Because that's already doable

There's nothing preventing that

It's just not commonplace, at least not right now

I'm not saying it doesn't.

I disagree there'd need to be a single one--they'd just have to have stable exchange rates relative to each other

Over time a likely "money" would emerge

I'm saying they'll go after the people who do that as soon as it becomes "the next part of Gab"

You're correct that the current implementation can't scale

It has to be stable enough for people to know what they want.

It's one of the big concerns, and the drive in the BCH/BTC split

I'll admit your right you could have multiple options. But in practice, there will have to be a single popular one that's big enough people can think in terms of that currency. Much like US Dollars.

We're no where close to that and there's absolutely no motivation for the average person to shift to crypto.

So they won't.

I could see the same being said for e.g. PayPal

And most people still don't really use PayPal

Yet it marches on anyway

I am happy to concede it's still a long ways off

Paypal basically started as an escrow service.

You just turn things into US dollars.

they also don't have a reputation for being "money for Gab"

If normal people don't use your service, you have no defense. Period.

Paypal powers lots of online stores. I would say if you regularly purchase things online you've used it even if you don't have an account.

That's my point. You aren't going to get Crypto anywhere near that level of ubiquity and then they'll just go after the people who accept it or convert it to physical currency.

I'd bet most people have never even used a merchant that uses PayPal

Remember, most people buy pretty much just from Amazon

We're arguing around the edges. Crypto won't replace payment processors.

And it won't replace normal currency either.

It doesn't have to to be useful or beneficial

i think banks and payment processors should be forced to remain ideologically neutral in their business practices. the federal government can make their FDIC insurance contingent on it.

Plus, that kind of claim is made about literally every new technology, and it always ends up being bigger than those who said it would never go anywhere

@Atkins They actually already do. But they aren't getting involved for some reason. Citibank should have felt the wrath of the legislators already for their little gun stunt.

For some reason enforcement has been poor or not-public.

regulatory capture no doubt

I think it's Obama holdovers from Operation Chokepoint.

I suspect a lot of it is also Republicans not wanting to get into fights.

we also saw how fucking clueless the republicans are in general in the recent hearings

Congress passes a law forbidding the latest stunt every couple years.

Yeah, it's been very disheartening.

But I put a good bit of blame on the base too.

Conservatism as an ideology seems to idolize the idea of being quiet, not causing a fight and then making a change from the top somehow.

But then no one ever gets to the top.

And the top is always to afraid.