Bitcoin Forum

According to world bank (https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex/Data) 1.7 billion people ranging from 200 million in China and India each, 100 million range in Pakistan and Indonesia, 45 to 65 million range in Mexico, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc. This shows that a lot of rural environments have no bank. Real estate, renting a building, is one strong marketing technique used by banks to garner customers in a place. And these stats proves that banks can't reach out to all rural environment. Bitcoin on the other hand, requires only a smart phone and internet connection  to send and receive bitcoin anywhere in the world; no buildings needed. It also opens a portal for users in high corrupt countries, 68.9% of 180 countries, to keep their funds safe. In Sudan for instance, Government once forced into people's houses to seize and destroy their treasures.

Hence with 1.7 billion people staying unbanked, added to the increase of people who don't rely on banks, Bitcoin provides them with numerous options why they should use bitcoin for different purposes like sending money to relatives in different countries at a very low fee.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370892944_Bitcoin_Is_Full_of_Surprises

I can't comment on the rest of the world, but here in the United States all you need to open a bank account is a smartphone.

You still need a Social Security number and other forms of ID and all those kinds of things but you don't need a branch nearby. And once you have that, people can send you money. And you could do your banking. You also have all the other 'bank like things' including PayPal, cash app, and so on for doing financial transactions.

Do things like this exist in these other parts of the world that are undeveloped? If they do then Bitcoin / crypto is another answer it is not the answer. If they don't exist then yes Bitcoin and crypto will help these people greatly.

-Dave

To be honest without bank account you can't even buy your bitcoin now for example if you have $100 worth of fiat in your hand and imagine the options of buying bitcoin without owning a bank account, it's kind of close to impossible job unless you can find someone in personal and exchange the cash when they sent BTC to your address.

Then how about spending the Bitcoin without converting it into fiat, gift cards just spent as BTC for exchange of goods the chances are too low as well so as of now people in the rural areas who doesn't have a bank account are not going to be the users of Bitcoin.

First we need to know if internet connection is available on the areas where those unbanked people live. Since they don't have accounts at banks, I suppose they must lack many other resources, what makes me believe internet could also be one of them.

Moreover we need to know what is the educational level of those people and if they have proficiency dealing with electronical devices. As you mentioned rural areas, I think it's a valid concern, because usually such areas in third world countries don't have schools nearby or stores where they could acquire electronics.

And even though they don't have access to banks, they must have access to paper money. So they are inserted on the traditional fiat system, anyway.

When talking about the unbanked, Bitcoin doesn't necessarily fix it, because neobanks can. Bitcoin comes in when talking about malicious government actors and fucked up local currencies — not necessarily the unbanked.

Bitcoin is for everybody, you don’t have to be rich to send & receive money with bitcoin. The lightning network is ingenious too. It is still early but the unbanked can bring themselves into the 21st century & even begin to start a business. It’s going to take a while but mass adoption is coming, just make sure you position yourself ready.

those supporting that bitcoin fee's should be worth more then a US coffee and transaction counts should be less than 4000 per block.. are ignorantly suggesting that bitcoin fee's should be more then a days wage for the unbanked. and that bitcoin should not be used for the masses..  thus bitcoin has lost its utility to facilitate usage for the unbanked

and no this is not time to then advertise another network that pretends to be bitcoin.
bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network, other systems that peg bitcoin value are riskier options and dont offer the same security as bitcoin does.

what people need to understand is when they lock up bitcoin. and using another unit of measure on another system which peg back to bitcoin when settling up..is like
vaulting up gold. and then playing with 1920's bank notes (promissory notes) that can settle later for gold.
a bank note is not the same as gold. even if the value of an old bank note is measured in gold

and as we have learned the hard way in the last century. when vaults/accounts/channels can be pegged without a confirmed gold/bitcoin balance as some crappy flawed subnetworks allow. it can cause problems

and no opening an unbacked channel (zero confirm value) is not a feature. its a flaw
but with all that said networks that can be used with different currencies is not "bitcoin" its a bridge network for different currencies.. much like mastercard is not "dollar". but a network allowing passage of different currencies (supposedly) backed by locked value such as dollar

holding actual bitcoin is not the same as being given inbound balance from some service app on another network. so lets not advertise that crap, lets get back to making bitcoin accessible to the unbanked

So, according to you, people who are unbanked should not look for services that allow them to become banked, unless these services have fees lower than their daily wage.
You also imply that the unbanked earn less than a dollar a day. What about people who are unbanked and don't meet these requirements?

Many of you point towards internet connection and that's a viable point, but take a look at the expansion of the Internet. If Bitcoin follows this, it's going to keep growing very fast.

There is no way people won't look for an alternative in the time of situations where the government is not helping the people and in the situation where the government of Sudan is forcing themselves into citizen building to seize their valuable things.
But I don't know how the World Bank got the calculation of 1.7 Billion people relying on unbank since an estimated 1 billion people around the world were said to be using cryptocurrencies early this year, I guess we see a huge increase in cryptocurrency users few weeks ago.

The chances that the 1.7billion unbanked individuals will choose to only adopt bitcoins without using any kind of normal fiat bank. There is barely anyone who uses bitcoins  and don't have any bank account. Even if there is the benefit of making transfers over long distance easily with bitcoins, not all your beneficiaries are using bitcoins yet, so they still need the banks sometimes.

Bank marketers are also very hardworking, they can infiltrate these places where there are many unbanked and convince them to open up bank accounts faster than the story of bitcoin will reach them.

