HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submitlogin

Genuine question - why would someone hold bitcoin for regular, everyday purchases?

The buying power is all over the place.



This has tradfi banking ramps. You don't need to hold it. You can treat BTC as basically a payment network instead of something like the visa/mastercard cartel.


This was thr original intent of thr Satoshi paper, except BTC is probably the worst payment network you can think about, which is why it failed to gain any use as such over the past 18 years…


I sent a transfer from the UAE to Spain and another one to the Netherlands. They took 5 days and 7 days respectively. The same transfer takes 10 minutes in Bitcoin. You don't do transfers to pay for stuff at the grocery store, the same way you would not pay using the Bitcoin network. You would use lightning network, which takes less than 2 seconds finality.


That usage is not a generic payment usage. This is a use case it is good for. But if 8 billion people should use Bitcoin for their everyday shopping, that is a totally different case...


Wire transfer is better?


Way to not read the comment. Or at least understand it. Nobody uses wire transfer for "everyday shopping".


Well you wouldn't use Bitcoin itself to exchange on, you'd use side layers like Lightning payments for the near instantaneous exchange which then gets aggregated into one of the upcoming blocks.

MasterCard was around in the 1950's, in 2026 they do not still use the same method of exchanging money as they did back then and have had to make big changes to their systems as time has gone on, Bitcoin does the same thing except it's not controlled by a banking cartel but by all it's userbase.


> except it's not controlled by a banking cartel but by all it's userbase.

Bitcoin is absolutely not controlled by its user base, but by another cartel (made of mining pools and exchanges). You, as a user have literally no say in any decisions taken by bitcoin except voting with your feet, which is exactly what you're suggesting against Visa & MasterCard's (which aren't banks by the way…)


The exchanges and miners do have a large influence, but the node runners (the users) have a voice as well. The node runners can get together, and refuse to peopogate the blocks of of the miners/exchanges that are being bad actors (BIP 148 for example) and also (BIP 110) that's currently making the rounds.

If a large enough percentage of the node runners need refuses to propogate a block from a bad actor, then another miner can mine the same block and get the reward.


Worst for whom?

Lack of chargeback risk seems nice for businesses.


Only if they're on the receiving end. You need to remember that businesses also buy things, and often by credit card.

Chargebacks exist in the real world because long, long ago people recognized that electronic payment systems are fertile soil for scammers. The "lack of chargeback risk" that cryptobros keep chirping about is nowhere near the flex they think it is.


This! And this is why the “crypto” world is full of scams and heists, in a way that anyone with a brain could have foreseen from the start.


It's a flex when you compare it to a government based currency where the bank or government can freeze your bank accounts or just empty it. Plenty of stories from The USA and Canada from the last decade of that very thing being done.


Sure. The vast majority of those stories being the freezing of proceeds from criminal activity or funds that are part of a legal dispute and for which there is a high probability that the holder of those funds will attempt to illegally hide or move those funds.

Again, this is by design. Such safeguards exist for a good reason. They are tools that are as necessary as a policeman's gun. Yes, they are tools that can be (and have been) abused and for which there should also be guardrails and oversight in place. But saying that crypto is better than "government based currency" because crypto has no such safeguards in place is the same thing as saying Wal Mart security officers are better than police officers because they don't carry guns. It is a naive thought at best.


It comes down to how much you trust the government, central banks, and the institutions of power, especially post Epstein and COVID.


As much as some amount of defiance towards contemporary governments is warranted, believing that the crypto world is more trustworthy is an insane take. Especially post MtGox and all what followed…

The Epstein class and the Bankman-Fried class are the same people (and don't get fooled by their patronyms, it has nothing to do with Jews, and all to do with the American elite). And Trump is both an friend of Epstein and a proponent of cryptocurrencies.


Meanwhile with cryptocurrencies you have the choice between getting blocked by your exchange or losing your wallet (from your own negligence or a hack)


Not all that different from losing your physical wallet with your ID and debit card or giving your bank info to a Nigerian Prince.

Pick your poison, do you trust corrupt institutions or yourself more.


Dude.

You lose your wallet, you make a few phone calls or walk into a bank and get a new card. You lose very little more than some time. Losing your crypto key means you lose your crypto.

Those are not at all the same thing.


“I trust my midwit brain rather than the institutions that makes the modern world work” really isn't the flex you think it is.


> Institutions that make the modern world

The same institutions that caused the 2008 crash, the same institutions that in the last 5 years have printed 50% more of the total US dollar supply, the institutions that keep the poorest and lowest classes perpetually poor and stuck by constantly inflating their savings away?

Yes, I think I will trust Bitcoin and my hardware wallet more.


> The same institutions that caused the 2008 crash

You rightly call that a “crash” that is nowhere near the scale of the regular bitcoin price fluctuations!

> that in the last 5 years have printed 50% more of the total US dollar supply,

Better trust an ecosystem that has created an endless amount of virtual money over the past 15 years instead then…

> the institutions that keep the poorest and lowest classes perpetually poor

Did you miss the fact that you now need an entire data center worth of specialized hardware to mine bitcoin? It was supposed to be a democratic hacker currency that anyone can mine, yet it is entirely controlled by a handful of hyperscalers… Pretty much no individual can even hold a full bitcoin now, talk about keeping people poor.

> I think I will trust Bitcoin and my hardware wallet more.

Delusional.


Until customers don't want to but because they are afraid they have no way to get their money back if anything goes wrong.

(Chargeback exists for a reason, and the reason isn't to piss off businesses).


It's nice to have the option either way, but if merchants offer irreversible methods I usually pick them rather than pay a 1+% premium to cover chargebacks from scammer customers. For some customers irreversible is a big plus, if they trust the merchant.


afaict, the main advantages of buying things with crypto are (potentially) lower transaction fees and latencies, and less red tape restricting who can buy what from whom. If you use a "tradfi onramp", doesn't it negate all of that? Why not just use tradfi all the way, for that transaction?


Even if you're willing to operate fully in the "tradfi" system, your counterparty might not be, and you still want their business.


There is no requirement to use the tradfi ramps. It is merely offered as an option. But as it pertains to banking in the USA, a couple differentiating qualities I will offer before the goalposts will inevitably be shifted yet again to damn my response

1) Settlement time (wires only sporadically free in US, plus usually settle slower)

2) Irreversibility.

3) The tradfi ramps, if used, only have to be OK with crypto ramp, rather than the whole host of underlying transactions. It is conceivable some banks will tolerate crypto while not tolerating, say, directly handling a particular transaction.

4) Lowered friction for international transaction

5) One or both sides can be unbanked.


> (potentially) lower transaction fees

Citation needed. I'm looking at the transaction fees for lightning network and they are in the range of FedNow or RTP.

For Bitcoin it's not even close.


Someone who doesn't have good fiat rails like third-world countries. Or people who just don't want to be part of the fiat system. Or both.


Yes, it goes up and down. Fiat currency only goes down. It's a lot more fungible than stocks.


People in other countries trying to buy stuff from US ecommerce sites. A number of payment processors really don't care about them, and simply will not let customers from there buy using a credit card.


Just this week I couldn't purchase from Walmart.ca with a CAD denominated card for delivery to Canada, because my billing address was not in Canada or the US.


I was talking to someone running an ecommerce site, they also run their own lighning nodes and there's many reasons:

- High risk customers that the shop can accept if there's no chargeback option. For these users that are excluded from many ecommerce shops that's a good option and they are willing to jump through some hoops

- Customers from countries that are restricted from using VISA / Mastercard

- People from countries with active sanctions against.


> with active sanctions against.

Wouldn't that be breaking the law selling to them?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: