(no title)
overthrow | 2 years ago
Lightning fees are less than $0.01 - much better than the alternative of $20 for cashing a check. And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them.
Actually the easiest way the government could kill crypto would be to get rid of the corruption and help those "undesirables" with their problems, instead of making them fend for themselves. I'm not holding my breath, but in a way I hope that happens.
arcticbull|2 years ago
They're not using it, at all. Trading volumes have plummeted, nobody uses it for exchange of value due to the volatility and the fees. You wouldn't say people are 'using Apple' because they're holding Apple stock, and you shouldn't say people are 'using Bitcoin' because they're holding onto it in a portfolio they've probably written off due to massive losses.
> Lightning fees are less than $0.01 - much better than the alternative of $20 for cashing a check. And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them.
(a) Lightning is totally unsustainable because it requires you complete an on-chain transaction to open a channel, which would take about 75 years, trillions of dollars and all the remaining block reward to do for everyone on earth. It would even take months to open a channel for everyone in the Bay Area. Then it suffers from quadratic routing complexity, and offers few if any of the guarantees of the underlying chain.
(b) It's not the replacement for $20 check cashing, that's a loan, a cash advance. That's what you're paying for. You can cash checks for free at any online bank.
> And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them.
It's literally down 60% from a year ago (almost 70% adjusting for inflation). By any objective or subjective measure that's a "big price to pay" for anyone who purchased last year. So no, it's not.
You yourself called these people out as 'living paycheck to paycheck' so by definition your own users would be utterly rekt using what you're advocating for.
Setting aside the 'crypto' third-rail, what if I came up with a way for anyone without AML or KYC to buy and sell shares of GameStop. Would you then immediately tell me that poor people should use shares of GameStop as money? In Africa? I suspect that would be viewed as overwhelmingly predatory.
overthrow|2 years ago
This is obviously false. Just look at the transaction rates on the publicly available ledger.
And: Moneygram has all but publicly admitted that crypto remittances have grown large enough that it's affecting their core business, and they're trying to re-insert themselves as a middleman. https://my.linkedin.com/posts/moneygram-international_moneyg...
If you actually meant trading volumes (which matter zero for adoption btw), those haven't changed much either. Zoom out to 1w: https://bitcoinwisdom.io/markets/gdax/btcusd
> Lightning
The naive routing complexity is quadratic, yes. GPS routing is also quadratic. So is IP routing. But practical implementations use heuristics to decrease that complexity. In practice, you just need a good enough path, not the theoretically optimal path. The internet and lightning are still working fine as we speak.
> It's literally down 60% from a year ago
Bitcoin's current MVRV is 1.457[1], meaning the average holder current has a 45.7% profit. I guess if you cherry pick a high and low price you can imagine some losses, but anyone could cherry-pick numbers in the other direction too.
The 45% profit is nice, but for those living paycheck to paycheck it unfortunately isn't a huge help since many people wouldn't have been holding long enough for the gains to accumulate.
[1]: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/mvrv