Quote from: pawel7777 on December 20, 2014, 10:21:33 PM

Quote from: exoton on December 20, 2014, 09:14:00 PM

This is just adding an extra step. Unless each BitSpark agent is separate from all the others then there is no reason why BitSpark could not just have the money move internally just like Western Union does. However if each agent is independent then you would essentially be sending bitcoin to an unknown person with no real way of knowing if they can be trusted (and knowing how many bitcoin related scammers are out there, they probably cannot be).

I assume Bitspark will just create payment system and operate through the network of registered agents (local merchants etc), so similar to WU (they also use independent agents).

Sure, the internal system of IOUs sounds like fastest and easiest solution, but what you're missing is they still need to send the physical cash and redistribute the funds adequately to all the agents to regulate the balance. So it is actually more complex and likely far more expensive.

Using BTC as transfer tool, the whole process is completed when the recipient gets the money. With the IOU system - it's not.

Also, internal system means single point of failure. I haven't use WU much, just few times in my life, but happened to me on 2 occasions when agents refused to take the order because 'system was down'.

As for the scam risk, it's probably very similar, assuming agents' verification process is the same. Fraudulent agent can deny that he ever received bitcoins, but he may just as well refuse the payment to the recipient.

Quote from: exoton on December 20, 2014, 09:14:00 PM

If someone does not have access to electricity then I can't see how any company would be able to be setup to know when it is appropriate to disburse money to someone else.

I just used it as an example. Since there are many areas with no electricity (or even clean water) it's an overstatement to say that pretty much everyone in the world have access to the internet and smartphones.

The fact that 'there is internet in Ethiopia', doesn't mean that 100% of Ethiopians have access to it. There are still areas in Europe (not sure about US) with no (or very poor) mobile network coverage.

Quote from: franky1 on December 20, 2014, 07:36:02 PM

bitshark seem to be ...

i have not used bitshark...

It's 'bitspark' Wink

Using 'shark' in any money/trust related business would be pretty bad marketing move

where I lived before the negative slang for white people was shark. white people are a little like sharks. they are big, fat, and wherever they go they destroy anything in there. (plus sharks are one of the few animals that are kind of white)

as for the whole "there are places with no internet" thing. almost everywhere now has a signal even if it is a weak one. if somebody doesn't have internet in the third world, it is probably because the cost of the service and/or hardware is just too high and they don't see how it will make their life better. but in the next few years prices of hardware/service will go down quite a bit and utility will go up. there will be herd boys in the middle of Mongolia in 5 years from now living with no electricity or running water, but they will be playing games on their old worn out smart phone charging it with an old worn out car battery.

charging the phone is actually the cheap part, less than a dollar a year in electricity, and that is an iphone 5 that is offering high end performance, not exactly a phone that was designed for the third world needs.

http://lifehacker.com/5948075/how-much-energy-a-smartphone-uses-in-a-year-and-what-it-means-for-your-budget