I predict lots of these legacy money transfer services will adapt Jacks model (ie. use Bitcoin network / LN and just worry about controlling the end-points).
This is somewhat analogous to how originally we used PTSN copper-lines to host DSL signals to connect to internet...then eventually we inverted it and artificial "dial-tones" were played over native digital lines.
As much as I'm a skeptic of cryptocurrencies I do think this is one aspect of them that makes sense. Having a blockchain ledger in place of creaky old bank databases that often are tied together with even more creaky legacy applications written in mostly unused languages like COBOL is a better solution. It just clears the clutter away with some simple protocols on top of the blockchain ledger platform. Although this doesn't guarantee we won't clutter up that program space in the future at least it'll make it less fragile.
This is the best point I've heard about crypto in the real world.
I've never really thought about it that way, but it does make sense as a standardized transport API first, and everything else second.
Sure, everyone does (things) using Bitcoin. But in order to do those things, they have to speak Bitcoin (simplifying). And once everyone speaks Bitcoin, new products can be created that target Bitcoin, that wouldn't have been feasible if everyone were using 100+ different bespoke systems.
And from its network antecedents in PTSN -> packetized layered transport in data / voice, that seems optimistic about enabling innovation.
If you were going to design a standardised protocol for transactions, I wouldn't start from bitcoin, which makes all the wrong choices around identity, authority, anonymity, where to place the load, how to verify transactions etc etc.
Open banking is a much better approach to federated banking.
It would make a lot more sense if such a standardized API could exist without intentionally burning an increasing amount of computing resources. Unfortunately it would appear that if this sort of thing is the way things are going, we're stuck with Bitcoin and its appalling wastage.
Frankly, it's becoming increasingly depressing have to watch as technology is continually employed to make the world worse, usually for the benefit of making some people rich.
You are right to be a skeptic of cryptocurrencies. All of them are garbage. Focus just on bitcoin, because it aims to solve the exact problem you have identified in the most secure, decentralized way possible. Any cryptocurrency that tries to bolt more onto its base layer will always sacrifice some level of decentralization which is where a lot of problems get introduced.
cryptocurrency and bitcoin are not categorically the same.
I agree, it also forces interoperability. Regardless of what you think about bitcoin the asset, if it decouples the sender and receiver’s payment technology it might all be worth it.
I predict lots of these legacy money transfer services will adapt Jacks model (ie. use Bitcoin network / LN and just worry about controlling the end-points).
This is somewhat analogous to how originally we used PTSN copper-lines to host DSL signals to connect to internet...then eventually we inverted it and artificial "dial-tones" were played over native digital lines.