Someone posted a constructive criticism of BTC on econsultancy - comments?

[shamntalk]

Hi everyone,

Disclaimer: the below is NOT my post - it's from a user called "Philip Rooke" who posted what I consider to be a very constructive (but negative) comment regarding bitcoin's potentials for adoption.

Second disclaimer: Thing is, I love bitcoin but I can't find counter arguments to the guy. And the reason I'm interested in understand why he might be wrong is because I'm considering promoting bitcoin as part of my consultancy business. If a client comes to me with the list below, I'd be honest: I'd struggle.

Comments?



----- THIS IS NOT MY POST _ SEE http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/63620-will-bitcoin-have-a-positive-impact-on-ecommerce for the actual thread ----
The second is personal conjecture. I fail still fail to see why it is beneficial to consumers and therefore ecommerce. Credit cards, direct payment or other methods work well and cost the consumer nothing. Therefore I do not see why the average consumer will want to use it. If they do not see a compelling reason to adopt it then no retailer will. Therefore I do not think I will ever have to work with Bitcoin for my customers.

As a mass market retailer I tried to find 10 reasons as to why the average consumer might want to use Bitcoin:

1) Better security - but most customers are not unhappy with transaction security via existing methods, they live with risk. And those that are worried tend to shop with trusted brands to reduce the risk rather than move payment methods.

2) Zero % fraud - This is a retailer problem not a consumer one. Most credit cards offer fraud protection to consumers. The cost covered by the transactor and retailer, so the consumer does not care. Retailers cannot force consumers to use payment to suit their needs. I promise you that if I could reduce the 1% fraud on my business I would.

3) Lower costs - not to the consumer, very few retailers offer lower costs to non-credit card payers. Many are not allowed under their payment contracts. Other than tickets for events and travel it is rare to extra charges for credit cards and most consumers have debit cards.

4) Less complexity - hmmm so a consumer has to get another currency from their every day one and then try and work out the pricing. Well that will be easier.

5) Ideology or "sticking it to the man" - the mass market is "the man", works for the man or does not care. Therefore this will always make it a minority issue.

6) Taking out the middle man - only has an advantage if the consumer gets a lower cost or cares about "sticking it to the middle-man"

7) Speed of transaction - the average consumer does not care. "I make a payment I get my product. I guess the money gets there in the end". If you are transferring large enough amounts that interest over a 24 hour transaction becomes a problem them yes this may be of interest. But this has only happened 2 times in my life when buying or selling a company, and simple methods exist to deal with it, this is not mass market.

No regulating tax authority - but most consumers pay income tax from salary and buy goods from VAT tax paying retailers. Perhaps some self employed people might like the idea but then the companies who pay them still have to declare payments. So only tax avoiding rich or criminals will care.

9) e-wallet - this ideas I like but I have seen plenty of evidence that people are using paypal as a wallet. And in the last decade their have been 1000s of attempts to get to critical mass on e-wallets. The people who win here will be mobile phone billers who can use the phone as a wallet and have the consumer already. I bet on Vodafone or O2 over Bitcoin.

10) Accepted globally. I have to over 40 countries in my life and never had a problem with Visa or Mastercard. For personal reasons I have had to send money to Tanzania, Ethopia and Cambodia but standard cheap banking systems have never been a problem. So only useful if you are trying to do business in very strange places. Again not mass market.

So in the end Bitcoin seems to be a system that will work for tax avoiding rich who are anti-establishment and need to send money to really difficult places. Being ironic it sounds like rich public school boys on their year off before university. But it is not mass market.

I receive 100s of requests a month from consumers and our ecommerce platform sellers wanting Amazon checkout and payment. We have yet to have one for Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin is not mass market then it will be of little use to ecommerce retailers and platforms. And that was the title of my thought opinion.

Again I am more than happy to be proved wrong. But I want to see and argument for mass market usage. If you are hunting for ideas also look up Beenz, Flooz and Speedbucks.

Phil
----------------------- The above is not my intellectual property - post is at http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/63620-will-bitcoin-have-a-positive-impact-on-ecommerce --------

[Rannasha]

Several of the points involve lower costs, where the poster claims that since these don't affect consumers, consumers won't care.

