I opened up my banking app, photographed both sides, input a few key values and, the money was added to my (uncleared) balance instantly.
You don't need bitcoin, you just need better tech in general.
Did I got right?
[0] https://www.joc.com/brazil-brings-end-its-failed-economic-pl... - "But Ms. Cardoso had no regrets. If necessary, she told O Globo newspaper, she would confiscate the money all over again."
/s
All the things you listed are the impetus to the Bitcoin network foundation.
Cheers!
Read the whitepaper my guy, it goes over all of this as the impetus for it's creation.
If you don't like that, then check out what Henry Duncan did in 1810.
People like you shit all over his value proposition and were 100% wrong
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the banking system the way it is. I can send modest sums of money to others via an Interac e-Transfer via an email or SMS in a matter of seconds. I can transfer funds using EFT/ACH within 24 hours with no fees thanks to the credit union I use. Bitcoin isn't really an improvement on this situation for me.
You need to understand and accept that there are a non-trivial number of people in society which feel similarly and hold the same belief. Adopting something new just because it's tech is never going to win everyone over, especially when worries about personal wealth are involved. This isn't a simple technical problem that can be easily fixed with a bit more code.
I don't believe it's shitting over the value proposition: to me, adherence to rule of law is a requirement for the financial systems that I use. If someone compromises my credit card or bank account, the bank can reverse the fraudulent transactions. If someone compromises my Bitcoin wallet and transfers the contents out, the funds are gone and I have nobody to turn to for help, and the odds of recovery are negligible. This is a feature of the banking system. To me this is a bug in Bitcoin (not a feature). I'm not "shitting" over the value proposition -- I'm telling you that it doesn't meet my requirements.
Go do the proper homework and come back.
This financial network and it's rule of laws did not start that way, learn from history or don't I frankly don't care what you feel/think, you are literally 1 person that does not represent anyone but yourself.
You're entire argument is a strawman, I gave you the hint to understand why but you are too lazy to learn.
GLHF!
I've explained what my major concerns are. You have not provided any explanation for how these concerns can / will be addressed. Your claim that Henry Duncan explains things seems to be a very indirect way of stating that laws need to be changed. Great -- let's say the law is changed. How do you retroactively implement governance mechanisms in Bitcoin whereby a transaction can be reversed upon an order by the court? Right now you can't! This is a real concern for myself and others. Hand waving it away is not addressing the problem. Why would I even remotely consider giving money to people that insist upon hand waving concerns about governance issues away?
Please respond with facts and ideas, not vitriol. I really do want to understand how people involved crypto currencies are going to implement the governance that is needed in the real world, as the current approaches appear to be completly ad-hoc and unpredictable to an outsider.
If you can't see the parallels then meh, it's pretty much the same process any new financial network goes through.
You're entire argument is one big strawman, people will figure out over time how to regulate it, ie custodian solutions are just the beginning, you know all of these funds can be held in escrow.
Your lack of vision is a you problem, not the network's.
Innovate or get left behind, I gave you a clear example from history which refutes your core concept and you just...hand wave it away.
You think the average person from the article would hold their own keys? No the reality is if crypto was adopted en-mass, people would use services to manage their keys and you literally solve zero problems.
Yeah, the american banking system is stuck in the stone age for some reason. You don't need crypto to solve that.
Ask Europeans how often they use checks.
Would it? Would you have actual cash at that point? Physical banknotes in your hand you can then spend in an ordinary shop? Are you genuinely comparing similar things here?
also, how many checks are cashed in person nowadays? they can be submitted via a photo at most big banks, no?
At the very minimum crypto showed that you can run an efficient, highly liquid, double digit billion dollar, fungible or non fungible exchange market in a fully automated and distributed manner.
A huge fiat equity market such as NYSE averages $3B/d, crypto DEXes alone is around $2B/d.
Crypto also completely removes the need for middle and back offices, clearing houses, etc. on these platforms.
Just technology wise (if we were to drop the self-sovereignty of crypto tokens and just use central bank backed crypto euro/dollar/etc to replace the current financial system) a monstrous amount of manpower and energy could be saved by removing the banks, exchanges, brokers, clearing houses, compensation chambers, back office, etc. industries.
In practice, crypto markets are not any more decentralized than others. In real life people use hosted wallets on exchange platform. Transactions happen on a distributed (not decentralized!) ledger. The underlying network is only somewhat decentralized (the mining economy tends to the concentration of big players).
Also the way you seem to imagine we could be "removing the banks, exchanges, brokers, clearing houses, compensation chambers, back office, etc." just shows how much you don't know about how an economy works. Real-world transactions need to be reversible, need escrow, guarantees and a lot of other mechanisms that are by design not available using blockchains based assets (if they are there, it means the assumptions which would have made a blockchain useful have been broken, and that we can achieve the same features and services without a blockchain in a more efficient manner).
> In practice, crypto markets are not any more decentralized than others.
I specifically mentioned DEX, you are talking about CEX.
> Also the way you seem to imagine we could be "removing the banks, exchanges, brokers, clearing houses, compensation chambers, back office, etc." just shows how much you don't know about how an economy works.
So you are at lost of arguments and start questioning the argumenter pedigree instead? if you want to go that route: I have 15 years of experience in financial markets, am partner and founder in 2 (running) investments funds, trading equities, FX forwards, equity futures and interest rate swaps for ~1.5B AUM. I am currently a registered MIC on 5 accounts with the SFC (some of these including operational risk). I have setup multiple front office systems, work daily with middle office systems, and have a fairly good understanding of back office. I have worked extensively with clearing houses, most recently for the implementation of central clearing on interest rate products.
So please, explain me how you somehow have such a deep knowledge of these subjects that you can obviously see from my comment that I "don't know much about how finance works"?!
> Real-world transactions need to be reversible, need escrow, guarantees and a lot of other mechanisms that are by design not available using blockchains based assets
I will play your game: you have definitely 0 idea what exists in the crypto space. Everyting your mentions and much, much more already exists. The sophistication available on crypto contracts and protocols nowadays is at the very least on par with traditional finance entities and contrats, if beyond.
The parent mentions DEX volume, which tracks on-chain wallet usage, not what is being traded in a CEX.
> Real-world transactions need to be reversible, need escrow, guarantees and a lot of other mechanisms that are by design not available using blockchains based assets
Many blockchain transactions have reversibility, employ escrow, and have very strong cryptographic guarantees.
The only point of your post that is not easily refuted is: blockchain is not decentralized enough. But compared to what? Is Ethereum, open source software with many thousands of nodes and developers spread across the world, more or less centralized than the US dollar?
https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/235171088-Cancel-Pa...
Regardless, I suppose that I agree with your point here. But I think that cryptocurrency could possible be useful for everyday transactions: it must first overcome network effects.
Even if you only factor the value of human life alone, just the time saved by the hundreds of thousands or millions of worldwide fiat employees who's positions largely would not need to exist anymore should surely be factored into these discussions about resource consumption. And that's before factoring things like wages. Or the ultra-weathy executives. Let alone physical infrastructures, skyscrapers, data centers, private jets, marketing, R&D, legal teams, IT/security, fraud depts, and loads of other internal costs.
I just don't buy that it's much worse than many existing costs we already turn a blind eye to. I believe that the growing use of safe nuclear power and other future alternative energy sources make this a moot position in these arguments anyway.