Topic: BTC as a transfer medium only (Read 762 times)
I support this idea, it could be very convinient to trabsfer money if only there will be more atm all over the world
I was thinking about the future of BTC and I wonder if its near-term utility will be as an irreversible medium of transfer. Basically a replacement for the wire transfer.
That's what DigiCash. DigiCash, invented by David Chaum, was the predecessor of Bitcoin. Chaum solved the double-spending problem and the change problem, which Bitcoin copies. Bitcoin adds mining and miners as guarantors of the block chain. DigiCash was centralized. Because it was centralized, DigiCash could use existing currencies. The central service would convert anonymous DigiCash to and from some other currency at fixed rates. DigiCash almost made it big, but Chaum blew deals with Goldman Sachs, ING, and Microsoft. One source says that Microsoft wanted to put DigiCash in Windows 95. They were thinking micropayments; a way to send a few cents or dollars cheaply.
What sort of infrastructure would allow BTC to be more than a transfer medium?
The way I see it, until the bitcoin infrastructure (as well as stability of the price) is ripe for the average person / mainstream adoption, it will end up filling niches like this where it already excels. At the very least, I see money transfer services like Western Union being replaced by bitcoin in the near term, near-to-long term I definitely think it'd be interesting to see it replace the wire transfer. Banks would have a lot to gain and not much to lose by incorporating it
I was thinking about the future of BTC and I wonder if its near-term utility will be as an irreversible medium of transfer. Basically a replacement for the wire transfer. It isn't going to replace any national currency any time soon and to be honest, most people (and probably most large companies) aren't up to the task of keeping it safe.
I could see banks becoming more like exchanges and exchanges becoming more like banks. Banks add BTC markets and exchanges add fiat handling with FDIC insurance (in the US). We can count on that being regulated of course. So you log into your bank/exchange and send fiat to whoever, and your bank/exchange transparently converts your fiat to BTC, transfers it to the receiver, and the receiver's bank/exchange transparently converts the BTC to fiat.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-cryptos all the way. But under this scenario, what's the point of anyone holding large amounts of it (unless you're trying to stay under the radar)? I would think it's better to keep your wealth in FDIC-insured fiat.
I could see banks becoming more like exchanges and exchanges becoming more like banks. Banks add BTC markets and exchanges add fiat handling with FDIC insurance (in the US). We can count on that being regulated of course. So you log into your bank/exchange and send fiat to whoever, and your bank/exchange transparently converts your fiat to BTC, transfers it to the receiver, and the receiver's bank/exchange transparently converts the BTC to fiat.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-cryptos all the way. But under this scenario, what's the point of anyone holding large amounts of it (unless you're trying to stay under the radar)? I would think it's better to keep your wealth in FDIC-insured fiat.
Jump to: