Hacker News Reader

Comment by BHSPitMonkey | Hacker News Reader

Even with the printout in hand, how does the recipient actually make the coin "theirs"? Can't the sender thwart the transaction if they gain Internet access before the recipient is able to (by transferring the coin to a wallet that's ready to receive it right away)?

View on HN

People can write bad checks or create fake money orders too. It holds as much value as the faith the recipient puts into it.

Which is why many places don't accept checks. In other words they don't consider it a valid currency.

Yea, bitcoin almost completely fails as a currency when the receiver doesn't have an internet connection.

Hell, some of us don't even accept the word checks! Let alone cheques which seem archaic to someone who doesn't ever use cash (last used about 6 months ago), regularly used... Never.

Many people still receive their pay in the form of a paper check. I personally pay my rent with a paper check, or at least have my bank send one out. Debit cards are certainly more popular and less risky than your personal check though.

Generally your employer isn't going anywhere, and if a paycheck bounces, you will see them the next day and raise the issue (also, they are legally bound to make good on that debt). I wouldn't take a one-time contract job and expect to get paid by check after handing over the work, any more than I would accept a check from a Craigslist user in exchange for an item (unless the check was allowed to clear prior to my side of the exchange occurring).

I would not say that a Bitcoin Check is the best way to facilitate immediate private party sales, but business to consumer sales/importation may be possible with a Bitcoin Check, as the supplier can clear the check before sending goods.

Additionally there could be satellite hotspots that could act as exchanges when landline or wireless networks are down. Bitcoin is probably not perfect, but could be useful for money transfer even in areas where the net isn't robust.

With the printout of the raw TX, the recipient would just broadcast it on the p2p network (sendrawtransaction), that's how he would give himself the coins.

As to your other questions, it make no sense. In what situation would person A, offline in a state of civil war, absolutely need to send money to person B, and then would need to steal the coins back??

Your description seems to assume that A is offline and B is online. What happens when two bitcoin users are both offline for a prolonged period and A gains access first and moves his BTC to another wallet before B can submit the transaction? What mechanism beyond individual trust permits this to be an effective means of monetary transaction? Would you trust someone writing you a check in a war zone with no access to a bank to not later put in a stop payment on that check?

If the 2 parties are both offline, then yes the sender needs to be trusted to guarantee he won't attempt to steal the coin back.

Yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com