4 ms·
It's cheaper to lose 100% of your purchase 2% of the time than 3% of your purchase 100% of the time. Insurance is for health and houses not my $8 lunch or $500
by aianus 9y ago
It's cheaper to lose 100% of your purchase 2% of the time than 3% of your purchase 100% of the time.
Insurance is for health and houses not my $8 lunch or $500 wallet contents.
- samfisher83 9y agoYou don't think some startup will not take fees? Who is paying for infrastructure and salaries?
- runeks 9y agoThere will definitely be fees, but they will be set through competition, as opposed to defined by VISA/Mastercard at will.
- aianus 9y agoThe fees can be a lot lower when you don't have to maintain rewards programs, liability for fraud, or dispute mechanisms. Bitcoin is ridiculously inefficient compared to what a centralized entity could be and it's already cheaper than wire transfers or even credit card transactions over a certain size.
- saurik 9y agoAs both a consumer and a merchant I really like this world where even small transactions are insured as it means that everyone--including me--can just mostly trust everyone and not have to have some complex passcode or multi-factor security setup to access and spend money. I like that I just have a card in my wallet that I can nigh unto flash at people and be handed a hotdog, and yet if someone steals my wallet or tries to hold me at gunpoint there is never any reason to not just hand them my card.
- aianus 9y agoYou like it because the costs are hidden from you. I bet you'd think twice about using your card to pay for your hotdog (or even something like a MacBook) if they explicitly passed the fees onto you and you could opt out with cash. There's room for both systems for different kinds of transactions with different kinds of merchants.
- diogenescynic 9y agoAs a merchant, they would pay those fees--so no, the costs are not hidden for them. Did you miss that part?