
Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency - justboxing
https://iconow.net/goldman-sachs-report-explores-use-of-bitcoin-as-currency/
======
JohnJamesRambo
Bitcoin is not remotely usable as a currency now. The fees are incredible, the
confirmation times ridiculous. We need to move on to something more modern
like Ethereum, Stellar Lumens, etc. immediately. Asking the current 1 mb
blocksize version of Bitcoin to be a currency is like Goldman Sachs writing a
report saying they want to run their website on Intel 486 processors.

They mention Zimbabwe moving to it as an alternative. The average Bitcoin fee
is now $40 and the average weekly salary there is around $60. It is ludicrous
to even think about asking someone to spend almost a week's wage for something
as simple as a transaction fee. Bitcoin has failed completely at accomplishing
the "banking the unbanked" goal that drew many of us to it in the first place.
That story and that loss is a long, convoluted, and sad story for another
time. But other cryptos with teams willing to adapt and listen to reason are
moving forward with this torch.

~~~
tananaev
On-chain scaling is not sustainable. If you want to handle as many transaction
as for example Visa, you would need 1 GB blocks every 10 minutes, which would
make the whole blockchain heavily centralized because regular users won't be
able to host full nodes to validate payments.

About "adopting" and increasing block size. I think most developers agree that
we would need to increase it at some point, but I believe core Bitcoin
developers refusing to do it to accelerate real scalability solution (e.g.
Lightning Network). After we have a working scaling solution we might see
increase in block size to lower fees and increase throughput.

~~~
erentz
Not sure why you and the other person mentioning lightning have been
downvoted. I’ve noticed increasingly it’s not possible to have reasonable
discussion about bitcoin on hacker news. It seems the folks from /r/btc have
found this place.

~~~
0wing
Please explain how the Lightning Network developers solve an unsolved NP-Hard
problem in computer science regarding routing? [1]

The Lightning Network design is exactly what the first sentence of Satoshi's
Bitcoin whitepaper seeks to avoid - payment processor middlemen.

    
    
      "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would 
      allow online payments to be sent directly from one party 
      to another without going through a financial institution." [2]
    
    

The LN design was chosen as a solution by certain investors who want to
extract fees as payment hub liquidity providers.

LN can't solve the TSP without either publishing a map of all nodes and
routes, or having all nodes broadcasts to all nodes. The former significantly
reduces decentralization and further removes the "electronic cash" aspect
requiring payment processor hubs, while the latter will suffer from
latency/scaling issues/DDoS susceptibility.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem)

[2] [https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

~~~
jstanley
Fiestly, LN routing is actually closer to a shortest-path problem than the
TSP.

Secondly, even if it was the TSP, you don't need to 100% solve it in order to
have a working system. How do you think _actual_ travelling salesmen can
exist? They just pick a good enough route, nobody is checking whether they
picked the perfect route, and nobody cares.

~~~
0wing
Either the Lightning Network has found a solution to the routing problem which
the entire internet has relied upon since 1989 [1], or the LN marketing is
disingenuous and the actual implementation will be nothing more than an excuse
to extract wealth to centralized payment processor hubs, further distancing
Bitcoin from the main design of electronic cash:

    
    
      "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would 
      allow online payments to be sent directly from one party 
      to another without going through a financial institution."
    
    

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/31/net-
of-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/31/net-of-
insecurity-part-2/)

~~~
SkyMarshal
jstanley makes a very good point, especially considering that Bitcoin itself
is a probabilistic good-enough solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem,
rather than a perfect deterministic one. But you didn't even address
jstanley's question, you just repeated the exact same talking points you
posted higher up in this thread, hoping that readers can't tell the
difference. That is not an honest debate, but propaganda.

The constant repetition of talking points without actually addressing the
critiques of those talking points may fool the gullible, but the
technologically savvy see it, and it costs you your credibility with them. You
guys are like Marco Rubio [1] constantly repeating the same talking points
regardless what critiques are thrown your way.

[1]:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-OTvTrw1A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-OTvTrw1A)

~~~
0wing
I cited BGP.

You've provided no technical details, only an ad hominem fallacy.

Feel free to explain actual technical details of how LN does anything
interesting, other than further centralize Bitcoin into centralized payment
processor hubs?

As per the LN white paper:

    
    
      8.4 Payment Routing
    
      It is theoretically possible to build a route map 
      implicitly from observing 2-of-2 multisigs on the 
      blockchain to build a routing table. Note, however, this 
      is not feasible with pay-to-script-hash transaction 
      outputs, which can be resolved out-of-band from the 
      bitcoin protocol via a third party routing service. 
      Building a routing table will become necessary for large 
      operators (e.g. BGP, Cjdns). Eventually, with 
      optimizations, the network will look a lot like the 
      correspondent banking network, or Tier-1 ISPs.

------
twblalock
The article makes the point that Bitcoin could be viable in many countries
where people already use foreign currencies because they don't trust their
domestic currency.

That's one of the few arguments for cryptocurrency that I find convincing, but
I think it's a stronger argument for cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin. The
Bitcoin transaction fees are so high right now that it doesn't make sense to
use it for small purchases, which really limits its usefulness for people in
poor countries.

For example, right now the average Bitcoin transaction fee is more than $20,
and the average annual income in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the
countries mentioned in the article, is about $400 per year.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I am struggling to see how cryptocurrencies would have any tangible advantage
over US Dollars in developing nations.

Remember that in many of these countries, most people don't have smart phones,
and there's a lot of people who don't even have phones. Electricity and
internet connections are intermittent at best.

Good luck convincing Cambodian street hawkers that your magic internet money
is better than a good old fashioned Greenback.

And another reason that cryptocurrencies will struggle to catch on: it's hard
to bribe people with magic internet money. There's no paper trail or proof if
you bribe someone with cash.

~~~
root_axis
Indeed. It also requires considerable levels of technical literacy to use,
maintain, and properly secure blockchain tokens, and even with all that people
regularly have their bitcoins stolen or irreparably lost.

~~~
hanselot
I love how Fiat Money was designed to be impossible to use for illegal
purposes, and there is no way to steal it. I mean really, if there were a way
for it to be used in that way, surely your argument would be pointless, but
luckily we know that the more middlemen we introduce between us and another
party, the more affordable the transaction will become.

~~~
root_axis
> _I love how Fiat Money was designed to be impossible to use for illegal
> purposes, and there is no way to steal it._

So, I catch the meaning behind your sarcastic quip, but all you're doing here
is offering up an absurd strawman. Obviously any currency can be stolen or
used for illegal purposes, that's a willfully disingenuous interpretation of
the argument because nobody has ever said that. This kind of reasoning would
be like if someone said "the nature of dynamic typing makes the code prone to
error" and you respond with "I love how strong static types were designed to
make bugs impossible to produce, and there is no way it will cause the program
to crash unexpectedly".

~~~
hanselot
> and even with all that people regularly have their bitcoins stolen or
> irreparably lost.

> Obviously any currency can be stolen or used for illegal purposes

So what is the purpose of your argument if all of that simply points out that
any currency can be stolen or misplaced?

~~~
root_axis
On my part, I am going to end the discussion here since you appear to have
ignored everything else I posted.

------
nerfhammer
If you think bitcoin would make a good currency, ask yourself what happens if
you have any debts, lease or mortgage denominated in bitcoin.

At least hyperinflation wipes out debts, in hyperdeflation some people become
millionaires and others owe millions based on whether you had positive or
negative money at the start.

~~~
intrasight
Exactly. Ask people in Italy or Greece whose banks made them take out
mortgages in Euro.

~~~
tedeh
What else would they denominate their mortgages in? Their respective national
currencies were abolished after the introduction of the Euro.

Although it could be argued that joining the EMU may not have been their best
interest in the first place, but that is the fault of their politicians,
rather than the banks.

~~~
intrasight
There was a gap beween the Euro being created and the elimination of local
currencies.

~~~
FabHK
Yes, but during that time the exchange rate between Euro and legacy currencies
was fixed.

