9 ms·

> ACH is infuriatingly slow. Tell me about it. > If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week pr

by nmrm 12y ago

> ACH is infuriatingly slow. Tell me about it. > If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior. Right. It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. OR the inherent risk to consumers which comes with lack of regulation. > The real benefit is time of transfer. To what extent does this benefit come from not being subject to regulation? (edit: not rhetorical; I've no idea) > If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior. But the check still arrives on Friday, so the benefit is really to the business rather than the employee. This negates the employee-centric benefits you mention in the next paragraph (pay day loans, credit cards, etc.) That is, unless the business is giving advances on payroll. But I think that's something companies don't do for reasons unrelated to choice of currency and transfer time. (edit: I suppose another alternative is that you could pay your employees more often because the process is cheaper and faster. That would be a big win. But I think other cash flows would in some cases prevent this from happening unless everything is done in BTC.) edit: Die off is a bit harsh? I don't want fiat->btc->fiat because it's just silly, but of course if btc causes reforms in the banking industry I sincerely hope btc companies make a huge amount of money in the process :-) edit2: Also, thanks for the link!

opinologo 12y ago
>> It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking Do you realize that your beloved banks caused the GFC and many huge financial scandals like the Libor in Europe or the HSBC money laundering in USA? There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC or any other cryptocurrency but the real issue here is who controls the money.
- nmrm 12y ago
  Strawman. I'm not advocating for large banks, and even specifically mention non-bank fiat->fiat cash transfer companies as a viable and even more likely alternative to BTC. > There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC Yes! Exactly! Bad Things Done By Banks is only an accidental benefit of BTC. If BTC becomes regulated and banks are the better equipped to deal with these regulations, then BTC becomes dominated by banks or de jure criminals. Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology.
  - opinologo 12y ago
    >>Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology. Disagreed, it should be solved/prevented by regulations / laws but it wasn't. BTC don't need regulations.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      > BTC don't need regulations. Yes, it does. For the same reason that any other mechanism for transferring arbitrary sums of money across international borders needs regulation. (It's also worth mentioning that I "bank", even international, with a small local credit union. So your choice between huge abusive banks and BTC is false.)
FatalLogic 12y ago
>It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. >If I just want to transfer some cash to someone, I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it. You've made that point twice in different comments, and I feel it has to be addressed. Firstly, the inefficiencies you've alluded to here are inefficiencies of the traditional banking system. Secondly, and most important, bitcoin IS money, it does not always have to be converted to something else. Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency. For example, if a person receives bitcoin and a store they want to use accepts bitcoin, then there is no need for an additional wasteful conversion step. And what if the store's suppliers also accept bitcoin or some of their staff are paid partly in bitcoin? What if these people are in different countries? Goodbye foreign currency exchange fees, remittance fees, bank charges. This goal may be unattainable, and the current situation is certainly far from it, but each time a company like Dell or Newegg announces it accepts bitcoin payments or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I don't think being paid 100% in bitcoin will be a good idea for most people any time soon, because they would just have to convert the bulk of it back to fiat currency. However, receiving a small percentage in bitcoin is quite practical in some places. A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. For example, have a look at https://spendabit.co https://spendabit.co and try searching for random products.
- nmrm 12y ago
  edit: TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems, not because we agree with the dominant ideology of early adopters. Setting aside politics, if the problems Bitcoin solves are easier and cheaper to solve with a simpler solution, then we should use the simpler solution. > Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency I mean, I started my post acknowledging these claims exist. So, you can interpret my comments as "suppose that the only justification for bitcoin is its utility as a transfer medium..." and leave political discussions in other threads. edit: also, this is totally appropriate for this thread, because in most states of the US, actually paying employees in bitcoin would not be legal and employees would need to convert back to usd to pay taxes, rent, food/bar tabs in most situations, etc. So, USD -> BTC -> USD is pretty clearly the intended use case for this product... > if a person receives bitcoin and a store The problem with foreign currency conversion isn't small amounts of cash for consumer transactions, at least in my experience. I can convert currency by using an ATM without thinking about it at a reasonable exchange rate, and the fees are often lower than what I would pay in the U.S. Ditto for online services, but even more so. The problem is larger amounts of cash, or transfers to third parties you won't visit in person. Queue discussion below. > A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. > or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I'm -- and I suspect most people in the world are -- more interested in the actual underlying pain points than broad-stroke discussions which invariably ground-out in political, ideological discussions about monetary policy. Ostensibly, personal opinion on national and international monetary policy isn't the best of standards for choosing a payroll provider. edit: also, that's where companies are focusing. For the obvious reason that political selling points, aren't. And more importantly, that's not how this product sells itself. Nor should it.