The problem most of these physical entites like banks have is that having to spend on building banks, they still need to employ people to manage there and some these are challenges because it is most at times hard to get people to live in remote places like this. Other thing again is the fact that most of these rural areas hardly use the banks daily, the only go to them either monthly when they receive there salaries or wages or when they have issues. So putting in employees there would only be waste of resources by the banks.

bitcoin actually solves all these issues since it doesn't need any physical entites but the problem is you need the internet service which are somewhat not available in these places or the knowledge which is needed to set up wallets or how to protect it. Also these set of people hardly trust anything that the government didn't approve, so adoption of bitcoin in these areas is still not feasible just yet.

Most of them are unbanked basically because of lack of education. They are mostly uneducated in the rural areas and this explains why they are mostly unbanked. And also, because if lack of trust for the system.
I am sure the same issue affect BTC, most people lack the right education about BTC.

Your write-up is clear to me, however there is still a vacuum to fill about the unbanked issue; in my nation, those having a bank account represent for roughly 25% of the total population. The government is even attempting to involve them in the banking system, but they continue to deviate from it. Rural people think differently than educated people; the main reason they do not participate in the banking system is due to scammers; in my place, before you open an account, you must register for the BVN (bank verification number), which allows you to open an account with any bank of your choice. The fraudster obtains their mobile phone number and poses as a banker, asking for their information, which they will provide due to their lack of education.

Location of the bank in rural areas play little to no role
Mobile bank apps exist
Which make registration and transactions fast and easy
People remain unbanked for various reasons like
Lack of trust
Lack of education? No I would say ignorance
Easy access to their money
Poverty; which I believe is the reason for most developing countries
Having citizens unbanked
They most times work to mouth
So have no spare money to save in bank
Which can be saved in their house
Bitcoin is not the solution
Many people would even find using bank than Bitcoin

who the hell would want to use any service, system, currency where it costs their days labour just to perform a transaction.. do you not see the problem with systems that cost too much to use for a large population?? i find it strange you are even questioning simple economic logic that no one wants to pay more than their days wage on just buying things..
ive visited many countries and the biggest hurdle of bitcoin (the actual bitcoin network) is not internet access.. its the tx fee.



according to statistics. majority of the unbanked are from countries with low minimum wage.
also when it comes to "services" you need to try to remember that bitcoin is only truly held if you hold the key to sign the utxo.
other "services" remove the purpose/utility of bitcoin and just become like fiat service stuff pretending to be bitcoin. there is a whole reason and purpose for bitcoin away from needing custodians/middlemen/channel hosts

That's some unbelievable information, i am from pakistan and i do understand, many people prefer to send money to each other using phone number and ID card instead of banks, even somehow they find a cheap way to send money into Pak, without using Banks.

Tbh, i think BTC and banks have direct relation with each other for example before entering into crypto verse i do not have any bank account, and when i started to earn some money and when i exchange it to tokens then i have to use bank's ATM, so for some time i used my friend's bank account, because i merely gets reward and when i do so instead of making my own bank account i prefer to choose my friend or any of my relative account.

The point is, once you get involved in crypto you will make or depend on a bank unless you give highest priority to anonymity and do not want anyone to know that you are involved in crypto.

And i do agree with your last statement and it was one of the main factor that convinced El-Salvador to accept BTC as Legal tender. Btc will open a lot of door for business but in my POV, for people to come in Crypto/btc they first have some knowledge of banking sector because that's how they will understand the benefits of Crypto (when they will understand drawbacks of banking sector in todays world)

Of course it's a huge possibility for Bitcoin but I fear things are more complicated than bank buildings. First, Bitcoin should be accepted as legal tender and companies start paying their employees in Bitcoin. Bitcoin should also be accepted pretty much everywhere too. Otherwise, I doubt this is going to work.

Looking upon the incident, it arises me with the question ? The 1.7 billion people were unbanked not for the same reason or a reason like they're not connected to the real world. The truth, they don't need banks, they were not that educated to handle Bank. In such a situation how will this be possible that 1.7 billion or a part of the unbanked population move towards bitcoin. For the purpose of conversation this looks good, but in real time we can't expect this to be successful.

Right now the banked population needs to do the best making some regular bitcoin transactions. Doing this will surely make a better bitcoin market than what we're seeing around. This will be the better way than educating the unbanked groups of people.

that is true, the reality is most of these banked population are also into bitcoin because it is easier for them to learn how to transact with crypto. with unbanked, they keep that way because they don't want to be influenced by technology. so how can you convince them to go into crypto, which for some is more complicated than having a bank account? people sometimes exaggerate things but they failed to see the real scenario.
how many projects have such kind of mission, reaching out the unbanked population and yet, they were the first ones to abandon their project. you can't guarantee that these people will opt to crypto transactions rather than the traditional banking system.

Sadly but true and unfortunately btc is not the a commodity you can openly buy from the local market otherwise these number of people don't need the bank to be able to own a btc.
The fact that such a high percentage of people around the world are still unbanked makes the future of btc more interesting. The probability that at least above 10% of these number will likely buy btc is much higher. 

Indeed, it is true that a significant number of individuals are unbanked. However, I ponder whether those who are unfamiliar with the traditional banking system are also familiar with Bitcoin. In my experience, utilizing Bitcoin is often easier than navigating the complexities of the banking system. In recent times, many banks have adopted digital banking systems, allowing individuals to manage their funds from anywhere in the world using smartphones. This convenience is similar to the accessibility of Bitcoin, where one only requires a smartphone and an Internet connection. Consequently, I am somewhat skeptical about the likelihood of Bitcoin reaching those individuals who are not acquainted with digital banking systems.

