[2014-01-01] Techcrunch:Why I Lost Faith In Bitcoin As A Money Transfer Protocol

[bitbouillion]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/01/why-i-lost-faith-in-bitcoin-as-a-money-transfer-protocol/

Overall, it was a painful experience, even more painful than using traditional foreign exchange services. But more importantly, I don’t see how I could trust Bitcoin as a money transfer protocol with such a high volatility.

What have exchange services and price volatility to do with the bitcoin protocol? His complaint is outright stupid.

[TraderTimm]

Techcrunch is becoming the Gizmodo of article-writers.

Seriously, its all clickbait idiocy.

[odolvlobo]

I think his complaint about the risk of volatility due to the time it takes to do the end to end transfer is valid. However, he should be complaining about the banking system and not bitcoin. 99% of his time was spent waiting for the banking system.

[Peter R]

His article considered moving money between the US and France as a fiat->bitcoin->fiat transaction.  This is a version of the "international remittance" problem we promote as one of the killer apps for bitcoin.  

Two notes:

1.  He tried to do this all manually, and therefore had to spend some effort to 'set everything up' and he also had to accept some currency exchange risk.  For bitcoin to succeed in this application, we need to wait for the 'BitPay of Remittance' to enter the scene (or build it!).  At this point, the remittance service will absorb the volatility risk while still performing the transaction cheaper, faster, and easier than the legacy system.

2.  In a more distant Bitcoin Economy, international remittance is just a bitcoin->bitcoin transfer.  At this point, the process is indistinguishable from sending 9 mBTC to pay for your burger.  

[hacknoid]

His article considered moving money between the US and France as a fiat->bitcoin->fiat transaction.  This is a version of the "international remittance" problem we promote as one of the killer apps for bitcoin.  

Two notes:

1.  He tried to do this all manually, and therefore had to spend some effort to 'set everything up' and he also had to accept some currency exchange risk.  For bitcoin to succeed in this application, we need to wait for the 'BitPay of Remittance' to enter the scene (or build it!).  At this point, the remittance service will absorb the volatility risk while still performing the transaction cheaper, faster, and easier than the legacy system.

2.  In a more distant Bitcoin Economy, international remittance is just a bitcoin->bitcoin transfer.  

Or use an ATM and deposit fiat directly to the recipient's wallet.  Done.

[kjlimo]

A fair argument that we need a rebuttle for.  Some offer semisolutions here, but there is definitely opportunity for western union to reduce fees (or a competitor to enter the market)

I'd love to hear of a successful experience and how people like this & reduce currency risk as much as possible. Any first hand experience?

[Lethn]

LOL! He used Coinbase, that's his problem right there, not the Bitcoin protocol, these people really are clueless, I've been seeing quite a number of complaints about these guys on the boards, he also didn't take into account how much of a pain in the arse the verification process would be either, but of course no, he blames Bitcoin, it can't possibility be the fault of all those systems involving fiat.

If he had tried a different service that people spoke well of or better yet bought Bitcoins in person through localbitcoins he would have a much more different experience.