Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfodor | Hacker News Reader

Call me crazy but if I am ever in a position to transfer $150M I'd probably also want a third party involved to make sure the transaction goes smoothly, like a bank. Like we do today. With wire transfers.

View on HN

True, but what's significant here is that bitcoin gives you a zillion third party verifiers (the entire network), and does it for free.

If you meant in terms of escrowing to make sure one party doesn't back out, then I agree that comparison wouldn't apply.

You can do an exchange as an escrow with a third party using a transaction only. No services required ;)

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_d...

Choice is good. People shouldn't be forced to use banks or bitcoin.

Who's forcing anyone to use a bank even without Bitcoin?

Two words: inflation.

You're not actually under the impression that Bitcoin value will maintain value over time, are you? If you use banks because of the "cost" of holding cash then you will very well have to engage in the same type of speculation as the "cost" of holding Bitcoin. At least the bank can effectively guarantee your investment will be worth more in numerical terms over time, raw Bitcoin can guarantee no such thing.

That's one, and banks hardly help with inflation at today's 0.01% interest rates.

True, but other than the recent years it was necessary and effective to put your money in a bank to counteract inflation.

Sorry about the fencepost error. (Perhaps I was originally intending to say "inflationary finance"?)

You mean you didn't actually intend to make that clever and subtle joke? :-(

that's one word

This site is becoming more and more painful to visit...

Give it some time.

I see what you did there.

The second word is invisible to fools.

Well, you can still have a 3rd party provide oversight for a bitcoin transfer and insurance against failure. Because bitcoin is simple and reliable, these 3rd party fees would be very cheap.

Those third party fees having nothing to do with bitcoin's simplicity or reliability, but with the amount of the insured transfer, the perceived risk of the failure, and the expected costs and complexity of recovering any losses from either party involved.

Whether it is in bitcoin, CHF, EUR, USD, gold, platinum, Amazon Coins, Zorkmids, yams or sheep skins, insuring a transaction will depend on those factors.

I may be ignorant here, but isn't the BTC system entirely based on 3rd party oversight?

It's not instantaneous, therefore you have to have faith in the system (as opposed to faith in your bank). Sender sends $150 million and receiver needs to wait 30 minutes for enough verifiers to trust the transfer went through.

In the meantime, the $150 million is in limbo.

30-minute mexican standoff

Reply on news.ycombinator.com