------
aaron-lebo
More than a little disturbing. They talk about helping developing economies,
but what you can bet this means is that they'll be screwing over those people
some way or another.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#2007%E2%80%93200...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#2007%E2%80%932008_Subprime_mortgage_crisis)

[http://fortune.com/2016/04/11/goldman-sachs-doj-
settlement/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/11/goldman-sachs-doj-settlement/)

This is the end game of cryptocurrencies; not worldwide financial liberation
but the same massive financial institutions further cementing their power.
Kind of funny that they are looking at Bitcoin at a point where it's more
valuable but is more poorly suited to be a currency than ever before. Says a
lot.

~~~
paulmd
The problem in hyperinflationary situations isn't lack of access to hard
currency, it is usually readily available on the black market. The problem is
the lack of _affordability_ of hard currency. How many US dollars do I get for
this piece of hyperinflating funny money? Probably not many.

Bitcoin is really no different from transacting in US dollars or any other
hard currency, in fact it's arguably worse in pretty much every way. And you
won't be able to get Bitcoins at affordable funny-money prices any more than
you can get dollars.

So when you hear things like "Zimbabwe should switch to Bitcoin", just
mentally replace that advice with "Zimbabwe should switch to USD" and imagine
how that would play out. Harsh austerity measures, deregulation, and
privatization to get a few measly millions of World Bank loans that will be
gone in no time. Any country that finds themselves in a position where they
can't issue their own currency is going to have a real hard time of it.

So just think "shock doctrine, but with Bitcoin".

~~~
lazerpants
Umm... You do know that Zimbabwe has used the USD and South African Rand as
its currencies since 2009, right? They abandoned the Zimbabwean dollar due to
hyperinflation. All I've ever seen there is USD.

------
wmf
Has the Bitcoin crash of 2013 already been forgotten? It's totally
irresponsible to use such a volatile asset as currency.

~~~
adamnemecek
Bitcoin in 2018 is not the same bitcoin in 2013.

~~~
0wing
Correct, it's actually measurably worse.

As time passes, Bitcoin becomes more exploitative to new users. [1]

Not to mention, the bandwidth is severely crippled and the network is
basically unusable for normal transacting. Take the case study of Steam
discontinuing Bitcoin payments. [2]

[1]
[https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/](https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/)

[2]
[https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail...](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613)

~~~
adamnemecek
Bitcoin is a portal, not a coin you'd use for actual exchanging.

~~~
jklein11
Can you elaborate on this? In what way is it any more of a portal than
government issued fiat? Is it because the infrastructure is more robust
because it has been around the block longer? Is there some other technical
detail that makes it exceptionally good at being a portal?

~~~
adamnemecek
It's a portal to crypto I meant. You buy bitcoin to buy other currencies.

