Bitcoin disrupts central bank, not payment networks. Lightning [1] as layer 2 on top of Bitcoin adheres to trustless and p2p ideals, and is actually the competition for Visa.
[1]: https://lightning.network/
Edit: added link
[1]: https://lightning.network/
Edit: added link
I guess that's a little unfair as I suppose Bitcoin can help disrupt the central banks of places like Venezuela, giving the elite an easier means of fleeing a collapsing country without losing their wealth. Sort of defeats the purpose of economic collapse if it no longer even serves as a great leveler, but oh well, I guess. As long as the rich can never lose.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-11/zelle-has...
"I lived in Venezuela. Almost no one uses crypto or cares about crypto. The fees to send bitcoin alone represent a sizeable chunk of money to most Venezuelans."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/jsw96e/zelle_has...
10k transactions per second ETH2 layer 1 + zk roll-ups providing throughout multiplication threatens VISA.
Do you care to elaborate?
Roughly, e.g.: 1:Fiber, 2:Ethernet, 3:Routing, 4:TCP/IP, and 7:HTTP.
The usual criticism of the OSI model is that there are grey areas and dependencies, where a lower layers bleed into higher layers (e.g. L2 switching which can work a lot like routing in modern hardware), and higher layers that are tightly bound to lower layers, making the distinctions unclear.
The purist in me wants to agree, but I think the model is too useful to disregard casually.
The value comes from the abstraction, and like Newtonian physics, it is a great model -- until it isn't.
4 and 7 are ceasing to be real - HTTP2 is both a session protocol and an application protocol, and that's before we even get into things like DoH.
The model is still solid, even if the most common implementation has melted a bit.
I do think it is useful as an architectural device or a conceptual design goal -- i.e. a model to model your models on. :)
But I also concede that part of its teaching value is that it is a failure in practice.
It was a formalization of the ad hoc (successful!) design strategies of early networking. I see echoes of it everywhere, most obviously in the Linux kernel, and I think it's valuable for that.
The problem with Bitcoin is that it's not technically sophisticated enough to support proper L2s which results in poorly engineered solutions like Lightning and centralized solutions like Liquid.
With Bitcoin more work needs to be done on L1 for the ecosystem to support layers above it while Ethereum could freeze development forever and still support flexible, fast, and decentralized layers on top.
What central bank has been disrupted by Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is not a disruption. But blockchain is a useful tech.
Bitcoin is just an implementation of blockchain.
(just saying that you can't really trust their numbers, growing "big" or growing "normal". Who knows :) )
no it doesn't