The statistics simply shows that Bitcoin has still lots of room to grow.  If half of the statistics shared by @OP had come to join the Bitcoin adoption then we can expect a possible exponential growth of Bitcoin market.



Bitcoin does not need to be acknowledge as legal tender but as mode of payment is enough to use it by companies to function as payment to service or goods.



Reason why adoption is needed and with lots of people being unbanked, it is an opportunity to extend its network and use case to cover these unbanked individuals.

If this is in Indonesia, this may not happen, moreover people need bank account to have transaction or everything about Bitcoin activities. So, having Bitcoin means having bank account, commonly like this.
What happens to the society is that people are still using very traditional concepts' of transaction or payment, moreover in the traditionally market. Some also are still not using any bank because they are lack of the knowledge or they are against bank and prefer to save their money in gold or others. Moreover here, Bitcoin is not legal if used as payment method and I ma very sure that people who are not using bank account are also not interested in Bitcoin.
But, don't know if it's in other countries as mentioned.

But still it must be acknowledged by the state that bitcoin has become a legal means of payment, but now it is still very minimal, some countries still refuse bitcoin as a legal means of payment, of course they will defend their local money, a company will certainly follow government regulations, so if it is illegal any company would not dare bitcoin as a means of payment for services or goods.

Keep going back to the government if they reject it no matter how big the community is that expands bitcoin then it will be difficult to adopt, we just hope something changes where bitcoin can be adopted.

There will be a slim chance for Bitcoin to tap this 1.7 Billion unbanked if the government does not approve of it.  These 1.7B are the individuals that are possibly waiting for the government's acceptance of Bitcoin to be able to utilize it to their own benefit.  We all know that not all people are brave enough to try any technology or service that is not accepted or introduced by their government.  If Bitcoin got the blessing of the government then most probably we can se more people getting involved with Bitcoin and the majority of them will be these unbanked people.

I agree that unbanked people can be a big market for Bitcoin or cryptocurrency but let's be honest that this is not as simple as it should be. One, this is only possible if there is a critical number of people that will almost simultaneously adopt Bitcoin so they can do P2P option as without the establishment of other third-party infrastructure it would be almost impossible to attract a big number of people to its side. What we are seeing now in El Salvador can be a big experiment with Bitcoin as it is their own government promoting it...but in other parts of the world we know that those in powers are not so interested with crypto. Certainly, there are many factors that we have to consider before we can say that Bitcoin is going to be helping the unbanked...but maybe things are getting more rosier that before...who knows time will come when Bitcoin will really sprout and be experiencing massive adoption.

I've made a research about this before, and as far as I remember, most reasons why people in the rural area stays unbanked is because usually banks are far from their area which make it unaccessible to most of them, the lack of funds to have an access to financial services, and no proper financial education. Bitcoin may help in solving some problems such as ccessibility, but it will still depends if they have access to internet connection in their area. Bitcoin is also cheaper when it comes to transaction costs, also it doesn't need any maintaining balance unlike with banks.  However, if a lot of people not just in rural area, still lack in basic financial education, it may be hard for them to adapt Bitcoin since it can be too complicated for them.
Bitcoin can solve some problems why people are still unbanked, but only to few. It's not an institution that provides various financial services to everyone.

Currently, bitcoin is like a commodity, and to own bitcoin, you need to buy and sell it with fiat, if you don't have a bank account, how will you buy bitcoins? Are you an investor, and are you using the bank to buy and sell bitcoins? Honestly, I don't see this going to have any impact on the development of bitcoin, they are entirely unrelated. Moreover, many people are reducing their dependence on banks, which does not mean they no longer use banks and only use bitcoin. As long as fiat remains the main currency, we cannot stop using the bank completely, we will still depend on it to a certain extent.

I guess few people here have ever been in a third world country. Yes, millions can't access a bank account, neither can they access an exchange. And that's good, because exchanges are for the poors are scams, taking a 10% fee, instead of the .5% (or less) we get in rich countries.

Also, some poor people don't use banks because they don't trust them, you couldn't convince them to use BTC...

People from 1st world cannot think the way people do in the 3rd world.

Bitcoin is fairly easy to use, and for a person who doesn't know online banking, I don't think learning to use a wallet like Electrum would be much harder. 1.7 billion is also a formidable number, and covering even a third or so of that with Bitcoin would mean huge adoption. That being said, perhaps the unbanked don't have their devices (PC, smartphone) or maybe even don't have stable Internet connection where they live. That can be a huge challenge for using Bitcoin. Not to mention that Bitcoin would need to be adopted way more as a form of payment to truly be a good alternative for the unbanked population. Another big challenge is transaction fees, which aren't low and would get much higher if way more people actively used it.

There is no doubt on your view mate, you now see the reason why bitcoin is seen as the freedom of the unbanked. There are still people out there all round the world who are yet to identify or have a bank account and in most cases, banks are very far from them so tell me what do you think would be the next solution to their transactions and payments as the case maybe.

Just like a poster said earlier it only takes just a smart phone to get connected to owning bitcoin which should be their option on resolve. This is a good point to hold as the banks are very far from the people so what do you think is the next option available for them and looking at the world population currently with  bitcoin scarcity of just 21,000,000 maximum supply. I think this is a good one for all to have a thought and ponder over it because as time goes on, bitcoin would gradually finds it way into the government and when that happens, it would definitely be a boom for the bitcoin market when the time comes.

