Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2024, 02:49:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Stop saying Bitcoin is good for money transfer. It isn't.  (Read 10090 times)
zachcope
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 16, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
 #61

I use Bitcoin to transfer money to my family overseas all the time (literally, at least once a week). I buy them through either Virtex or Coinbase, then transfer them to a localbitcoins.com contact in the city where my family lives and he hands them local currency. I used to use Western Union, but between the ridiculous WU fees and the even more ridiculous exchange rate controls in the country my family is in, I was losing over 40% of the original amount. With Bitcoin the transfer is instantaneous and I lose less than a fraction of 1%.

So how is this not working as a money transfer again?

+10000
This is the reason bitcoin will suceed.
Governments are interested in national boundaries. People aren't.
National fiat can stay local.
Bitcoins are global.

hashman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 16, 2013, 04:00:05 PM
 #62

Bitcoin is good for transferring bitcoin.  How's that?  Not sure I got the capitalization syntax right Wink
mtdtc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 06:57:52 AM
 #63

the biggest problem here is that you still need to pay real money in real life.
if people doesn't have to exchange btc into usd or euro, then you wouldn't have to pay that fee to mtgox or bitstamp and wait for days, you could use btc in half an hour after your family member sent it from europe.
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2106



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 12:05:35 PM
 #64

Bitcoin has many immediate benefits including 0-friction ecommerce (no user accounts), low liability and fees in a purely Bitcoin enclosed market, micro payments and real escrow, just to name few. But the prophets peddling the idea it will have a huge impact on banking and commerce, how it is so much more efficient for international money transfer, are just downright misleading and actually distract people from fixing the problem.

This video touts how low the fees are for transfering money internationally with Bitcoin but limits itself to the example of $1000. All the benifits fall apart once the amount is >$5k. Let me give a real example.

I have a family member in the US that is part owner of company. A majority owner was leaving and so that presented an opportunity for me, in the EU, to send them $50k to invest. I could take profits from BTC as an early adopter or I could dip into FIAT savings. The former seemed ideal and seemed to be perfect for BTC according to the prophets. So I started looking into how to do it. On the US end MtGox can be used but with a long delay for 4 to 8 weeks and some marginal fees (0.5% exchange fee, $10 transfer fee). A bit ridiculous. But the other exchanges are worse, in a different way. For example Coinbase has 2 to 3 day transfer but a daily limit of 50BTC. That means it would take at least 9 days to sell enough BTC to convert into $50k. Assuming all these abstraction layers work out it would take 2 weeks to get the money with some fees for exchange (1%). CampBx doesnt really state their BTC sell limits clearly but do state a $1000k per day withdrawl limit. 50 days is nuts. Guess there is a wire transfer option but not knowing the BTC limits its just not clear if this would work. A p2p exchange such as #bitcoin-otc would have a 5% margin from my experience so this also seems a bit much. Localbitcoins and in fact most of the other exchanges have such low volume this also has to be considered.

So no, Bitcoin is just not good for money transfer (unless you are sending to Japan or China). In the end FIAT>FIAT internationally was way less of a headache, less time, and nearly the same or less fees than using Bitcoin in the BTC>FIAT route.

Is Bitcoin broken?
Well no. The other non-money transfer benefits are huge and will bring real growth. But they are limited to the sub $1k realm. The prophetic windfall from large commerce is not coming soon. It makes no sense for Paypal or Western Union to utilise Bitcoin. If exchanges have to reduce volume and limits or incur huge delays you could only imagine the volumes that these players would need and be unable to obtain stably with Bitcoin. They of course *could* solve them as Paypal did in the early days. But they would have to take upon themselves a huge headache that the exchanges already have. (It'd be a Heisenburg like headache but where all the cash is legal.) One can expect they will stay far away from it until this is solved. So if you see posts or comments from large players considering to utilise it for anything other than micro or <$1k payments, forget about it. It's several years away.

Conclusion: It seems to me that to fulfil the prophecies Bitcoin will either have to become completely regulated at the exchange level AND more or the community will have to stop living in the fantasy that the problem is solved and focus on innovating on the p2p exchange models. Bitcoin.de had a potentially working model before they paired with a bank and limited activity to german citizens alone (edit: limited to citizens of several EU countries, not just germany). Each user makes that transaction directly between their banks. Exchange only escrows BTC to ensure transaction and reputation. A better system could avoid the whole user verification entirely, or find ways to obtain additional trust without taking on the liability of enforcement.


do you remember the mid 90ies ? mobile phones were brand new. only gangsters/pimps/tv-celebrities were able to afford them. they would work only in major cities but not deep inside buildings, not out in the countryside.

you are actually complaining bitcoin hasn´t grown big enough yet.

but it will. 
CobaltBlueD
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 03:19:12 AM
 #65

I would phrase it slightly differently.  Bitcoin isn't good for exchanging fiat across geopolitical boundaries. I'm ok with that. Smooth movement in and out of fiat is a double edged sword.
BitchicksHusband
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 255


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 03:43:19 AM
 #66

I am sorry for your trouble. My experience is quite the opposite. I have been using Bitcoin for international transfer for several years now. Not for the sake of using it, but because it works better than alternatives.

When MtGox started having problems with Dwolla, I was forced to look around for another USD option, and Bitstamp has been great.

Things you complain about have nothing to do with Bitcoin technology, but with exchanges you are using and not using, and with the current state of adoption. It's like complaining that TCP-IP is broken because your internet provider sucks or because somebody infected your PC with a virus.

For what amounts have you had success with bitstamp?

your analogy is true but i'd propose another. I agree one day bitcoin could be great for FIAT transfer even at values greater than $1k but I'm bothered that at this stage people run around saying its great for this when at the moment its not. It would be like people in the early very 1990's saying "look you can buy anything online!" when in fact at that time there was next to nothing. So, I'm bothered that the statement is way to early and misleading to those looking for exactly the feature some claim is so widespread.

In the early 1990s you could not buy anything online.  I don't think I saw anything for sale online until at least 1996.

1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!