Valve doesn't handle any bit coins.
There are not many people specifically acquiring bitcoin just to pay for steam games with it, where it will be converted right back. Maybe some to test. Questioning the value as a result of the "usd -> btc -> usd" transfer isn't really applicable because it just generally doesn't apply anymore.
No, that's your only measure of success. In order for Bitcoin to succeed as a viable payment platform, businesses also need to adopt it wholly, which means actually conducting business in Bitcoin rather than converting it to a "real" currency as soon as possible.
Basically, if they are treating it as hot potato, that means they see it as too unstable and risky.
I don't understand the need to require a business to hold the bitcoin in order to consider bitcoin a "success". In this scenario bitcoin has succeeded as being a cheap method of transferring value.
Eh, I'm not so sure. You are probably right, but at the same time they probably want USD for the same reason they get USD from Paypal or their merchant bank when someone pays in a different currency.
Is Paypal not a viable payment platform?
There are two parts to Bitcoin - some folks think it's a great store of value. I do not. I think it's an amazing decentralized transaction system that can replace VISA/MC - not replace the US Treasury.
Why is that so hard for Americans to understand?
I live in Pakistan, and happily and easily use a visa debit card for buying steam games.
You may even use Visa, still doesn't mean that you are dealing with US dollars. Why do you think is it completely normal to have Visa as being a global country dealing with the cross-country transactions, but not Bitpay?
If you have access to the international banking system, great. It is not a bad thing. Just like it is not a bad thing to have bitcoin as an alternative.
The one thing that I don't get, anytime that Bitcoin comes here, is that people seem to think that it is an either/or proposition. That for Bitcoin to be usable it needs to completely replace the Almighty US Dollar or any other sovereign currency.
Cryptocurrencies and the blockchain are just tools that are being explored and developed as a way to bring trust to transactions and accounting without a central authority. What is bad about that?
We don't need to have Central Banks. "Us non-Americans" don't need to use American Institutions to participate in a global economy.
This idea of "I can pay with Visa, therefore Bitcoin is useless" is short-sighted.
You framed it as "I can pay with Visa..."
I think you may have projected your argument onto his statement with no real correlation.
First, it's not the country that is being used as an argument. So the point is moot.
Second, this is not about "Developed/Underdeveloped Countries". That would be incredibly backwards. It was to show that not everywhere has unrestricted access to international trade, and that cryptocurrencies can help with that.
Just as an example: despite the crisis, Greece is a developed country, yet (because of the crisis) they are also applying very strict capital controls.
So, despite being "able to pay with Visa in his/her country", a Greek could also benefit from something like Bitpay.
The point still stands. The point is that by accepting bitcoin, even if through a broker, Steam (an American company) now can reach a good number of people who are have nothing to do with the American Financial system.
The US may be the center of the world, but it is not the whole world. Bitcoin (or any thing that can be fungible and free of control by one central institution) can be used by anyone outside of this.