It seems not, since currently Bitcoin transactions are uncompetitive (slower and more expensive) compared to Fedwire (or EU equivalent Target2) settlement systems.
We already have fast, safe and cheap electronic money settlement systems, the only issue with getting them to consumers is that the unregulated lack of competition (in e.g. USA financial services market) enables charging extreme markup. If you want immediate and cheap money transfer to me, the traditional banking industry is capable of providing that right now, it's just that they don't want to - the technical problems are solved (without needing a blockchain), it's just the question of competition. And, coincidentally, that's a big limit for alternative payment channels - as soon as any one of them actually threatens the current status quo, the banks can and will simply cut prices and reduce delays to undercut the new thing, and still earn a profit from payments.
ECB and BOJ are currently working on a joint research project on distributed ledger technology called project Stella. Like you said, Bitcoin right now is unfit for Real Time Gross Settlement system. However, the project also concluded that with appropriate modifications, Distributed Ledger Technology "could meet the current performance needs of an RTGS system." It should be noted that the project mostly concerns with large value transfer system between financial institutions rather than retail payment system.
They also explored delivering securities for cash on the blockchain. The project summary leaflets are really fascinating and provide a good overview on the progress of the analysis.
No, because there is always a need for artificially stabilised currency. When you bought lunch today, you know you weren't being ripped off because $10 is worth the same as yesterday, and roughly the same as when you earned it a few months ago.
This is HackerNews, not Reddit; comments like this are typically ignored. You are claiming that all currencies require active stabilization; that a currency is unstable without outside intervention. Where's the economics that supports your claim? You can cite it, if you want. Your retort regarding music is irrelevant, and it looks like you missed my point.
Instead of writing a paragraph, I observed that you are "making an inherently theoretical claim which you haven't backed up". Why do you believe intervention is required for stability? Do you have a theory; can you cite a theory? I'm not sure why the question was confusing to you, nor why you took it as an offense. I'm sure other people would love to hear you justify your socialist, "hands-on" viewpoint.
If you don't agree with the assertion, that's fine. Convincing you is not a productive use of my time. Ask your nearest high school economics teacher to explain it to you.
