How many orders of magnitude more is the number of transactions supported by the existing financial system?
Visa alone can process 24,000 transactions per second. Bitcoin can handle 7
Visa alone can process 24,000 transactions per second. Bitcoin can handle 7
Fedwire, the settlement system operated by the Federal Reserve, processed 196 million settlements in 2022, each about $5.4 million, for a total of over $1,000 trillion. [1] That would be about 16 settlements per second. Visa handles many more smaller, individual transactions; aggregates and nets them; and uses Fedwire to settle them between member banks.
Bitcoin could be used in a similar manner, handling a relatively small number of larger settlements; leaving other systems to handle smaller, individual transactions.
[0] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/about-visa/documents/ab...
[1] https://www.frbservices.org/resources/financial-services/wir...
That’s what Lightning does but it also removes most of the sales pitch for the system since you’re giving up the global ledger. Once you’re relying on a bank in all but name for your transactions, it’s unclear what you’re getting for the extra cost and lower usability.
Their volume is impressive.
I do think it’s important to have healthy alternative financial systems. Probably need a more energy efficient one.
Crypto could arguably become a potential alternative financial system. Bitcoin by itself is not.
Crime is primarily conducted in USD (by volume). The purpose of financial compliance is not to eliminate crime but to manage it, and arguably the techniques we have used to create exclusionary financial systems have done more harm than good (better the terrorist you know in your financial system than the terrorist who doesn’t even use your financial system that you don’t have any awareness of, aka. The Patriot Act missed the mark).
Further, the existing system is working about as well as the war on drugs. Every recommendation I have read is to find ways to shore it up, rather than find new ways to conduct financial crimes oversight, and the primary recommendation for the resulting inevitable escalation is to build a gigantic skynet of information sharing that looks an awful lot like surveillance capitalism.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/...
I personally view Bitcoin as a runaway proof-of-concept. It’s rather insane how successful it’s become considering how it got started.
If we look at it from a product / market fit perspective, there is clearly a product / market fit. And that’s in the face of the intact existing financial system, Visa’s volume, the USD, etc. That’s probably a point worth considering.
1. Not saying that banks are great here, but that better isn’t an impossibly high bar.
You could have said the same thing about it the early financial system as well.
What you have is a developed ecosystem and a developing ecosystem, and you’re pointing to the developed ecosystem and saying the developing one doesn’t have all the things. Of course it doesn’t. It’s developing. And it’s doing it in spite of the existing financial system trying to damage or destroy it periodically.
Let’s not confuse the technology innovation we’re referring for the mature ecosystem of a graduated and dominant financial ecosystem.
Only if you have no understanding of what the words mean. For example, most cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies - just exceptionally weak ones. The reason why using USD isn’t a gamble is that it’s linked to a massive economy with guaranteed demand.
> Of course it doesn’t. It’s developing. And it’s doing it in spite of the existing financial system trying to damage or destroy it periodically.
Ah, yes, this part of the sales pitch was bound to come up. The flaws I described aren’t some sort of minor growing pains, they’re architectural. After 15 years and billions of dollars, not having a progress towards fixing them suggests that telling people to ignore them and buy in anyway is not the way you fix design defects.
2) There are many “cryptos” and technologies. Crypto is not a homogeneous system. Fiats all suck: even ones I implemented as crypto or digital currencies or whatever terminology one would want to use.
3) I think you have it out for crypto. I’m not a hype person or a crypto advocate, but I like the idea of decentralized financial systems and believe we have had very little innovation in the space (and need more).
4) Technology waves take 20-40 years to reach maturity. Radio. Television. Internet. They all take a lot longer than people realize.
5) There has been plenty of progress. If you want to be closed to that progress and dig your feet in to defending the existing system, that’s fine. But the idea that there hasn’t been “progress in 15 years” is absurd reasoning.
In contrast, Bitcoin has been available globally since it launched and it did so in an era where much of the human population had everything they needed to use it - very much unlike the early internet, or radio, or TV. Tons of speculative money poured in hoping to find demand … but nobody really cares about it because for most it’s not better than what they had before. It isn’t cheaper, faster, or safer and it is much less convenient to use, so even the few people who hold it don’t. The few businesses which accepted it have generally reported very little consumer interest and many have stopped. That just isn’t like the demand curve for those other technologies: as soon as Marconi had his first radio telegraph demo, he had businesses and governments interested and the primary limit was the difficulty of making the technology available, not lack of public interest – anyone could see how it could let them do something they couldn’t do before.
That last part is key: I’m all for changes to the financial system, I’ve followed this space since David Chaum was writing in the 90s, but you have to base it on an advantage over the status quo. The problem is not just that they picked an unsuitable data structure but also that it became the community identity, preventing attempts to learn from the mistake.