Having a trusted party has implications. When you send a payment today, you’re actually not the one changing the Paypal ledger. You have no power. You’re requesting (subtle, but a significant difference) Paypal, who has full authority, to change the ledger (add 10 to John Doe and -10 from me). It’s the same with your bank. They can change terms, block payments, freeze your account, or change balances at will (e.g. Greece, Russia).
Where there is no central authority, payments can’t be blocked. You could send a payment to anyone. It could mean freedom for those facing restrictive capital controls or barriers to entry.
It’s irreversible. When you give cash to someone, it’s final, if you want it back, it has to be given back. With irreversibility comes simplicity: there’s no need to identify yourself or fill out forms. Both parties know full control over the money has been transferred – no other questions are asked. For the first time that finality now exists in the digital world because of the decentralized nature of the ledger. It is the first instance of true digital cash.
Due to the open nature of it, anyone with an internet connection can connect to it, anywhere. There are no restrictions, like a bank. There are no arbitrary rules. It could be on a bank holiday. It could be something ultra small like 0.0000318 cents. It could 100 million. It could be accessed by the unbanked (25% of the world population) or it could even be accessed by a piece of software (DAO). In theory, an autonomous car can access it, because identity is abstracted on the blockchain. A fridge can’t open a Citibank account but it can own a BTC or ETH address. For the first time something that is not alive can own money.
More interestingly, since it’s an open network, it’s like the internet. Some nerdy teen in a garage can connect to it, build on it, experiment with it, and improve it. You can’t do that on HSBC’s protocol. It’s not so much money for the internet but rather the internet of money.