The chances of these 1.7 billion creating a Bitcoin wallet and buying Bitcoin is 0.01% as they don't have enough resources to atleast open a Bank account in their respective country. The requirements to open a Bitcoin account is a mobile with Internet service and then you also need adequate knowledge and experience to operate with Cryptocurrency which is a far high ceiling as compared to a normal Bank account. Impossible to get this audience.

There are physically challenges for those 1.7 billion unbanked people but I disagree with you that it is impossible for them to access Bitcoin.

I see that Bitcoin will give them more convenience than with banks and bank accounts. With bank accounts, they will have to go to bank offices and open their bank accounts, with some required documents like ID card, selfie ... and because it is related to transportation, it will be barrier for many people.

With Bitcoin, they will have more convenience. They can download a wallet software, install it on their phone or computer and get their wallet and addresses to use. It's easy and more convenient than with banks and bank accounts. They don't have to go too far to any office like with bank accounts. No ID card submission too.

I don't agree with you that 1.7B people will possibly be sitting on the sideline without operating a bank account just because they are waiting for their government to approve Bitcoin, No way.
 Factors I do think these people remain unbanked is
1. unavailability of funds to open an account.
2. people living in rural areas don't have nearby banks to run their bank accounts, And others for various reasons.
 There is an opportunity for Bitcoin to be adopted by these people in the future if they start Banking.

It is a novel theme that is being repeated for some years, the unbanked with the help of BTCitcoin sending money to relatives in different countries. Look around your neighborhood or meet people living in that kind of poverty, if any of their relatives are working or living abroad then they would be the bread winners and they will likely send money to the poor living without a banking account, if their surrounding is poor it is highly likely no one will accept BTCitcoin, only possible solution is to convert them to fiat and for that you need a bank account.

I do not want to search or see for myself internet surveys, the implications for using bitcoin coins over the internet, and we can use them but accept that there are many places have not had access to it.
And the recent popularity of bitcoin is also impressive seeing more and more people using it, but we have to accept that we will need more time for it to be the same way that users are used current internet.

These two countries are why every country wants to join the BRICS. They are the ones who have a significant and rising economy and they are the ones who have contributed heavily to the New Development Bank. China has banned Bitcoin and India has placed a tax that has placed a shadow ban. Since I am from India, to use CBDC you do not need to have a bank account. The government as we all know is able to control CBDC without much effort.


Most of the data provided by these countries is incorrect. I assume the numbers would be more than what the world bank has reported. Already we have seen within the forum so many users are from these countries. I am certain these countries would benefit with adoption. I agree they are the ones we need to focus on.

This figure of 1.7 billion is incorrect as two big countries are out.

Nowadays, even if you don't have a bank account here in our country, you can still buy Bitcoin using the various merchants here. For example I can buy Bitcoin using the E-wallet that we have here such as Gcash apps which these apps have partnered with Various crypto exchanges such as Binance, Bybit and others. Apart from this, there are also Maya apps that are almost similar to the Gcash wallet followed by Coins.ph and others.

It means that it is clear that these things I mentioned may only be a second option in the bank if you do not have a bank account. I've been doing this for years actually.

Unfriendly government policies are part of the impediment to bitcoin adoption but it is not the reason why many people don't have bank accounts. The unbanked population lives in rural areas and they are either poor or lack basic knowledge about financial transactions. The rural communities lack basic facilities that would make banking operations smooth. Many of these banks prefer to stay in urban areas because most of these rural dwellers are low-income earners. So even if Bitcoin is legalized other major factors will limit the adoption of bitcoin.

To open a bank account sometimes is complex and it could discourage people from opening accounts. The simplicity of opening a Bitcoin wallet without any form of documentation and KYC could serve as an attraction to people to join the Bitcoin space. Learning the basics of a Bitcoin transaction is not a big deal. Anybody familiar with online bank transactions will easily learn how to receive and send Bitcoin. But there is also a need for new Bitcoin adopters to learn about keeping their coins safe.

It would be interesting to know how many of these 1.7 billion unbanked actually do not even have access to the internet, and about 40% of the world's population does not have it at the moment. If 3.2 billion people don't have internet, is that a bigger problem than the 1.7 billion that are unbanked?

Hypothetically, if they all got access to the internet tomorrow and found out about Bitcoin what percentage of them would be interested in starting to use it? The example of El Salvador with about 70% of the population unbanked did not exactly show that people want Bitcoin even when it is completely legalized, given that the data showed that the percentage of those who use it is between 15-20%.

It is for sure a more complicated thing than just providing a means of banking for a lot of
the people who are classed as unbanked.

For those people who live on the equivalent of a few Dollars per week/month, having
the service of a bank is not needed, same for Bitcoin really.

If your life is revolves around the basics of food and shelter by the means of bartering or
very low amounts of FIAT I cant see how a bank is going to advance the lifestyle, same with
Bitcoin, how is it going to improve the lives of those?

For online banking (apps), physical addresses and office buildings are also not needed, but at the same time, it also allow you to receive and send money to almost anywhere in the world. Just like bitcoin, online banking requires a smartphone and internet. In fact, if you compare online banking and bitcoin, there are identical in these categories. I don't consider at the moment the other aspects of btc and give analogies from the position of an ordinary person who is not versed in new technologies.

I suspect that these 1.7 billion people don't use banking services and bitcoin for the simple reason that they are either below the poverty line, because of which there are no smartphones and PCs, or there is no Internet connection, or they live far from civilization in small villages. It would be a mistake to assume that every person on the planet will be able to buy, own and use BTC. No. This will interfere with the reasons described above or others.

