Comment by koonsolo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by koonsolo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Of course there are awesome use-cases, but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat.

Take Nano for example: sub-second, 0-fee transactions, of any amount, to any (unbanked) person in the world. Of course, there is no way that any other (fiat) system can achieve this (due to operation costs, regulation, etc)

But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money". And at that point, it's not free and instant anymore.

But just because the new system loses its benefits because of backwards compatibility with the old system, doesn't mean that it is inferior. Maybe for some things, you don't need to pass through the old system anymore. One example is mining pool payouts, which can do payments through Nano to get the 0 fee transactions. (see https://2miners.com/blog/how-to-get-payouts-for-ethereum-min...).

You can argue that this mining is all a scam etc, but in the end real value is transferred using the most optimal network. More optimal than any central system that you can think of (remember 0-fee, instant trancations).

> ... but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat.

>But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money".

Here's a thought experiment for you. Your mother/father/neighbour's entire wealth is converted, at no cost to them, into BTC/ETH/whatever. What is their reaction?

Is it, 'thank god we didn't have to pay those conversion fees!'

I think not.

Here's a thought experiment for you. How do you transfer money from US to: Venezuela, Mali, Lybia, Angolia, Tajikistan, Uruguay?

I can give you a really simple answer when using crypto: you just transfer it.

Can't wait to hear your answer for each of those countries, and the fees and delays associated with it.

edit: some people go work in a western country and send money home to their family.

The fact that crypto exists without borders is great.

But your idea that the only thing stopping sceptics from embracing it is fees is wrong. Also, your tone makes me think you've got a dog in this fight.

They asked for a use-case, I presented one. And to be honest, I don't give a shit what the sceptics think about it. I just wanted to prove once more that even when you present a valid use-case, "the sceptics" twist and turn to still only see the negative side of it.

Keep being blind, I have absolutely no problem with that. It's nice entertainment here on HN, with all those folks frustrated of missing out on the biggest investment opportunity of their lifetime.

"I didn't miss out, it's just all a scam and I want no part of that"

This constantly-in-hysterics tone is why people find it tiresome to try to understand crypto advocates. Cool - you like your new technology. That’s great. I’ve been in the same boat with countless things and I know what it’s like.

But if you respond to perfectly reasonable and polite questions about its use cases by screaming “you’re just asking these mean questions because you’re jealous!”, then it doesn’t exactly help the impression that the cryptocurrency market are predominantly driven by speculators hoping they’ll get rich like a handful of early fans did.

This saddens me, because I’ve long been a fan of digital cash and its promise. I hope Bitcoin or suchlike can fix its serious flaws and become a viable means of exchange. I’ll cheer any cryptocurrency which seems to be seriously trying to do that. But, respectfully, people like you are what I hate about the modern crypto scene: tribalistic, loudmouthed, unthinking, and obsessed with the pipe dream of getting rich off the next round of buyers, rather than improving our world.

Did you see that I presented a valid use case, and nobody responded to that part?

Everybody here only tries to pick apart the details. It's been like that always here on HN.

And again in your comment, no mention of the use-case, only that you don't like my tone.

Talk about tribalism.

> Did you see that I presented a valid use case, and nobody responded to that part?

Did you miss that people just pointed out that it wasn't much of a use case?

So a use case the average citizen doesn’t give a flying fuck about.

Oh gosh, I wish I could transfer money to <country I never had any desire to send money to>~ let’s sacrifice consumer protections, privacy and stability for that said nobody ever.

It’s just like ‘financial inclusion’ from the ilks of Peter Thiel is code for shoveling vulnerable and financially illiterate people into the gears of the pyramid machine

With the exception of Libya, Western Union supports transfers to all of those countries. Fees look like $3-7 to transfer $400.

Using crypto is unlikely to be much cheaper or faster for me - my salary is paid in USD, so if I want to transfer cryptocurrency I will need to convert it from USD first, which is neither free nor instant. The same problem likely applies to whoever I'd be sending money to in the foreign country - if they need money to buy food or pay rent, its extremely unlikely they will be able to pay in cryptocurrency.

Thank you. This hits at the essence of why “I can send money instantly!” is such an absurd argument.

It’s not money. You can’t use it as money. You have to convert it to money, at a loss.

If that counts as ‘sending money’, then hell, I can send someone an email saying “I promise to pay $100 to the bearer of this note”, and just hope that they’ll be able to exchange that for money at a reasonable loss.

They are different. And sending a FAX is not sending postal mail. And sending email is not sending a FAX.

Sending money as quickly as sending email is not the same as putting paper checks in envelopes in the postal system. Like free speech, bitcoin can't be censored if you hold your own keys. For some people, PayPal censorship and freezing accounts still works okay for them.

Fax. Or fax, when it's not at the beginning of the sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com