Hacker News Reader

Comment by TillE | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin specifically is notoriously awful for this purpose, and has been for many years, because of slow transactions with high fees.

But even setting those aside, what's the actual point? Why does a normal person care about making online payments without involving a bank?

View on HN

Re. "notoriously awful," I also think people underestimate how useful it is to go through a financial institution for any legal transactions thanks to the protection that those institutions (generally) offer.

If you accidentally run your credit card through a skimmer at the gas station, and the skimmer's owner tries to rack up a bunch of expenses with that card, you can dispute the charges. If your BTC wallet accidentally gets compromised... that's it. No recourse.

For one, there is no electronic alternative for 69% of the global population. That's how many people are unbanked and/or do not have access to a financial institution.

That's because it's either illegal or legally too expensive to give them banking services. You're not describing a tech problem. Banking tech exists. You don't get to decide what random countries want to do with their monetary policy or financial service regulations.

Unbanked people who use Bitcoin do not care whether it's a tech or policy problem. They just care that it solves their problem. Here's your lawful utility.

The law doesn't care whether it solves their problem. It doesn't make it lawful to circumvent banking regulations. Governments have bills to pay and it's illegal to disobey.

Using Bitcoin is not equivalent to circumventing banking regulations. Banking regulations concern money transmitters and banks. Since Bitcoin involves neither, those regulations do not apply, at least not for regular payments between individuals or businesses. It is therefore perfectly lawful for unbanked people to use Bitcoin, at least in most countries.

Yeah it's also not circumventing banking regulations to mail a beanie baby. What's your point?

I agree with that. Neither mailing beanie babies nor sending Bitcoin is "circumventing banking regulations". That was pretty much my point. What's yours?

That bitcoin and mailing beanie babies have no meaningful and lawful utility. By utility I mean benefit. It will be a dead giveaway that you're biased and intellectually dishonest if you ask for the definition of utility.

How do we establish the parameters for defining 'utility' in this context? I posit that if an individual finds value in Bitcoin (or Beanie babies) for legal purposes, it serves as an indication of its 'meaningful and lawful utility.' I, for one, belong to this category of users. It leads me to suspect that your interpretation of 'utility' might be deviating from the conventional understanding. Could you please elaborate? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that what you really mean is that you don't personally have a use for Bitcoin in your own life?

Look into Bitcoin's Lightning Network. It's much faster much less expensive than traditional Bitcoin transactions.

Is this still a talking point? This was a buzz word like half a decade ago

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com