Don't expect you to get people hooked on the bitcoin. 100% (even a close percentage) of the population of bitcoin can't be covered.

Then unbanked are unbanked for a reason; they don' have money to bank. They also don't have access to internet which makes it hard for them to use the crypto technology. In many cases, they also don't have a means of identity (an identity document) and at some point, crypto will exchange with fiat and you need a government ID to transact in fiat currency. It's a chicken and egg situation.

A lot of people are unbanked because Banks are too expensive, but they using other cheaper services like M-Pesa. "M-Pesa – one of the largest mobile money services in Africa – has seen a steady increase in customer numbers from 2017 to 2022, eventually reaching over 52.4 million customers in the financial year ending 31 March 2022." - Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139190/m-pesa-customer-numbers/

So, there are many other services that are not taken into consideration when they draw up statistics like this. Yes, Bitcoin can bring Banking type opportunities to them, but people still use Exchanges as an on ramp into Bitcoin... which is bad.  ::)

I think this topic is discussed by many other titles and I still have some thoughts about this, because the banking system was never founded to provide open services to all it was introduced to trap the money and control the economy if they really wanted to bank each and every person it was so easy for them but they choose money over the customers. Bitcoin and DeFi especially revolutionized the services in the financial system, it was so hard to even open a bank account before, and for the leading and borrowing haha forget about it, without any reference, we may never get access to these services.

But now things are different in this market each dn every user has access to every sort of financial service without credit history and useless restrictions. Even with a small amount I can lend money, I can access each and every sort of service whenever I am in need. This is why we call Bitcoin and DeFi the future of finance.

Yes, you are on point, and I agree with you on this very statement of yours, because truly the unavailable of banks and internet network in most of these places have a big role to playing why there are a lot of unbanked people, which I have strong doubt it's a menance Bitcoin can't remedy, as to be able to own Bitcoin, one need a bank account where to deposit fiat which will be used in buying Bitcoin via p2p or any other means.

Well don't you think that those people might me poor not to have money to save in banks I don't see how they would be interested in Bitcoin. Anyone who by now has never ever been involved in banking is largely have to do with their exposure and probably they are poor.

Many of those set if people may not have the basic device nor do they have the basic tech knowledge to get involved in Crypto-currency. So I think the best way Bitcoin can capitalize on them is giving them the knowledge and advantage of Bitcoin in comparison with the banking system.

Just because 1.7 billion people are unbanked doesn't mean they are all financially independent. In fact, there are many reasons why such a large number of people do not have a relationship with the bank. They are not educated enough to understand bank transactions, they may not have internet connection, or they don't have enough financial resources to be involved with banks. I don't think Bitcoin will have a significant impact on these 1.7 billion unbanked people worldwide. If those who are involved with Bitcoin try to explain to others about the block chain technology financial transaction platform then maybe in the future they will know a lot and choose Bitcoin as their bank.

Yeah. We can't trade BTC without having a bank account. If you don't have a bank account, how do you convert your crypto currency to Fiat, except until BTC or crypto currency in general becomes accepted as a legal tender.

Can't really say that people don't rely on banks or don't even need banks especially in the rural area. One factor for this instance is they don't have any excess funds to start a bank as people in the rural area is actually not that rich compared to the people living in an urban area where there's a lot of establishment and businesses, and of course, banks will take advantage of that fact as they can also start their business in that specific area. But rural area, they cannot really take their business there as the people doesn't have any business that needed banks plus, internet access is very rare.

Most of these unbanked people are from the rural areas and such regions provides lots of workers and most of them work outside the country. If a person in diaspora wants to send money back home and he realizes that his loved ones are unbanked, what will he do? So with BTC, such people may escape from the remittance high fees. BTc will open the minds of many people who receive it. Everyone on the internet require some private and fast Ttransaction, it'll surprise you to know how electricity is everywhere including the rural area.

Going through the thread I don't see why people think using bitcoin demands lots of knowledge. If a person is there to instruct unbanked people on how to receive and send money, which is the most crucial aspect of bitcoin, the bitcoin usage process would have been more easier to them.

Bitcoin network will be one of their choices if they are unable to access bank system. Altcoins will be one of their choices too and many altcoin networks can provide cheaper transaction fees than Bitcoin network, which means a lot for unbanked people who are not rich, don't have much money to spend and they do care more about how much they have to spend for each transaction in transaction fee.

Have easy access and self-control their finance and transactions without need to go to have bank accounts, time for transportation to reach bank offices are their biggest concerns. Privacy is important but it might be lower in their concern priority.

Without using exchanges and banks, how can we own bitcoin while bitcoin is still considered a speculative asset for profit? By the way, how do you enter this market without using a bank or an exchange? If you say we shouldn't store bitcoins on exchanges, I'll agree with you, but using exchanges to buy, sell or exchange bitcoins isn't so bad either. Without exchanges, are you sure the market would develop to where it is today?
Like it or not, to ramp into bitcoin, we all need to use centralized things like fiat, banks, and exchanges.

On the side of the unbanked people it won't bother them, but for the sender it may be a priority to him. As he must have learnt about how bitcoin works also sending money to loved ones privately at home reduces so much stress for both parties.

I would not agree that the fees for sending money from abroad are so big, because we had already had such discussions on the forum before and I think @stompix showed some examples on WU transfer. In addition, the volatility that BTC has should be taken into account, because the one who sends must first buy BTC, and then the recipient must sell it to get cash.

Even if we talk about LN, theoretically the value of BTC sent in a very short period of time can change +/- 5% or more. Of course, the higher value will not bother anyone, but for someone who loses 5-10% by sending BTC it will certainly no longer be a good option.

