Stop saying Bitcoin is good for money transfer. It isn't.

[gurcani]

I think not many people would claim that bitcoin is a good way to transfer "dollars/euros/yens/turkish liras" etc. Especially trying to do this by going through the exchanges, is a really bad idea. So I don't know who you are telling to "stop".

But bitcoin is a great way to transfer "money". Probably the best one out there.

I did this with a friend in Turkey. He did some service to me and I made him setup a wallet and sent him bitcoins. At the time bitcoin was about $50.

He asked me "but how do I turn them into Turkish Liras?". I said "that's a bad idea, but If you want, you can always send them back to me, and I will send you euros at the current exchange rates to your bank account. Of course It will take weeks, and all the fees, conversion rates etc. are your problem".

instead I showed him how he can buy stuff from bitmit, or how he can find a local buyer etc. if he needs TRY's.

In the end he decided to keep the bitcoins. Now he still has them, they are worth more than twice their value when I sent them. I can't imagine any other method that would have worked better than this for both of us.

[1714786414]

1714786414

[1714786414]

1714786414

[1714786414]

1714786414

[Come-from-Beyond]

Bitcoin is, in fact, a fantastic way of transferring value.

While u r waiting for a confirmation this value can gain or lose 10% due to high volatility. Fantastic, indeed.

[Melbustus]

Bitcoin is, in fact, a fantastic way of transferring value. It's just that your family member apparently denominated his/her investment terms in dollars, not BTC.

In the 17th centry tulips were also a great way to transfer wealth as well. For the foreseeable future most will need BTC>FIAT exchange.

do not ever user tulips when comparing to bitcoins. that is honestly a very stupid irrelevant comparison that gets tossed way too much. why not just talk about some other irrelevant item like sea shells or shark's teeth.
you have valid points - you are right it  isn't the easiest to do today

however, just don't bring up tulips. thank you

Then I would also request people not use arguments that require a purely bitcoin world where all of a business or persons costs are denominated in this. It makes only as much sense as the tulip comparison I used as a response to it

That's not true at all. The absurd tulip analogy is a completely different domain (store of value) than transfer of value. You state that your thread is about transfer of value. But you're actually wrong about that... Your thread is about currency conversion. Since we're putting in requests, mine is that you understand this distinction and re-phrase your argument accordingly. Also, I request that you try not to engage in irrelevant sensationalist ignorant comparisons.

[STT]

He doesnt even need to transfer the BTC just tell his uncle over the phone the password.  His uncle then assumes control of that account immediately

[tskweres]

Don't forget that Bitcoin is what....5 years old? It will get better over time as the infrastructure, companies, and services surrounding it improve.

[Pale Phoenix]

"Stop saying Bitcoin is good for money transfer. It isn't."

Your title is misleading. You are talking about large, corporate sized funds transfer, when the market Bitcoin is most poised to disrupt is the small transfer remittance business. The small remittance business is massive, and the costs of transfer are large, and growing, because many banks don't even want to deal with remittance companies thanks to money laundering panic.

Bitcoin is not designed to replace the SWIFT system for corporate payments, and I don't think too many have suggested that it has any chance of doing so.

[vongesell]

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.

[shirokuma]

If you have interest, please read this:
http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

12.Conclusion
" We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. "

That is most important of bitcoin's concept.

As you say, Large amount ($3K~) transaction is not comfortable for non-bank wire.
But all of people knows that.
You don't need worry.

[AndrewWilliams]

Nothing wrong with bitcoin, there just appears to be a problem with converting them to cold, hard cash.

As the bitcoin ecosystem grows, so will the ability to do large cashouts.

[vongesell]

That's not true at all. The absurd tulip analogy is a completely different domain (store of value) than transfer of value. You state that your thread is about transfer of value. But you're actually wrong about that... Your thread is about currency conversion. Since we're putting in requests, mine is that you understand this distinction and re-phrase your argument accordingly. Also, I request that you try not to engage in irrelevant sensationalist ignorant comparisons.

got it. analogies are bad in general. i only meant that you response that the issue was myself or family member were denominating things in FIAT was the source of my problem with transfer/exchange delays... is true, but sadly because I live in a FIAT world I can't remove that problem for now.

[vongesell]

He doesnt even need to transfer the BTC just tell his uncle over the phone the password.  His uncle then assumes control of that account immediately

And then what, how does he get that BTC to the share holders whom are probably expecting FIAT? In the answer to that we are back at square one: solving the huge latency and burden when wanting to go from BTC to FIAT.

