Topic: Can we just stop with the block size panic crap? (Read 3918 times)

Limit order is not specially difficult for any normal user

Yeah! I agree with you. If we keep this block size panic issue many investors will run away so it will not be good for Bitcoin. We need to start this crap panic and start to present real measures

Wow.  You must be really stupid to not realize most of people's income isn't disposable.

I do encourage them to try to save a little bit.

Wow. You must have some really stupid co-workers. Who would sell their Bitcoin with halving just around the corner? You should really introduce them to Bitcoin.

On the Chinese side of things it is very simple (and of course free) to open up an account with one of the major Chinese exchanges (identity verification will take maybe one day) and you can then connect a Chinese bank account (from any of the major banks) to your exchange account (it will only cost around 10 RMB to open up a bank account assuming you want a debit card).

Typically the withdrawal fee is 0.5% (with minimum withdrawal amounts typically set at 200 RMB) so unless the sender is copping a lot for purchasing Bitcoin it is a very simple and cheap method for paying Chinese.

Note that it will generally take around 2 days to complete the RMB withdrawal after receiving the BTC deposit.

Last time I sent a TT from Australia I believe it cost 30 AUD (which from memory was the minimum fee) and it also took a couple of days so if I was an Australian wanting to pay Chinese in RMB even I could only get BTC for 10-20% over the current exchange prices it would be cheaper to use Bitcoin for small amounts (say around 100 AUD) than to use TT (and I am assuming that other methods such as WU would not be much cheaper).

What average person using Bitcoin will use a limit order or become a localbitcoins dealer to send a few bucks to their kids. No one sees the value in Bitcoin for the occasional send of cash.

19 millions users, that's nice but it's a bit far-fetched to talk about a goal in a market where BTC still hardly exists. I prefer to set an objective in terms of transactions per hour, or per day. We should focus on what needs to be done to allow the number of transactions to grow ten-fold.

So that's 2 millions per day, or perhaps 100,000 transactions per hour. With the coffee issue set aside, so the 10 minutes delay isn't a problem.

Most of my workers are Filipina.

I buy coins on coinbase, pay
them for their services, and
they sell the coins back
to their bank account on coins.ph.
Each worker has their own account
on coins.ph

A few other workers in other countries
use local sites to do the same.

Yep, it really is that simple.
Coinbase even provides a
report I can give to my
accountant at the end
of the year for any realized
P/L based on bitcoin price fluctuations in
between the time I bought the coins
and when they are paid out.

If you use limit order on exchanges, you can even make some money when you do such conversion. This is especially true when you are a dealer on localbitcoins, you will gain 2-3% at least on both ends   

That's exactly what I've been saying for years. Bitcoin isn't cheaper to use than other services because of the exchange cost in to and out of local currencies.

If you start talking about intelligent people sending money then it's a different story. I have some Chinese friends that regularly send money home to China. My friend and his family in China have a joint account at the Industrial and Commerical Bank of China (ICBC). When he wants to send money he deposits it in his ICBC account and his family immediately goes to their local branch in China and withdraws it - ZERO FEE. He tells me it costs more to call his family and tell them the money is there than it costs to send it. I had no luck convincing him to use Bitcoin.

We can all do this using this free method (which I do regularly). Log into the Bill Pay section of your online account services, and add the intended recipient as a new payee. You will need to enter the contact details including name, address and phone number of the organization or individual you wish to pay. Schedule a payment. Once you have chosen a payee, enter the amount you wish to pay and the date on which it should be received. It is also possible to set up an automatic, standing payment.

rebit.ph model was not really where bitcoin remittance should go..
by being the company that takes in dollars and the same company that gives out the peso, means there was no need for their internal data center to use bitcoin. apart from saving a little bit of money on datacentre needs

and having kiosks set up to take in the cash at both sides was extra costs/ spread variance..

but, if there were independent bitcoin brokers who only charge 0.5% spread, where buying btc and selling it would cost 1% total

meaning
where WU charges $10 (50% on a $20 transfer, or 20% on a $50 transfer, 10% on $100 transfer) people can send
$10 via bitcoin and only cost $0.10c
$20 via bitcoin and only cost $0.20c
$50 via bitcoin and only cost $0.50c
$100 via bitcoin and only cost $1

it would make it worth while to use bitcoin for amounts under $1000, ... which is the amounts most people send (small value).

but as i said, the problem is not with bitcoin.. as its proven to be cheaper to run bitcoin as oppose to a different datacentre model with all its programmers, security and it guys.
the problem is the spreads at either side.

so although many can see the dream of sending $10 to the Philippines and it only costing 10c... the reality is that independent brokers wont want to work or have the risks of fraud when handling cash for just 0.5% profit

This!

On the subject of remittance, here's some insight from the guy who was part of rebit.ph, probably most successful bitcoin remittance company:

https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.yfjxzpqik

tl;dr: it doesn't make it much cheaper but it helps to circumvent SWIFT network. But on the other hand, SWIFT doesn't really sit idle and recently announced major improvements (blockchain technology):

http://realworldchange.swift.com/GPI.cfm?rdct=t

So again, focusing only on remittance sounds like pretty bad idea imo.

can you explain to some of the younger bitcoiners what platforms you use to do the fiat-btc-fiat that ends up being cheaper than WU, as that would help people to teach others of how they should be remitting, as oppose to using WU

I happen to use bitcoin for remittances and suspect more companies will follow suit when they learn about the savings! 

Is this the proper metric? Remittance is a use case, sure, but for me, bitcoin's principle use case is as decentralized (robust and censorship-free) cash and store of value. Gauging adoption isn't necessarily that easy. But more importantly, adoption comes in a distant second place to engineering concerns regarding scalability (i.e. scale vs. scalability).

These are interesting statements, now replace your oyster shells to cyberspace cubes. These cyberspace cubes are value containers, they can contain enormous amount of value, and the value inside those cubes keeps growing every year. When you want to spend, you only need to locate your nearest local dealer to exchange value streams in those cubes to your local currency. Feel the difference?  

never said the blocksize is preventing remittance.. i said that by not scaling it is hindering new potential..

potential for more people to happily transact without having their transactions bottleneck for an hour
potential for people to transact without being arm twisted into paying a 4cent fee
potential for millions of people to transact to buy simply things from webstores on a regular bases
potential for many alternative uses

i think what is hindering remittance is that people either need to sign their life story away to exchanges just for a 1-2% spread when moving fiat, or pay 9% to use independent brokers on o-t-c or localbitcoins, so the user friendliness and costs are hindering remittance

People are not "not using" Bitcoin for remittance due to scaling (the average person wouldn't even understand this topic).

If you increased the block size by 10x I seriously doubt you'll see any further progress in the Bitcoin remittance area (as that is not what is stopping it).

i dont treat it as panic.. but more so.. frustration that scaling for new 'potential' is stagnant

As Bitcoin is currently responsible for practically zero remittance txs then I guess it has quite a lot of time to scale up (so we don't have a "panic" situation in regards to the block size due to the remittance market).

If you think that I am wrong then please post proof of the huge amount of remittance that Bitcoin is currently doing.