How many of those would afford to pay with BTC?

How many of those would be able to buy BTC before having a bank account?

How many of those would afford to pay the extra 5-10% cash intermediaries and Batm charge?

How many of those have a smartphone?

How many of those have electricity and internet?

How long it will take to send bitcoins to 1.7 billion people when they just half of that in the entire blockchain in 15 years?

Why do you think having BTC will save them since they are in a situation when they can't even create a bank account?

With what money will people that live paycheck to paycheck would buy Bitcoin?





 

I agree with your criticism. The bank acts as an intermediary for the development of bitcoin and for people to join the bitcoin world. I often criticize banks in my articles, but banks offer this opportunity if someone who will buy bitcoin for the first time can easily reach the market. You can easily transfer money to exchanges. We can send money to many exchanges and buy bitcoin directly with a debit card, but many people whose salary is in the bank do not prefer this way. They transfer directly from the bank and receive bitcoin from the exchange. Few people use other methods.

In fact, the answers to these questions you ask will be answered over time, and then bitcoin will have reached its peak.

I briefly imagined the condition of people in remote areas which I have visited who are generally not technologically literate and the environment is usually constrained by contemporary infrastructure, I don't think that bitcoin will help much other than as a store of value. And maybe you wouldn't even suggest they own bitcoins if they had to follow the rules of storing and operating wallets safely, because imo they'd be more sloppy.

Oh yeah, the classical WU charges us 105% of the money we send!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5426326.msg61407509#msg61407509
Also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5342087.msg60526390#msg60526390

I've done so many simulations over this that I don't even remember which is what and where from whom!

But basically, there are so many ways to send money cheaply, instantly, without the need to go and buy Bitcoin, send Bitcoins then have your relative exchange it god knows how that it has lost much of its sparkle.
I know what foreign workers do here, they just open a bank account as they are allowed to, get a debit card, and either ship the card home or enroll it in Curve or google pay, and the relatives can use the money instantly, without the need for WU, Moneygram or anything else.


They don't need to be saved, and things do progress, I would be more concerned about access to clean water than the internet or a smartphone.
Also, the questions are invalidating concerns, as long as they have money they can spend that, bitcoin or fiat is the same, if they don't have money to spend daily then there is no need to pay 1$a  day in fees, which drastically reduced the number of transactions needed.

Your concern is more like the electric cars consumption, how will we power all of them and where which was actually driving demand down and thus invalidating the problem.


Oh yeah, the revolution Defi and lending has bought, starting with Blockfi and ending with Celsius, or the half a billion in rug pulls in Defi scam projects last year.

You're forgetting one aspect, with a  bank you can take a loan even if you don't have the money, it has worked like this for centuries, Defi you can't take one unless you have collateral which is really stupid in the first place, you're putting 200% of the loan at risk of liquidation because of a sudden dump and you end up paying twice in a matter of months. Plus, since most of the world earns its paycheck in rupias or yuans or pesos, you might end up paying twice or thrice since most give loans in USD, not devaluating Zimbabwe dollars.

many people in this topic are shouting claims like
"internet"  "electric" "distance"

many of these rural communities in africa, china and india do not need cabled utility..
they have mini solar panels to charge cell phones which operate through cheap to set up cellular towers..

these days africa, india, china have faster more reachable internet than villages in the US/UK

these unbanked people in china. africa, india do not have traditional bank accounts needing to be set up in traditional bank branches.. instead they also bypassed the infrastructure of needing to build things like bank branches.. instead they use non-traditional payment services.. such as m-mesa/alipay.. thus although unbanked. they can and do have access to the internet and cellular to make payments..

after travelling to many countries for years the hindrance of bitcoin is not technology.. but the political game plays of devs thinking that fee's need to be more then a coffee/pizza just so that it promotes people to move away from using bitcoin and instead into their corporate sponsored middle men service networks.

in short its the bitcoin fee that has become the biggest barrier of entry. not technology

As an Indonesian, I'd like to share a little bit of my experience here after living for 26 years.

Some people here don't actually have a bank account, even though the nearest bank branch is just 1 kilometer away from their homes. Those without a bank account are generally individuals with lower economic power, where their salaries are sufficient to meet their needs and have a little fun with their earnings.

They don't really need a bank account because cash alone is enough. In fact, if someone wants to buy BTC (Bitcoin), the most effective way is to have a bank account. This means that one cannot own BTC without a bank account.

Meanwhile, people with relatively low incomes choose not to open a bank account because transactions can be done in cash, simply for purchasing necessities or even just for having some fun with the remaining portion of their earnings.

Is this a golden opportunity for Bitcoin?

Not in Indonesia. Their incomes are not sufficient for it, and they are still not willing to take risks with their primary funds. Even though Bitcoin is more appealing for investment, they would automatically open a bank account to facilitate easier transactions.

Being a Pakistani I would say situation is very much same in my country too. People who don't have enough monthly salary don't like to bank rather they prefer cash. Even there are people who have monthly salary less then 100$, apart from such people, there are businessmen who don't go for banking to avoid tax.
The issue with bitcoin is that you need to be technically sound in order to getting started with it. Areas which have low literacy rate and income won't be ideal places for Bitcoin adoption. 

Actually, the people in the rural areas are basically not too inclined with technology. Some do not even have that taste for modern technology as they are too akaic in their thoughts and dealings When it comes to technological innovation not to talk of when it involves bitcoin. I believe this is where the work needs be done. Sensitization and awareness is what matters in every nook and crannies in the society.
Like you have said, knowledge and experience matters when it comes to dealing or having bitcoin in mind and it is very important that anyone going into it must have the knowledge of what they are about signing up for.

