4 ms·
> Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here. - Minuscule transaction fees as opposed to 3% banking fees. - Less necessary server infra
by iMuzz 9y ago
> Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here.
- Minuscule transaction fees as opposed to 3% banking fees.
- Less necessary server infrastructure to manage identity/payments
Would these not be benefits or am I missing something?
- jstanley 9y agoThose are properties of using cryptocurrency for payment, they're not properties of putting car charging on a blockchain. I think that's what this project does, and the headline is simply misleading. It's not really "blockchain-enabled", it just uses Ethereum for payment.
- laydn 9y agoWhen I read the headline, I immediately thought that it meant I could pay for charging with Bitcoin and/or Ethereum. What else can be inferred from the headline? What would it mean to "put car charging on a blockchain"? Can you explain for the rest of us ?
- IanCal 9y agoThe bit that might take it further is > the blockchain verifies how much the driver owes Maybe there's something here where it's pulling external data (e.g. set price/unit or a trusted source that says how much was taken) to decide the price?
- krschultz 9y agoThink through the 3% bit a little bit. Do you think that the banks charge 3% because their settlement software is that much less efficient than a blockchain? Of course not. You're paying for customer service, marketing, fraud protection & settlement, and a host of other things with that 3%. It's not 3% because that's what it costs to run a computer to figure out payment processing, it's 3% because that's what the banks can charge to run their business. In effect most people pay 2% or less because of credit card points, so really it's just a forced discount on retailers. Again, because the banks can.