[vongesell]

Dealing with fiat (especially as the amount increases) is always a pain in the ass. Don't blame Bitcoin, but thank the various regulators for keeping you safe!

Indeed true. Sadly the investment wont wait for the regulators to get their act together.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Transferring $50,000 to Japan via BTC/MtGox is a snap if you have trusted status. The problem is local regulations in various countries, and the exchange infrastructure, not Bitcoin itself.

[600watt]

Bitcoin is, in fact, a fantastic way of transferring value.

While u r waiting for a confirmation this value can gain or lose 10% due to high volatility. Fantastic, indeed.

what is your motivation ? you don´t like it, why do you waste your time telling others ?

[Stephen Gornick]

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.

There is no reason this isn't Bitcoin in the future.  However, today, in most areas your assessment of the current state of Bitcoin's utility for transfer of fiat money is valid.  Where bank wire transactions complete in under a full day and fees are relatively trivial (for large amounts), Bitcoin is no real competition just yet.

But try sending a wire on Saturday.   Try sending a wire to the billions of people who are unbanked.  Try sending a wire to (most anywhere of) the developing world.  That's why there is today hawala (or hundi) in a pretty large chunk of the world yet.

In those areas, bitcoin can be very good for money transfer.   Even there, it isn't (yet).    But it can be.    With the advantages Bitcoin offers, (essentially no fees and fast settlement) there's good reason to believe it will be used for money transfer in the future.   Those using it that way today are not complaining.   Mang Sweeney's customers who regularly send funds to family members in the Philippines aren't jumping ship to a competing service.  Bitcoin works for them.

Now remember, for money transfer outside the banking system (e.g., Western Union), Bitcoin has the advantage where traditional money transfer has the biggest challenge.    A Western Union needs agents on the sender's side as well as at the recipient's side.  That's a very expensive method to send fiat funds internationally.   With Bitcoin there isn't an international fiat transaction. There are instead two domestic transactions.  Those can be cheap.    Buying bitcoins in one country can cost less than 1% (e.g., via Dwolla USD transfer to Camp BX), and selling bitcoins in another country can cost a trivial amount as well.

Since there is a potential for profit in providing bitcoin exchange, this street-level exchange (versus Western Union agent offices) can happen without a large financial company like Western Union offering it.  Individuals can compete against Western Union by providing exchange at the street level.   They will network and larger traders will broker bitcoins, providing a way for the street-level traders to replenish their inventory of cash.  

Everything needed to make this happen is there, it just emerges slowly when there is no marketing effort and/or subsidy to build the "street level" exchange network.  There is enough profit in the money transfer industry though to ensure that a Bitcoin avenue will exist.  Check back in a few years, you will likely be very surprised with Bitcoin's progress in this area.

[Keyser Soze]

The problem you are describing is not really a fault of bitcoin's design, but that most of the world does not accept it in normal transactions. This can be a problem with any currency, however the current global banking system has the infrastructure to handle most currency exchange issues. This, of course, comes with a cost that bitcoin tries to reduce or eliminate.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are still a relatively new concept, a concept that clashes with the existing financial system. If bitcoin continues to succeed then we will see the infrastructure grow along with it. Unfortunately it will probably take some time for bitcoin to become easily traded with fiat, especially in large quantities.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Bitcoin is, in fact, a fantastic way of transferring value.

While u r waiting for a confirmation this value can gain or lose 10% due to high volatility. Fantastic, indeed.

what is your motivation ? you don´t like it, why do you waste your time telling others ?

It's the only way to the perfect coin -- discussion.

[doof]

I don't get this thread.  I asked for money, sent my btc address, they sent me funds.  Seems a bloody good way to transfer money.

[TitanBTC]

I have to agree with OP on his points.  I've tried to do larger investment deal with BTC and its rare to get any takers.  The conclusion though should be that wherever there is pain, there is opportunity.  We don't need to apologize for crypto-currency being in its relative infancy.  We need to see the opportunities it presents and work to make them a reality.

Those that see opportunities and act on them to make bitcoins more practical (for use as investments or wealth storage or everyday purchasing) are those that will be at the helm of a fundamental shift in the banking industry. 

[Kouye]

...

Just post one of your public keys, and I'll show you how easy it is to use bitcoins to transfer wealth.