Lastly, as a result of the low standard of leaving, it would be very difficult for most rural dwellers to afford an android phone not to talk of internet service supplies so as to enable them follow up. Let me use my country as an example. The rural areas are characterized with poor electric supply, no internet supply, poor communication network you can mention lots of anything that has to do with technology in this modern day world which are lacked in the rural areas. That is the situation or condition of the rural areas in my country so you could imagine the lapses  and the task at hand.

Pondering over tech resistance in the sticks is thought-provoking, yet sparks a rebuttal. Is rural folks' tech-unfriendliness an "archaic" mindset's offspring, or a consequence of scarce infrastructure and wealth gap?

Schooling country folk about Bitcoin or any tech wizardry isn't just about consciousness - its a Gordian knot tied with socio-economic threads. Sure, mastering Bitcoin is key, but can they afford and access such tech marvels?

Your mentioned tech rift - no power, web, or comms - isnt your nation' copyright, it's worldwide. How will Bitcoin tackle these barriers? Are we putting the tech horse before the infra-cart by parachuting AI into tech deserts?

That's true, every Bitcoin purchases starts with the bank, unless someone give him an Asic miner and he start mining Bitcoin direct to his wallet, Eve if this is what's happening it will get to a time where he will need to sell his Bitcoin and that's going to happen with the help of a bank, as we can see Banks have a bigger role to play when buying and selling Bitcoin when lack of knowledge takes over, it's easier to say that we don't need the banks.

You can buy Bitcoins from an ATM, you can buy Bitcoins via P2P deals, it doesn't have to be a bank!
What did the first guys that tarded bitcoin used here, banks? Not even close, there were no exchanges and things still worked.

But that aside, it shows how shallow the belief that crypto is a bank killer, so basically you can't deal with crypto if you don't have a bank account in the first place, you can't take your profits, you can't exchange it with a centralized solution conveniently, so if we go further down this path, what's the point of decentralization when all the time you're entrusting your money to somebody else?
I don't know if it's ironic or plain sad!


Ever been to one? But be heaven on earth, free electricity, cheap and fast internet, no need for banks, what could you ask more?

I don't think it's that simple in terms of giving all these people the opportunity to complete financial transactions. People in remote rural areas are often illiterate and do not have access to the Internet. It means that they do not have a bank account, this is normal and understandable to some extent, but do not expect that they will have sufficient capabilities to use the Internet.
Also, the most important point is that enabling them to use the Internet means that it will end their financial isolation, because in any case they are forced to deal with local financial institutions (which are not available in their regions) to benefit from cash because their countries often do not support Bitcoin payments.

Decentralization is still key, the story hasn't changed. The current problem with Bitcoin and crypto is that there is still no clear way to onboard people. A lot of things are still being figured out. P2P played its role to onboard even more people to crypto but we still have some things to figure out.

• Make Bitcoin and crypto tx fees < banks and other traditional institutions. This assumes that fees continue to stay ultra-low and the system is able to scale effectively even as the number of users and transactions increases.
• Make Bitcoin and crypto onboarding experience and products as intuitive as possible. The majority of people in unbanked regions have no idea what a private key is, cryptography, etc. People tend to stay away from something they don't understand.
• We still have a lot of things to figure out in terms of infrastructure, on/off ramp options and more.

These are good stats. I love reading publications that have a positive "feeling and attitude" towards Bitcoin. It gives us hope. However, the problem I have with people quoting numbers and drawing conclusions is that these data and analysis may have been gotten from a secondary source.

I live in Nigeria and I'll tell you for free that despite our population of over 200m people and the number of those unbanned it an illusion to think that Bitcoin and bank the unbanked. The unbanked are the uneducated at the high school level. They are those living in rural areas without electricity, no English , good roads, portable water, and internet connectivity.

For Bitcoin to bank the unbanked, these barriers need to be fixed. Realistically speaking, I don't think Bitcoin can do this.

Bitcoin as a payment solution might be a good solution, but if it's used to answer financial-related problems, it might be very difficult to apply. The reason is because Bitcoin was not designed to be able to provide banking services to the public. And most of these unbanked people are people with low technological knowledge and are in rural areas, so using Bitcoin might be difficult for them. Moreover, the government will not allow that Bitcoin will be a solution for society, of course the government will prohibit the use of Bitcoin for people's financial needs. So the opportunity for Bitcoin to become a financial solution for millions of people globally seems to be quite a challenge.

The information is true, but you should also keep in mind that in those rural areas the facility of internet is mostly absent, and without access to internet using of Bitcoin is impossible. Most of the people who belong to such areas have very little knowledge about technology, and gadgets, and for those people to adapt to Bitcoin isn't an easy thing. I know that in order to use Bitcoin you need a smartphone and internet connection, but with a smartphone and an internet connection you won't be able to purchase Bitcoin. Most people buy Bitcoin with digital form of fiat, and even that type of service is provided by banks.

No one sells Bitcoin for cash, and it's somewhat risky as well because those who are selling Bitcoin for cash could end up into prison if a country has banned Bitcoin. In current times banking system is still needed to purchase Bitcoin and we can't ignore that fact. I hope that in future the purchasing of Bitcoin won't be dependent on banks, but that thing can only happen if most people accept to trade cash or other physical items with Bitcoin.