by nmrm 12y ago

opinologo 12y ago

>> It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking Do you realize that your beloved banks caused the GFC and many huge financial scandals like the Libor in Europe or the HSBC money laundering in USA? There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC or any other cryptocurrency but the real issue here is who controls the money.

nmrm 12y ago
Strawman. I'm not advocating for large banks, and even specifically mention non-bank fiat->fiat cash transfer companies as a viable and even more likely alternative to BTC. > There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC Yes! Exactly! Bad Things Done By Banks is only an accidental benefit of BTC. If BTC becomes regulated and banks are the better equipped to deal with these regulations, then BTC becomes dominated by banks or de jure criminals. Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology.
- opinologo 12y ago
  >>Financial scandals and banking reform are primarily a social and legal problem, and cannot be solved by technology. Disagreed, it should be solved/prevented by regulations / laws but it wasn't. BTC don't need regulations.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    > BTC don't need regulations. Yes, it does. For the same reason that any other mechanism for transferring arbitrary sums of money across international borders needs regulation. (It's also worth mentioning that I "bank", even international, with a small local credit union. So your choice between huge abusive banks and BTC is false.)

FatalLogic 12y ago

>It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. >If I just want to transfer some cash to someone, I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it. You've made that point twice in different comments, and I feel it has to be addressed. Firstly, the inefficiencies you've alluded to here are inefficiencies of the traditional banking system. Secondly, and most important, bitcoin IS money, it does not always have to be converted to something else. Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency. For example, if a person receives bitcoin and a store they want to use accepts bitcoin, then there is no need for an additional wasteful conversion step. And what if the store's suppliers also accept bitcoin or some of their staff are paid partly in bitcoin? What if these people are in different countries? Goodbye foreign currency exchange fees, remittance fees, bank charges. This goal may be unattainable, and the current situation is certainly far from it, but each time a company like Dell or Newegg announces it accepts bitcoin payments or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I don't think being paid 100% in bitcoin will be a good idea for most people any time soon, because they would just have to convert the bulk of it back to fiat currency. However, receiving a small percentage in bitcoin is quite practical in some places. A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. For example, have a look at https://spendabit.co https://spendabit.co and try searching for random products.

nmrm 12y ago
edit: TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems, not because we agree with the dominant ideology of early adopters. Setting aside politics, if the problems Bitcoin solves are easier and cheaper to solve with a simpler solution, then we should use the simpler solution. > Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency I mean, I started my post acknowledging these claims exist. So, you can interpret my comments as "suppose that the only justification for bitcoin is its utility as a transfer medium..." and leave political discussions in other threads. edit: also, this is totally appropriate for this thread, because in most states of the US, actually paying employees in bitcoin would not be legal and employees would need to convert back to usd to pay taxes, rent, food/bar tabs in most situations, etc. So, USD -> BTC -> USD is pretty clearly the intended use case for this product... > if a person receives bitcoin and a store The problem with foreign currency conversion isn't small amounts of cash for consumer transactions, at least in my experience. I can convert currency by using an ATM without thinking about it at a reasonable exchange rate, and the fees are often lower than what I would pay in the U.S. Ditto for online services, but even more so. The problem is larger amounts of cash, or transfers to third parties you won't visit in person. Queue discussion below. > A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. > or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I'm -- and I suspect most people in the world are -- more interested in the actual underlying pain points than broad-stroke discussions which invariably ground-out in political, ideological discussions about monetary policy. Ostensibly, personal opinion on national and international monetary policy isn't the best of standards for choosing a payroll provider. edit: also, that's where companies are focusing. For the obvious reason that political selling points, aren't. And more importantly, that's not how this product sells itself. Nor should it.