One of the main commercial arguments in favor of bitcoin is undoubtedly low transaction costs and consumer properties. Bitcoin offers lower fees compared to many interbank payment online systems and systems such as Western Union. Simplicity in handling is a key factor for the diffusion of technology. According to one view, the slow spread of bitcoin can lead to the fact that it will lose in the fight against alternative payment solutions, whether it is traditional centralized systems or alternative distributed tokens such as Ethereum.
Although bitcoin is cheaper and perhaps easier to handle than some centralized alternatives, in many cases, centralized alternatives are faster and cheaper than bitcoin. For example, in many countries of Western Europe, retail transfers between banks are free and instant. In China, Alibaba and Tencent offer fast, simple and free payment solutions. Tencent is capable of processing up to 200,000 transactions per second, which is many times greater than that of bitcoin.
Some consider these factors as a risk for bitcoin, others as a battle in which bitcoin was initially doomed to failure. Nevertheless, while fast and free payments are not available to the entire population of the planet, bitcoin can be a viable alternative. But should we start from the fact that suppliers of traditional payment solutions will ever refuse to provide free and fast services?