And while the cost-picture is indeed often hidden from consumers the costs are still there and in the low-margin business of most online retail (and plenty of offline retail as well), a 1.5%-3% credit card fee is far from negligible. This cost is simply added to the price in a non-transparant way (except for the few retailers that offer different prices depending on payment method) or the cost is countered by cost-cutting elsewhere (such as reduction of customer-service / support).

In a free market, if one part of the merchants accept bitcoins and another part does not, the part that accepts bitcoins will be able to offer better prices to its customers while keeping the same profit margin. Just because the consumers don't see the cost-advantage directly, doesn't mean it's not there.

[coins101]

If you want to access traditional banking services:

1. banks have to like you
2. you have to be a model citizen and have a good credit score
3. you have to live in a country where there is a banking system
4. banking is subsidized by the high penalty charges they make on people that can least afford them

The mass market, around 70% of the world's population, doesn't have the benefit of getting a credit card or bank account. Now they can skip a generation of infrastructure investment and go straight to Bitcoin or any other coin with a mobile phone and a coin wallet.

[AnonyMint]

The mass market, around 70% of the world's population, doesn't have the benefit of getting a credit card or bank account. Now they can skip a generation of infrastructure investment and go straight to Bitcoin or any other coin with a mobile phone and a coin wallet.

And nearly none of them have the savvy or ability. You won't be zapping your Android wallet to the lady selling fish in the wet market in a 3rd world country even within 5 years. There is simply no compelling reason for them to do so. The transactions would be much too slow any way. Have you ever seen how fast the market vendor chops, dispenses, and cashiers multi-tasking. And then you expect them to slow down to put their wet stinky fingers on their smart phone and then wait 10 minutes for a 1-confirmation transaction.

Reality check!

Some internet businesses we can't do now because of the model of credit cards. One of these might have the potential to drive Bitcoin adoption. I have some ideas specifically in mind, but I am holding them close to my chest.

[subcoin]

Credit cards, direct payment or other methods work well and cost the consumer nothing. Therefore I do not see why the average consumer will want to use it. If they do not see a compelling reason to adopt it then no retailer will.

Here lies the entire premise of his argument that consumers do not see any significant benefits; therefore, retailers won't use it.
But I do not agree with that. Bitcoins provide significant benefits to retailers and some will adopt it just because of those benefits.
Philip Rooke seems to equate consumers to e-commerce.
While, in reality, e-commerce has a second, equally significant part - merchants.
Currently merchants are being "dominated" by the system, while consumers are being babied and protected. 
I believe, it will be merchants who will drive the Bitcoin adaptation.
If Bitcoin becomes as easy to use as Paypal, it will be be adopted by consumers.

P.S. I agree with his points that, from the consumer point of view, Bitcoin is a "pain-in-the-ass" to use.
And it would seem there are really no benefits, but just drawbacks to using it.

[jubalix]

remittance fees overseas

have you seen the western union and forex rates?

[BitDreams]

1) Better security - I will accept personal responsibility for my own security because of the super-bitcoin-powers granted me for taking on those risks. If you don't understand what those super-powers are now you will later.

2) Zero % fraud - As is cash.

3) Lower costs - NO FEES! No loans, no credit. No debt. No marketing. No collectors. No bills. No poop. Hey, what's this I've actually managed to build up a bit of savings, what do you know.

4) Less complexity - much room for improvement, but things are getting better every day.

5) Ideology or "sticking it to the man" - duuuuuuh.

6) Taking out the middle man - duuuuuuuh.

7) Speed of transaction - Gives one time to think about a major cash transaction doesn't it? Room for improvement.

Cool No regulating tax authority - False. See your local tax laws.

9) e-wallet - open source is the only thing that can be trusted. Hey would you mind peeling that tape off the lens on your phone there so I can get a good look at you?

10) Accepted globally -  

[AnonyMint]

Currently merchants are being "dominated" by the system, while consumers are being babied and protected.  

Now imagine the merchants are the consumers. Then you see where I am headed with this.