~~~
tylersmith
So it's a worthless middle man?

~~~
FLUX-YOU
It's a store of value or something. But I dunno, maybe they've dropped that
narrative.

------
justboxing
EDIT / UPDATE: Here's the same story covered on Forbes.com

Forbes : Goldman Sachs Caves: Bitcoin Is Money
[https://outline.com/5R8akm](https://outline.com/5R8akm) [Clutter, Adware free
version]

I still haven't been able to locate the actual bitcoin report that GS sent
it's client.

------
bluetwo
I feel like every bitcoin post becomes Groundhog Day.

------
0wing
Bitcoin and blockchain systems are nearly all designed to exploit new users
and extract capital from greater fools who are too late to the game and didn't
read or understand the rules and fine print.

Satoshi's Bitcoin and many of the crypto-currencies that have followed create
and distribute the supply that effectively creates a decentralized pyramid-
ponzi scheme. Semantically, a more accurate term is needed;

Bitcoin is a Satoshi scheme,

.. or a "Nakamoto Scheme"
[https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/](https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/)

Imagine an economic policy that uses a "limited" amount of pie as "currency".
Bitcoin gave half of this pie away to the first few users who arrived in
exchange for the least amount of work/effort possible. Any user arriving later
will need to waste more hashing power (computational work) in exchange for a
smaller sum of newly generation coins for a successfully mined block reward.
_or_ the user might be convinced to purchase a previously produced coin from
one of the early adopters. Buying a Bitcoin is worse than zero-sum, as money
from buyers is exchanged for previously generated coins, the network must
increasingly waste computations and energy.

Satoshi's economic model creates a system where participation is only
beneficial if you can exploit the ignorance of another new user who enters the
network after you. Bitcoin effectively relies on psychological manipulation
though deceptive marketing claims like

    
    
      "Bitcoin is deflationary"
      "Bitcoin is rare"
      "Bitcoin is a store of value"
    

When what actually happens is you either need to enrich someone who generated
the coin for far less than you're paying, or waste more electricity and
computational work than other early users for significantly less share of the
pie.

If you understand the computer science behind Bitcoin, you'll realize how
ridiculous the false equivalency to gold is.

1\. The claim of "rare" doesn't exactly hold true.

Consider the 10,000 BTC pizza - how did this happen? This was the direct
result of Satoshi's economic policy, granting vast sums of BTC to mint out
very quickly very early for a short duration to the very small pool of people
who ran the software. Satoshi's algorithm produced BTC in plentiful quantities
enabling the 10,000BTC pizza - thus it wasn't rare if you were Satoshi and the
dozen other early whales hording as much as possible, until the algorithm
begins cutting off the production and limiting later users from producing
coins, starving the economy. Now there's a psychological game being played,
where public relations and marketing must convince new users to buy in.
Because the exchanges are unregulated, they can manipulate the spot price
though wash trading and painting the tape [2] (where trades are falsified and
you just sell the same item back and forth to your friend for a higher and
higher price).

The supply was created by running a piece of software. It's not magic. Most of
the supply was produced very early on and as much as 30% of all Bitcoins are
owned by less than 100 people.

    
    
      Best estimates are that there are about one million 
      holders of Bitcoin;  47 individuals hold about 30 percent, 
      another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 
      about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being 
      lost.  So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the 
      holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent 
      (http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-
      of-the-bitcoins-2013-12). The concentration of Litecoin 
      ownership is similar 
      (http://litecoin-rich-list.blogspot.com).  
      Most of the big wallets have been in place from early on, 
      so sitting back and watching your capital grow has been a 
      very successful strategy.
    
    
      The distribution of Bitcoin holdings  looks much like the 
      distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the 
      China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like 
      that of a workers’ paradise
    

2\. Easy migration to more advanced e-cash services See:
[https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/)

3\. Bitcoin network requires ASIC miners, largely centralized in China [3].
Assuming the inveitable surpassing of a more advanced cryptosytem making
Bitcoin obsolete, as the market is informed there will be a decline in BTC's
spot price and once this falls below the cost of OPEX for miners, the hardware
goes offline and the network will cease to function. Maximalists will attempt
to offer an emergency fork, in any attempt to save their "investment", just as
they have developed the lightening network to create centeralized payment
hubs, so "investors" can act as liquidity providors and take fees, instead of
miners.

4\. Electricty usage is unsustainable, GOTO 3

5\. [4]

    
    
      Bitcoin value is make-believe just like money. But even 
      though there is bitcoin-sphere governance, there are no 
      bitcoin-sphere assets. Taxes are not paid in bitcoin. 
      There is no FDIC, only hackers that lift a million here 
      and there. And when nation-states decide its a nuisance, 
      what are the guns of bitcoin? It’s anonymity? From the 
      same government that created PRISM and then used 
      mind-magic* to make everyone forget about PRISM? Please. 
      You may think crypto-currencies that require more power 
      than a small country to run can fly under the radar, but 
      somehow I think not indefinitely. After all, becoming the 
      next big thing would mean its a threat to the American 
      dollar, do you really think the US Gov will shrug and say 
      “shucks bitcoin went from a ponzi-novelty to something 
      that will totally usurp this hegemony we worked so hard to 
      make. Guess we’ll have to call it a day.” (If you think 
      this, sell your Bitcoin and buy an imagination.)
    
      The day you can pay tax bills to a government in Bitcoin 
      is probably the day you can rest easy. Until then dear 
      Bitcoin holders, you do have something of value, just like 
      the Louisiana territory has value. But in this 1800’s 
      metaphor, what makes you so sure you’re America?
    
      Monopoly money is good to have, while the game is still 
      running. 
    

[1] [https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/86/is-it-
possibl...](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/86/is-it-possible-to-
estimate-the-gini-coefficient-for-bitcoins-and-if-the-trend-is)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-
inequality-2014-1](http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r04gfWfRkE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r04gfWfRkE)

[3] [https://qz.com/1055126/photos-china-has-one-of-worlds-
larges...](https://qz.com/1055126/photos-china-has-one-of-worlds-largest-
bitcoin-mines/)

[4] [https://hackernoon.com/the-guns-of-
bitcoin-1f779309a718](https://hackernoon.com/the-guns-of-bitcoin-1f779309a718)

~~~
beaner
You seem to be confused. Bitcoin doesn't require buy-in. It doesn't give any
promise of a positive return.

