• explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That was also untrue. Electronic cash doesn’t imply no/low transaction fees. Basically everything they told you was a lie.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Show me where in the whitepaper does it mentions storing value, please.

      No/low transaction fees and ease of transaction is the main point of cash vs barter, Bitcoin abandoned that, now you have to go through the trouble of using level 2 to have small fees and quick transactions, what’s the point of Bitcoin then?

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. I’ve had this exact argument enough times that it was a relief to finally bet on it.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. **The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions**, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services.

          Right in the introduction to the whitepaper.

          Maybe you should start with reading it so you would see where things went wrong.