> - I do not trust the counterparty that I am dealing with on the internet. Using cryptocurrency means that my maximum loss is the vavlu of the transaction (I don't have to give credit card or banking info)

This is worse than if you use a credit (or debit in some places) card. With a credit card you have a legal protection and the card issuer has to refund you if the product or service isn’t delivered, it’s called a chargeback. Crypto has no consumer protections, traditional payments do.

Crypto is irreversible (in most cases) by design, that will always be worse for the consumer and “better” for the vendor. Essentially making it easier to defraud people trying to make purchases.

The only time this works is if the vendor is unable to take credit card payments because they are selling something illegally, but that’s not the example you used.

The worst case with credit cards is not lost money. It's identity theft. Give your credit card info to the wrong person and you'll end up dealing with tens of thousands of pounds of loans taken out in your name.

Identity theft from stolen card details is highly unlikely. Possession of credit card detail are never used as a proof of identity. They have your name and address from shipping information even with Crypto.

So to summarize, it is useful for variously exfiltrating money out of a country, laundering, and for people who are savvy enough to use crypto but not sensible enough to have a bank account.

The point about currency collapse is interesting to me, because (like almost all crypto apologist points) it assumes you already have a bunch of it/made a bunch of money on it before the bad thing happens. Everyone else gets to suck eggs, as the saying goes.

Of course if everyone in the hypothetical country had crypto, it would cause the crypto to collapse as well…

> So to summarize, it is useful for variously exfiltrating money out of a country, laundering

Summarizing & paraphrasing :-) Greece instated capital controls virtually over night, likely illegally as there is freedom of capital movement in the EU [1]. The money on a bank account resides in a particular country, so its legislation applies. Which country's legislation applies to funds in a globally distributed blockchain, whose copies reside all over the globe?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33303540

edited for spelling

Currencies rarely collapse instantly. You've usually got months to years of warning. Lots of time for people to get their cash out.

If you were Lebanese I would argue that having a bank account was a silly thing to do. Foreign bank accounts were illegal/difficult and domestic bank accounts are now worthless. You could own crypto or some kind of real good, such as a warehouse full of a commodity like wheat or diesel. Those are your options for hanging on to your wealth.

The vast majority of the planet have no access to the banking infrastructure the west and developed nations have.

Bitcoin fixes that and removes the middlemen.

PayPal for b2b transactions, Transferwise and similar services for cheaper remittance transfers. Crypto takes electronic payments and adds an ungodly layer of complexity to them.

I feel like paypal is, quite in the contrary, the best example of why you do might want crypto.

Background: my mother had her account and assets frozen for a crazy long time after changing her name. Turns out accounts are bound to your name only, and support is unhelpful at best, so when her business started turning profit and she wanted to change her private acc to business they locked up her funds and refused to process the needed papers, citing she is not the account holder (despite sending ample proof). it's been a nightmare getting someone on the phone who was willing to clear it up.

Individual experience, but paypal to me has ever since been a prime example of why you might not want to use a large private corp for money transfers

> so when her business started turning profit and she wanted to change her private acc to business they locked up her funds

How would crypto have solved this ?

Can she do business accepting only bitcoin ?

How does crypto accounting work ?

Good questions.

A crypto payment processor allows setting up a payment gateway like Paypal, but accepting USDC instead. When accepting payment, the amount is deposited into the business owner's own wallet. The business owner can choose to accept payment in USDC. USDC is a ERC20 token, each backed by 1 USD or Treasury equivalent, operated by Circle, registered with FinCEN and dozens of other regulators, with monthly reports published by Grant Thornton. USDC token is available for use on the Polygon network, where a transfer costs between a tenth to one cent.

The main advantage over Paypal using the above process involving USDC on Polygon is, she can run her business via a wallet she controls without worrying about a clumsy corporate locking up her funds, and lower transaction fees.

The main disadvantage is - her customers must use USDC on the Polygon network - and adoption of crypto for ecommerce payments, let alone on a specific network like Polygon, is still early.

It sounds like to are still forced to trust a third party exchange, and you now cannot accept payment from customers unless they pay in a cryptocurrency (USDC). Is that right? How is this better than a third party intermediary who takes dollars and sends you dollars?

In the current market a third party intermediary who takes dollars and sends dollars, e.g. credit cards, the costs of accepting a payment range from 10 cents to 3% of the transaction value. This can be higher than the use of USDC on the polygon network. There may be a delay measured in days or hours between accepting a payment, and the payment reaching your bank account. This compares to a USDC transfer taking seconds. The bank holding the funds may arbitrarily block your merchant account for reasons such as: operating in an industry the bank dislikes, transacting with international customers during a conflict.

By holding the funds in the business' own wallet, if the payment provider suspends services, the funds are not seized by default - and not having liquidity immediately seized during the crucial moments where the business is suspended have important advantages for many businesses.

That sounds like it can be cheaper and faster in terms of actual money in your hands - but that benefit has nothing to do with cryptocurrency itself, any remake of the financial system could have those properties.

The payment provider and the bank are separate. It seems to me that you could substitute the word “bank account” for “wallet” in your second paragraph and it would still be true. Bank accounts have very well proven reliability at this point, plus the fact that currency in a bank account does not fluctuate in value like a stock. So again, it’s hard to see how that virtue is unique to cryptocurrency.

> any remake of the financial system could have those properties.