Simultaneously, you argue that "easy migration to more advanced e-currencies"
is a deficiency, even though they use the same scarcity model.

The rest of your post is just ranty conjecture.

If you want one thought on why digital currency has value, consider this:

Currently, to send money between two people in the US, it takes 3 business
days, typically costs some transaction fee, and is limited to the range of the
border. It is slow, expensive, and local.

But we are in the age of information. We used to have the same restrictions
for paper letters. But now I can send an email to anyone in the world in
seconds for no effort. It is fast, cheap, and global.

Why shouldn't money be the same way? There is no incentive for traditional
finance to improve its product, because regulation is so high that it is
difficult for new entrants. Complexity and incompatibility is an advantage; it
creates lock-in. There is no incentive for governments to improve, because
full control of their local systems is exactly what they want.

Fast, cheap, global money is in the interest of the people, but not the
incumbents. Decentralized scarcity is what enables it.

Now that it is here, why would we have 200 non-interoperable, complicated,
slow local systems, when we could have one that works everywhere, according to
a predictable economic model? Or a variety of economic models, that the world
could choose from and watch play out against each other, not based on
jurisdiction, but practicality?

Like other types of information, money will flow through the path of least
resistance. As crypto becomes more accessible, all of the world's money will
flow into it, because it will be better.

Parts of the world which have never had access to traditional financial
services will leapfrog it and go straight to crypto, connecting directly to
the rest of the world and taking advantage of the ability for people to be
their own bank, instead of waiting for permission to connect to the old
system.

Anything that is just information can be made digital, and anything that is
digital trends towards fast, cheap, and free. Money is an example of something
that is just information, like music, movies, and news.

All money will flow to digital currency in time because it is money that is
built for the information age. We are at the very start of the S-curve.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Currently, to send money between two people in the US, it takes 3 business
> days, typically costs some transaction fee, and is limited to the range of
> the border. It is slow, expensive, and local._

I received funds via Fedwire today. It took about five minutes. Both sides’
banks waived fees on account of our account balances.

~~~
beaner
It's true that some banking systems are improving in terms of speed. I don't
think it's a coincidence that it's happening now that crypto has been around
for 8 years, and is increasing in size.

Most immediate US-based sends and receives are virtual, based on 2nd-layer
systems like Venmo and PayPal, not actually moving money but updating the
numbers in your account before funds land.

Unfortunately for the Fed, speed and fees are not the whole story. There are
still the problems of it not being global, not being private, inflating away,
and not actually being owned by the people. (See the Cyprus banking haircut.)

These are small factors in most people's daily lives, but are important enough
at a large scale to have money flow in the direction of crypto, and as a
result all money will flow towards it until everyone has these advantages.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I don 't think it's a coincidence that it's happening now that crypto has
> been around for 8 years, and is increasing in size_

Fedwire is run directly by the Federal Reserve [1]. It traces its history to
the first electronic funds transfers, which started in 1915. It started doing
automated transfers in the early 1980s. Until the 1980s, it was free; after
that it costs between 3 and 80¢ for member banks. Almost every American bank
will waive their mark-up (or even the whole fee) for accounts with over $15 to
50 thousand.

Internationaly, there are numerous RTGS systems including but not limited to
SWIFT, CLS, _et cetera_.

> _See the Cyprus banking haircut_

See the MtGox haircut.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire)

~~~
beaner
Maybe you can elaborate on the reasons why fedwire is not more popular than,
say, ACH? I suspect there is a reason that stems from its centralization.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _why fedwire is not more popular than, say, ACH?_

To understand this, we have to compare two classes of systems: real-time gross
settlement (RTGS) [1] and net settlement [2].

Suppose you and I are banks. At 9AM I send you ten dollars, at 10AM you send
me ten dollars, at 3PM you send me another ten dollars and finally, at 4PM, I
send you ten dollars. At the end of the day, we're back where we started
(minus transaction costs). If we actually moved the cash between our banks,
that would be RTGS. It's as fast as funds can travel. It results in a lot of
paperwork and means we must have the cash for potential transfers immediately
available. No exceptions.

