simple or possibly even cheap if I consider only fiat as money.

That is I have money in one country and I want person to receive it in their own currency in other one.