Yes, and cryptocurrency is one take on it, while adoption is still early, it has traction, more so than previous attempts.

Central banks are also working in this area with CBDC's, they can see the benefits of bypassing corporate financial intermediaries too.

We can use bank accounts to gain similar benefits, if it's remade or improved, though the retail banking industry is very resource intensive compared to running the Polygon network.

What other remake are you aware of, people can work with today?

My point is just that the “crypto” part of cryptocurrency seems disconnected from the advantages you names.

There are probably other ways to achieve the same, but the Polygon network is a very efficient means to do so. It's an implementation detail that gives a small edge to remaking and improving the financial system.

However, it could be, at the end of it, by spurring competition, we have Central Bank CBDC's bypassing the retail bank to build a relationship with all currency users instead of cryptocurrency specifically replacing the financial system. That's another way to go about it.

Cryptocurrency have demonstrated the fundamentals of technology are mature enough, the retail bank, financial institutions, and the billions of dollars they earn being an inefficient middle man recording shared facts, it's ripe for disruption from two ends - Towards complete centralisation at the central bank (blockchain or not), or towards decentralisation via cryptocurrency.

Unhelpful support is an understatement, PayPal is a criminal organisation for what it concerns me. I don't care what stupid law they're following, they effectively steal money.

If you are no in the first-world country then you can forget about PayPal, Transferwise etc. Crypto at least gives an option, otherwise you often don't have any.

>- The currency of my country is collapsing, I need to buy something which has a value unconnected to my country.

>- My country imposes export controls on foreign currency. I want to move my money out of my country.

Never understood who is the counter-party in these scenarios. Someone must sell you the crypto for seemingly worthless local currency. (Unless you somehow smuggle mining equipment in and buy local electricity)

Who would make that trade? Specially if currency was collapsing or not usable.

You can always find someone to sell USD for crypto in cash. And you will be able to do it only because crypto allows you to actually own your assets.

Question really isn't about USD or Euro. You are already quite happy if you have either.

But let's say you are in Africa and have a lot of local hyper-inflating currency. Who will give you crypto for that? Or at least more than they need for immediate needs.

Anyone who needs to buy goods and services, or settle debt, in the local currency.

You already need crypto though.

You do.

I meant mostly that if you store your assets in crypto - it can help a lot in situations like this, presenting a great use case.

You don’t need to buy it, you can just accept it as a fee for your work.

So now the unbanked need an entire shadow economy to exist in their country to take part!? Plus all the accoutrements to access crypto.

> I've lost my phone and wallet, I can still get cash from a bitoin ATM using the crypto I'm storing in my brain.

To be a bit mean but how do you find the Bitcoin ATM?

How did anyone find anything before smartphones?

Well there are enough normal ATMs in most of the world that just wandering to the nearest bank is quite simple. There are quite a lot of countries without a single Bitcoin ATM let alone them being widely locatable where you happen to be.

20% cost on remittance is an absolute outlier, the average global cost is around 7%

https://www.saveonsend.com/money-transfer-services/

> I've lost my phone and wallet, I can still get cash from a bitoin ATM using the crypto I'm storing in my brain.

When I enter my debit card and PIN into an ATM belonging to a legally regulated bank, I can be reasonably certain that it won't directly steal all my money. Using a BTC ATM, however, sounds like a convenient way to have all your funds stolen without having to wait for the next big crypto hack/fraud.

The credit card one is a good one, credit cards are the worst possible approach I can imagine to transact money with.

Forex exchange is pretty cheap these days with things like Wise.

You can technically charge your debit / credit card just by knowing the number.

All the others are political problems and they can't beat a state actor. Eg. You won't stop the government from seizing your assets: they'll put you in jail until you give them up. We should think about a political solution, not a technical one (I'm all for abolishing the government).

I'm surprised they didn't crack down on crypto earlier, I suspect they're using it as a sort of inflationary device. Having extra unbacked crypto in the world means you have more money in the world, making the rest of the money a little bit less valuable - but I don't think crypto was considered seriously enough to affect fiat, at the beginning. Now, when you want to push your currency or local assets up you can just ban/harm crypto (which is what Russia proposed with the RUB going down a month ago).

The credit card one makes sense if you are dealing with a completely untrusted third party with no intermediary, although in practice it probably just means you are using a crypto-based intermediary instead of a conventional one (PayPal, Venmo, etc.).

I’m not sure what you would be doing where that would make sense that’s not an illegal/illicit transaction.

- I want nobody to be able to get my money unless I choose so or somebody tortures me, therefore I want to be able do die with my money by not releasing the private keys.

My Government coordinates with technology companies to hinder if not eliminate my ability to purchase basic items or use fundamental services for me to carry out my daily life.

A Government forces a private company to restrict 9 million CAD donated to a cause.

You forgot the most important use case: you want to build fintech services and applications, but you don't want to deal with almost a century worth of compliance and a tech stack built on rotten foundations and middleman rentseeking.

Avoiding regulation is a good one, but they'll come for crypto as well.

It's already hard to find unregulated exchanges

Wouldn't you type your wallet seed phrase onto a random BTC ATM on the street ?

Imagine no way of verifying that this ATM actually doesn't send your words to the owner and transfers BTC out of your wallet.

You can remember words, easily.

Reliable? Over a long time?

For something critical like all your money?

Good luck

Im quite good in remember