Hacker News Reader

Comment by hocuspocus | Hacker News Reader

It certainly matters. Wiring 50k to buy a car or 500k to buy a house costs me literally zero, and maybe a few cents on the receiving end. Why would anyone be willing to pay 100x more?

View on HN

You are comparing to someone paying with fiat money. For someone owning bitcoins suddenly paying with bitcoins for a Tesla becomes attractive.

No homo economicus would be willing to pay $500,030 for a house when they could pay $500,000.30. 99.99% of humans would be fine with that.

Go to a car dealership or real-estate agent and tell them they'll now have to pay $30 on every transaction, and see how it goes.

They would never pay it, they would just pass the cost on to the customer.

So the customer goes to another dealer? Knowing this the dealer doesn’t use it in the first place

> Why would anyone be willing to pay 100x more?

Transferring money across geographies is one of the prime use-cases for crypto these days.

No, it is not. I've lived in several countries/continents in the past decade. So did many friends. We used traditional banks and newer players like Transferwise. Using BTC or any other shitcoin would have been less practical, riskier and more expensive, when not downright illegal (some countries control and limit capital outflows).

Riskier only because of the lack of experience of the people involved, and the UX gaps still being filled in - cryptocurrency is a very early-stage success(?) story of what will be a 1,000+ year journey.

You sound like a high priest of Bitcoin lol... “1000+ year journey”

How do you imagine money in 50, 500, 5000 years?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com