(no title)
uh-quan | 5 years ago
In such cases, there is no reason such users can't "enter" bitcoin through a second layer such as the Lightning Network.
Why would they do that if it isn't real bitcoin?, you might ask. Well, for one, their local, tin-pot-dictator created currencies are often worthless, meaning that even second-layer bitcoin is a far more sound and reliable currency.
And who is to say $40 for an on-chain transaction is an "egregious fee"? It turns out having access to the world's most secure, decentralized, unstoppable, set-in-stone, uncensorable, trustless, non-inflationary monetary network is a valuable thing. Maybe so much so that $40 per on-chain transaction is a bargain in the bigger picture.
arcticbull|5 years ago
Yes there is they need a channel, which costs $20 to open and $20 to close.
> And who is to say $40 for an on-chain transaction is an "egregious fee"? It turns out having access to the world's most secure, decentralized, unstoppable, set-in-stone, uncensorable, trustless, non-inflationary monetary network is a valuable thing. Maybe so much so that $40 per on-chain transaction is a bargain in the bigger picture.
Ah you're a comedian too!
uh-quan|5 years ago
No, they don't need to open a channel via the blockchain. They can have an account with a third party, for example.
arcticbull|5 years ago
I was referring to the idea that a $40 channel fee might be palatable or even negligible for folks such as those in Malawi whose GDP per capita is $400 per year.
quartus|5 years ago