We grab a beer and say "let's settle, on the net, at the end of the day." The
same transfer instructions come in. This time, though, no cash moves intraday.
At the end of the day, we tally everything up and find we're balanced. We move
money around internally an call it a day. Much easier, and therefore, cheaper.
Moreover, between when I deducted the funds at 9AM and may have had to settle
at 4PM, I might have made a margin loan. This is net settlement.

The next day, at net settlement, I owe you ten more dollars than I have. We
grab a beer and say "let's settle the day after. That way, we can sell or
borrow if we come up short." This is net settlement with delayed settlement.

From top to bottom, the system gets slower and more profitable. Many of these
costs, _e.g._ intraday liquidity and risk management, don't go away with
cryptocurrencies. Net settlement will always be cheaper than real-time
settlement, and delayed settlement cheaper still.

Payers prefer ACH because it gives them time to scramble, if needed. Receivers
prefer to receive by wire because it produces immediately-available funds.
What gets chosen depends on negotiating leverage. I struggle to see the
advantage of a crypto-currency based RTGS, which is less reversible than EFTs,
slower than wires, and more expensive than both for most participants.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-
time_gross_settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-
time_gross_settlement)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_settlement)

------
drngdds
Where can I read the actual report?

~~~
justboxing
I tried looking for it. Haven't found it yet. It was supposedly distributed by
Goldman Sachs to it's Clients, so hoping some client will post the actual
report / PDF.

------
tasssko
The first few bitcoin transactions happened when the government rolled out
bond notes correlating well with a reduction in US$ money supply. The black
market was paying 90% on a bond note a few weeks later it was 55% on a bond
note. Bitcoin is making it easy for these parties in this market to repatriate
money. The important consideration is this is usually principle+profits and so
the risk vs reward of using bitcoin is at a minimum over ‘getting the money
out’. I don’t think there is any problem with this. Will this reduce the need
to use the US$ on the black market ? Yes if more people owned bitcoin then
they could swap it for goods on this market rather than deal with any fiat
transactions. Most of these transactions would be US$10k+-US$150k. Compare
buying a bitcoin to the cost of offshoring US$ which is usually about 10% on
principle. If you look at the math bitcoin is a good proposition assuming you
can sell it on the other side. Bitcoin is useable in Zimbabwe or any other
country which has a black/grey market for repatriating money.

Edited for brevity.

------
mrarjen
Don't think they will ever even consider using this as a currency themselves,
it's but a routine paper on how people have attempted to use it as a currency
in my opinion. The title is simply to drive more readers to the site.

Any Cryptocurrency used by banks or finance companies will be behind locked
doors without public trading and no media will be involved if they are smart.

------
gchokov
If GS says so, they are pumping it up for their own profit. Don't ever trust
the biggest balloons making machine ever. It also means Bitcoin is BS.

------
disputatious
Bitcoin is the best, the exchange of its value is the problem, exchanges will
need to do better.

------
mathattack
This article seems like enough to say, "Let's call a top right here and now"

------
danifeld
More and bigger sharks are coming into this space. Which is perfect.

------
halamadrid
And this article is published on iconow.net

I am guessing it’s not biased?

~~~
justboxing
Well, Forbes also wrote about the same story / GS Report, if that's any
consolation.

[Clutter, Adware free version] Forbes : Goldman Sachs Caves: Bitcoin Is Money
[https://outline.com/5R8akm](https://outline.com/5R8akm)

------
keyle
They would 'explore' anything they could trade, by any mean 'legal', to
maximize their profits. They'd be mad not to 'explore'.

------
libpcap
As an investment vehicle? Probably.

As a currency?

With that kind of volatility, it would be difficult. If I were to sell my used
car today in, say, BTC, it would be tough to determine at what price I want to
let it go.

This is not to mention what how the buyer would haggle (e.g. "I think BTC will
go up next week, so how about BTC XXX for your 2013 Hinda Civic?").

------
intrasight
There are these universal truths - things created by all sentient beings
throughout the universe. The wheel, nuclear power, markup with angle-brackets,
and bitcoin.

