I don't get all of the negativity HN has towards Bitcoin. This simple ability is so amazing and scifi to me.
Until you want to get local currency, at which point you have to get involved with a processor. And taxes. And everything else associated with currency movement.
That's really a problem I'm facing about once or twice a week, and BTC has solved that for me, you're right.
> I don't get all of the negativity HN has towards Bitcoin. This simple ability is so amazing and scifi to me.
Well, maybe there's the HUGE impact of BTC on global energy usage, mostly generated from fossil fuels (of one kind or another) and that there's actually little benefit for anyone not doing shady business or scamming people.
The miners also did themselves a disservice by trying to keep their energy sources secret for several years, I know some of them in North America intentionally helped spread the energy misinformation just to slow others down from getting capital to build out their own sites.
But honestly all of this doesn't really matter as the oil and gas producers with the sites are the slowest ones to adopt. The ones already polluting for a century who are desperate for a solution are just slow to collaborate with the solution providers, the miners. They aren't stuck on carbon emissions as they have already made that their identity, they get that mining onsite reduces their carbon emissions even though other people ironically arent willing to understand that, the people running sites are just technophobes and computing luddites who dont get crypto, with a slight general concern about safety with adding more stuff to a dangerous site.
If all that mining capacity is sitting in Kazakhstan they will most probably not import energy from renewables in Norway or sth. like that. Their energy mix is/was 99% fossils in 2019 [0], they can't change it that quick.
Any country that subsidized electricity distorts the whole market there.
The best approach to this consternation about mining energy use is vigilance in ensuring miners use captured and renewable energy.
If there are subsidies or if governments get directly involved in trying to control the network that’s when it distorts the market forces. It’s sad that this discussion is currently limited to simply not being willing to accept that captured energy has always existed and is being utilized by miners as a significant energy source on the network. Energy that would only have been used to pollute the atmosphere but now is not.
Not to mention, $2 wouldn't be nearly enough to cover credit card fees. Not sure how a 1-3% fee could possibly be efficient.
The only way I know of to send >$1m+ is wire transfers and they don’t work on weekends or to send to many countries, and they can take a day or more to clear.
Also, you the recipient needs to have a bank account and it needs to be in a jurisdiction that’s friendly with the US.
I found it to be very similar to ACH within the US
Investigating further, turns out many Europeans dont use SEPA between borders. They just send to their friends within the same country using the same major banks, which increases the probability that “Instant SEPA” is used under the hood, which is a good user experience
Ive found crypto to have greater guarantees of unimpeded arrival in that monetary union as well.
or $200m, who knows
1 BTC = 1 BTC still true though
These are 24/7 markets, so even extreme market volatility happens over 3 trading sessions compared to something like equities, making any single 1-20 minute time period not volatile at all
Many people also already own bitcoin, which is a major contributing reason as to why the price is what it is, they dont have to go buy bitcoin when they get ready to send it. They dont have to wait for exchanges to accept their dollars, they dont have to wait for exchanges to process a withdrawal, and they can also move unlimited amounts.
Even as a facetious joke, there are better ones
2) there is enough liquidity to convert $100mm in bitcoin to $100mm in dollars. I would expect intermediaries to take about 50 basis points or less in a combination of fees and slippage. percentage based compensation adds up, but its not different enough. But yes, there are intermediaries if that truly was your only point.
its pretty clear there is a market and user story for a segment of the population that doesn't value reversibility
Personally I could see bitcoin maybe getting there in a loooong time. But whilst the actual value of bitcoin is fluctuating this hard, the argument doesn't hold up. I also kinda like the argument: "Because taxes need to be payed, and are payed in fiat money, there will always be some basic demand and price for fiat money".