

Could Bitcoin ease the pain of Africa's migrant workforce? - Sami_Lehtinen
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31735976

======
lnguyen
Given the plundering of insecure Bitcoin exchanges, I'm reminded of this
passage from Gibson's Count Zero:

The Wig punched himself through a couple of African backwaters and felt like a
shark cruising a swimming pool thick with caviar

[https://books.google.com/books?id=7RpZX8mYKVMC&pg=PT139&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=7RpZX8mYKVMC&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=count+zero+africa+sharks&source=bl&ots=gw_n4CDXB2&sig=wlcUlfQs7moT3l5KWSRp5SfXIis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GKj-
VLWeJYbtoASKg4DwDw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw)

------
camperman
Possibly, even given Betteridge's Law of Headlines. The article is quite right
that sending money is very expensive in Africa. I have employed (and still do
employ) a few migrant workers and I can assure you half their pay goes home
and that it costs a hefty cut for them to do so. I've experimented with
various ways of making it easier for them, but short of sewing US dollars into
their clothing when they travel home, there isn't much out there. The more
SADCC countries start accepting Bitcoin, the easier this will become.

~~~
sanswork
Are they working legally? If so why don't they just carry the money home with
them. As long as they declare it if it's over the threshold($10,000 in the US)
and they have proof of work which they should have if it was legal work they
will almost certainly have no problems.

~~~
dagw
_almost certainly have no problems._

would you trust your life's savings to a bored and underpaid customs official
in a poor country not 'fining' you for not having the correct paper work, or
even just accusing you of forging the paperwork and confiscating the cash?

~~~
sanswork
More than I'd trust some random person promising to give me cash for my
bitcoin.

~~~
DickingAround
No way. You'd really trust you luck with crooked cops on both sides of the
border (look up civil forfeiture)? Even if it took a sec to find a bitcoin
broker, it's far harder to steal so you'll eventually get your fiat money even
if you have to look around for a buyer.

------
davidgerard
tl;dr no. Someone actually tried to crowdsource a Bitcoin remittance case that
worked out ahead of existing mechanisms, and nobody could:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/2ne03g/the_buttcoi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/2ne03g/the_buttcoin_remittance_challenge/)

It turns out: that last mile? That's the bit you're paying Western Union for.

(This is without getting into how hard it is to convert actual money to
Bitcoin [Know Your Customer] and how hard it is to get actual money back out
of Bitcoin exchanges [the only reason the spread here
[http://www.thebtcindex.com/](http://www.thebtcindex.com/) can exist at all].
Bitcoin exchanges are sufficiently awful hives of scum and villainy in the
first world.)

~~~
CookieMon
If I'm reading your link right, bitcoin did win in the China case, with a cost
of 0.4%?

But your link is to compete against scenarios where "existing mechanisms" cost
1.2%, and bitcoin came close to that. While BBC is talking about scenarios
that cost an average of 12.3%

In addition, the linked case is tipping the field slightly by requiring that
the money start in a bank and end in a bank, while the BBC article is
discussing underbanked people.

~~~
sanswork
Bitcoin works great at small scale where you have a company on the receiving
side willing to buy up the excess incoming volume at par with international
costs. If a lot of people started doing it though there would be a lot more
local sell pressure and the prices people could get in that country would drop
and raise the overall cost of the transaction.

Bitcoin can be good for remittances but if it becomes popular in a region it
will out price itself for that and other reasons.

Also almost all bitcoin services I've seen so far have saved money two ways.
1. They have offloaded the last mile cost on another service(a banks ATM
network, or corner store, etc). If it becomes popular those services are going
to start wanting their cut much they same as WU would pay them. 2. They ignore
KYC. Again if they get popular the banking industry will definitely apply
pressure to get them to start following this which will again increase costs.

------
TylerE
No.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

~~~
dang
It may be time to retire Mr. Betteridge.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=betteridge&sort=byDate&prefix&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=betteridge&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

~~~
davidgerard
Terms come into currency to fulfil a need; as long as headlines like this are
on the front page, then "Betteridge" will remain useful.

~~~
vacri
I haven't once seen Betteridge's Law be 'useful'. It's an academic quirk, and
there are enough exceptions that 'law' is a misnomer. I can't recall a single
time when someone has mentioned it and it's actually added to the
conversation.

~~~
davidgerard
Almost every time someone asks a question in a headline, it's because it's BS
and they don't think they could get away with making the statement directly.

It's a more specific way of stating that an article is clearly space-filling
BS. As this one is.

~~~
vacri
So, you're saying that stating Betteridge's Law is a way of making an empty,
contentless comment that doesn't look like an empty, contentless comment? We
can do without either. If you think something is nonsense, say so, and give a
reason. Don't just make a useless comment.

