Small transactions: cash is faster and 100% secure (money goes from person X to person Y and is verified by counting in 10 seconds or less, vs. bitcoin's 20 minute block confirmation wait).
"Cash is faster"? WTF?
Maybe if I'm stood next to you. But have you heard of this crazy new thing called "the Internet"?
Let's race. You send $4 cash to Hong Kong; I'll send $4 worth of bitcoins. Why would I want to do that you ask? Ever bought a small gadget from ebay? Ever bought an MP3 for less than a dollar from a server that's halfway around the world.
(you're also forgetting that the bitcoin transactions can be seen within, typically, two seconds; it takes 10 minutes to
clear, compared to days for bank wire transfers to clear).
Bitcoin isn't perfect ...
Speaking from the perspective of a very wealthy individual, why care about such an inferior currency system at all? This is a proof of concept, not designed for mainstream use, and needs a lot of work. Respect bitcoin for what it is and what it proves. Graham Bell's first telephone is NOT an iphone. Got it?
I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. The lead developer regularly calls bitcoin an "experiment" in interviews.
Ok, let's race. ...
Actually, no, sending the certified check via FED EX internationally would not be so fast or easy. But for your earlier point, I would think a comment is in order.
Your argument presumes that the receiver must THEN go and set up his method of transfering back to cash. Why? Why just then? Why not presume that the sender and receiver are already set up? If it was a credit card transaction, one would already have a credit card, and the other would already have a way to process payments.
So to be fair, you have to make the comparison not for the moment of conversion back to the local currency, but for the moment when the two parties both consider the transaction complete, whatever that means to them. If the receiver religiously moves the bitcoin back to a currency, then that's his moment. If the receiver keeps and hoards the bitcoin, that is his moment of completion.
So this is not any different than the receipt, say of US dollars in a country with a failing currency - one guy must and does go to exchange them for the local currency, another holds them.
If your going to add these ridiculous presumptions then I presume to just have a bank account with the same bank as the receiver and transfer the funds immediately for free. I could also use PayPal and fund it immediately with my bank account that's been previously set up without having to dedicate funds in the account. But...that wasn't the original question. The original question itself was flawed, comparing the time to send cash vs Bitcoin to Hong Kong but then assuming both could be equally used to purchase "a small gadget from ebay" or "an MP3 ... from a server that's halfway around the world". Neither of which can be done with BTC directly anyway. So, as per my original point, it must be converted to fiat to meet the conditions of the original need. Until Apple, Amazon, eBay/PayPal, or 'name your online vendor' starts accepting Bitcoins, you cant skip the tedious 'conversion back to fiat' step. Last I checked, mtgox's withdrawal fees for fiat weren't trivial and were not speedy either.
I challenge you to go to Craig's list or any mainstream auction site, find something you want from a random person, bid on it, and then convince the seller to accept Bitcoin. I'd have a much better chance of them accepting PayPal than BTC and PayPal took years(and eBay buying them out) before it saw any kind of market penetration and acceptance.
Unless your comparing the speed of sending $4 value from tech nerd #1 to tech nerd #2, fiat is faster.
And yes, I consider myself most of 'us here' to be #1's with no #2's out there to accept BTC yet. I hope that changes.