For the Indonesian state, people who have bitcoin must have a bank account. This is because in Indonesia it is prohibited to carry out trading transactions with cryptocurrencies. Even so, in Indonesia crypto is legal, legal as an asset, not currency. So if using crypto for trading activities will make us break the law.

Now to own crypto assets, we need to purchase them using a bank account. And since it is not possible to use it for trading, we need to exchange crypto assets to IDR, and need a bank account to make withdrawals

So even though in Indonesia there are still many who don't have a bank account, using crypto cannot be a solution. In fact, there are many digital banks in Indonesia and you can open a bank account using only your smartphone. But maybe people who don't have a bank account because they don't need one and live in the countryside

It is true that bitcoin would open a lot of doors for these people who are far from the city and do not have access to the bank and therefore to bank accounts, but there is also something that can prevent them from being beneficial, and that is that in addition to being far from the city, some sectors may not have internet as expected, so the use of it would be complicated, what's more, there may be some who don't even know that this currency exists. Older people live more in rural areas, because young people go to the city to change their lives, therefore, that would be the other factor against, older people do not know and it is difficult for them to manage these things. But in the event that they do have all these factors, it is a good alternative, which could change their lives, as long as they manage to buy and have access to it, because as some comment, bitcoin is for everyone, it is free, and It would be great if it could be used by these people.

We can buy Bitcoin from ATM but look at OP's post he was talking about places where there isn't even banks reached so where there is no possibility of finding a Bitcoin ATM as well. P2P deals too need banks or some kind of online wallet help to make the purchase possible when we are communicating over the internet.

I am aware that decentralisation is the vital part but for now it's highly inconvenient if someone decides to boycott banks and starts to live with only crypto so everything takes time and similar to that adoption of Bitcoin too will be gradual to take over the bank's place.

These unbanked people are considered uneducated according to some comments on this thread and I want to ask from observation, every uneducated parent has an educated child that helps them interpret new technology and operate their phones too. That means if the educated person in their midst gets to introduce them to bitcoin they'll trust the process and give it a try, as they have a reason why they don't want to operate with banks. Although it's rare for bitcoiners to outreach 1.7billion people, but a good percentage of them will love to hold bitcoin or receive funds through bitcoin, once they confirm the legitimacy. Even the elderly people that expect funds from their children, often time they have a learned person that lives with them to carry out different errands including funds and finance.

To be very sincere with you. I do not believe in the ideology of Bitcoin banking the unbanked. I believe it is even difficult for people to download a wallet in their phone to get bitcoin addresses to receive and send bitcoin rather than to open a bank account.

 s so many countries you can just open a bank account by online means without visiting the banks. What I actually mean is that whoever at this present world, anyone that does not have an account number shows that the person is not that lettered and a very rural person. And if that is true, embracing bitcoin will even be more difficult for the person.

Bitcoin adoption is faster with the people that are already banked rather than the unbanked or uninformed persons in the rural dwelling.

Having lived and work in parts of the unbanked -- in fact, myself being practically unbanked during those periods -- I can only concur, and have said so myself. Fintech's had great success there, and because they filled a need, without requiring people to have what they couldn't already access.

But I would disagree at least partially (again, based on the interest I experienced from people there about crypto) that popularising Bitcoin was a matter of fees. Fees is a problem as a mass p2p payment solution, but still will vastly superior as a remittance option, which is still what people need and mpesa didn't solve (mainly because it didn't work cross border). Even as late as 2017 the majority of these unbanked I worked with had, at best, SMS technology, which was all that mpesa needed. When using Bitcoin is as easy or easier than whipping out that GPRS phone, it might yet see more users.

But it's unfair to say people remain unbanked because banks are still using obsolete ways of giving their customers access to their funds...As far as I know, banks have gone the extra mile to use today's technology to make it easy for anybody to enjoy banking services from opening an account from your smartphone,  to blocking cards, replacing ATM cards etc

But the major reason that could be behind people remaining unbanked could be because of maintenance fees and other hidden costs put on the banks clients..hence the reason for people shying away.

You have a bit of confusion with the information, since access does not necessarily have to do with a construction, depending on the country, access to banking can be done online, in fact it is a sum of everything in several countries, not just the infrastructure it is also about the way in which people access the Internet.

In any case, it is the "error" to want to associate any computer, news, aspect with bitcoin, when access to bitcoin is independent of those circumstances.

You have to consider the factors why these people aren't signed with a bank My Brother in Christ. I'm guessing that in this whole population study only a small margin of the people aren't trusting of the banks, while a larger portion of them aren't learned about the ins and outs of banking including how to set one up for themselves, and a good portion of these people have no savings or couldn't save money due to poverty or some other reason which leads them to not sign themselves with a bank. With that being said are you willing to gamble on the small amount of people who in the first place aren't even trusting of banks, and have them be aware of a cryptocurrency that in a layman's eyes is just another form of bank?

I'm not discouraging you or anything, but statistical data is moot when reality kicks in (even though statistics account for the real world).

I wasn't responding to OP, I was replying to a user who mentioned


which is not the case, not in the US , not in the EU not in Nigeria not in Bahamas.


Then it's not true P2P anymore and we should stop labeling all these solutions as being decentralized when you rely on a cental point that stores all your data and all your details forever. I've warned users numerous times that dealing with a guy on a pseudo P2P market is just as dangerous, you have a stranger collecting hundreds of bank details and accounts and you have a  bank employee laughing how he can track with 101% accuracy every single trade this guy and his clients do.


Exactly my point! You can't buy 3 cakes eat 4 of them, gift 2, and still have 6 of them in the fridge.