5 ms·

Which ones do you include in your "most" category? Bitcoin fees, for example, are based partly on the amount of data in the transaction. It's not really a per

by blunte 9y ago

Which ones do you include in your "most" category? Bitcoin fees, for example, are based partly on the amount of data in the transaction. It's not really a percent of amount sent factor. Whether you send 100 BTC (which is a lot of money) or 0.001 BTC, you'll pay about the same fee assuming the same number of input and output addresses. Also, while bitcoin fees had gotten quite high toward the end of 2017 and early 2018, lately they have reset back down to a very low level. I routinely send batch payments from a dozen input addresses to some output addresses with a value total of a few thousand dollars, paying less than $1 in fees. And anyway, you can't send people money to their credit card. UPDATE: It appears bitcoin fees are back on the rise..., 10x what they were a day ago.

dmitriid 9y ago
Exactly. Soooo... Where’s the promise of ”zero fees compared to credit cards, especially for merchants”? A real merchant example: Steam had to stop accepting bitcoins because: - transactions took too long o complete - (main reson) fees were unpredictable and sometimes higher than the cost if the game
- blunte 9y ago
  One major benefit is that the transactions are non-reversible. I suppose if you're a crooked merchant, that's not good for people. But credit card companies have made it so easy for users to press one button to chargeback that some less than ethical consumers do this on a regular basis and get away with it. Another thing to keep in mind is that if you operate a business and accept bitcoin as one form of payment, nobody can cut off your means to accept payment. If the kind of product or service you provide is something banks don't want to touch (even though they are legal), then you're left with few options unless you consider cryptocurrency payments. Even if you get a credit card merchant agreement, the ccard companies will routinely shut you down until you have a conversation with them, reminding them that their senior risk department has already verified you multiple times. Trust me, that gets old.
  - dmitriid 9y ago
    1. All this doesn’t answer my question 2. All of the perceived problems have known and working solutions. BTW, fraudulent merchants are arguably a bigger problem than fraudulent consumers. 3. If I consider cryptocurrency solutions, I will: - run into slow non-efficient transactions that can be ground to a halt by a simple cat-breeding game. - run into unpredictable exorbitant fees that can easily be higher than the price if the product I sell. - “nonreversible transactions” is bullshit, as there have already been cases of transactions being reversed for hacked wallets.
    - buckthundaz 9y ago
      Do you have a link/source to reversed BTC transactions? At point 3, you seem to be strawmanning ETH for BTC, where it seems the user you're replying to is referring to BTC. Early tech is early tech. We all know this. More people use the internet now that you don't have to dial-up and make your phone line busy for it. Credit card fees are (typically) pushed to merchants, the actually settlement time takes far longer than the transaction time. Let's say in 10 years, all of your issues are solved by a cryptocurrency -- would you like the option of having a non-state issued, hard to confiscate, tamper-resistant money?
      - dmitriid 9y ago
        > Do you have a link/source to reversed BTC transactions? "Ethereum Executes Blockchain Hard Fork to Return DAO Funds". If you tell me I'm strawmanning ETH for BTC (or whatever other bullshit three-letter acronym) I answer this: it does not matter. Something that happens in one, will happen in another. The precedent has been set, the path is clear. > At point 3, you seem to be strawmanning ETH for BTC, where it seems the user you're replying to is referring to BTC. Doesn't matter. Bitcoin is just as susceptible. And no, Lightning will not save it (for obvious reasons which are totally glossed over by the dreamy-eyed proponents). > Early tech is early tech. We all know this. Yes. We know this. Cryptocurrency proponents seem to remember this fact only after being confronted with reality. See how this conversation played out: - Day to day transactions are actually the most likely to be disrupted by crypto. The reason for this is crypto can trade with almost zero fees - No, the fees are not zero. In fact, they are prohibitively high, and unpredictable - Yes, but... but.. the transactions are non-reversible, and there's fraud protection - There is at least one precedent of a cryptocurrency being hard forked to reverse transactions. Fraud is already being handled. etc. etc. - Yes, but.. but... it's early tech! Indeed. It's early tech with very few, if any, practical uses. With exorbitant unpredictable fees, extremely slow transactions, overall inefficiency etc. etc. etc. And yet for some reason it's hailed as the saviour of everyone and everybody now even though it offers a near-zero improvement on what we already have today.

by blunte 9y ago

dmitriid 9y ago

Exactly. Soooo... Where’s the promise of ”zero fees compared to credit cards, especially for merchants”? A real merchant example: Steam had to stop accepting bitcoins because: - transactions took too long o complete - (main reson) fees were unpredictable and sometimes higher than the cost if the game

blunte 9y ago
One major benefit is that the transactions are non-reversible. I suppose if you're a crooked merchant, that's not good for people. But credit card companies have made it so easy for users to press one button to chargeback that some less than ethical consumers do this on a regular basis and get away with it. Another thing to keep in mind is that if you operate a business and accept bitcoin as one form of payment, nobody can cut off your means to accept payment. If the kind of product or service you provide is something banks don't want to touch (even though they are legal), then you're left with few options unless you consider cryptocurrency payments. Even if you get a credit card merchant agreement, the ccard companies will routinely shut you down until you have a conversation with them, reminding them that their senior risk department has already verified you multiple times. Trust me, that gets old.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  1. All this doesn’t answer my question 2. All of the perceived problems have known and working solutions. BTW, fraudulent merchants are arguably a bigger problem than fraudulent consumers. 3. If I consider cryptocurrency solutions, I will: - run into slow non-efficient transactions that can be ground to a halt by a simple cat-breeding game. - run into unpredictable exorbitant fees that can easily be higher than the price if the product I sell. - “nonreversible transactions” is bullshit, as there have already been cases of transactions being reversed for hacked wallets.
  - buckthundaz 9y ago
    Do you have a link/source to reversed BTC transactions? At point 3, you seem to be strawmanning ETH for BTC, where it seems the user you're replying to is referring to BTC. Early tech is early tech. We all know this. More people use the internet now that you don't have to dial-up and make your phone line busy for it. Credit card fees are (typically) pushed to merchants, the actually settlement time takes far longer than the transaction time. Let's say in 10 years, all of your issues are solved by a cryptocurrency -- would you like the option of having a non-state issued, hard to confiscate, tamper-resistant money?
    - dmitriid 9y ago
      > Do you have a link/source to reversed BTC transactions? "Ethereum Executes Blockchain Hard Fork to Return DAO Funds". If you tell me I'm strawmanning ETH for BTC (or whatever other bullshit three-letter acronym) I answer this: it does not matter. Something that happens in one, will happen in another. The precedent has been set, the path is clear. > At point 3, you seem to be strawmanning ETH for BTC, where it seems the user you're replying to is referring to BTC. Doesn't matter. Bitcoin is just as susceptible. And no, Lightning will not save it (for obvious reasons which are totally glossed over by the dreamy-eyed proponents). > Early tech is early tech. We all know this. Yes. We know this. Cryptocurrency proponents seem to remember this fact only after being confronted with reality. See how this conversation played out: - Day to day transactions are actually the most likely to be disrupted by crypto. The reason for this is crypto can trade with almost zero fees - No, the fees are not zero. In fact, they are prohibitively high, and unpredictable - Yes, but... but.. the transactions are non-reversible, and there's fraud protection - There is at least one precedent of a cryptocurrency being hard forked to reverse transactions. Fraud is already being handled. etc. etc. - Yes, but.. but... it's early tech! Indeed. It's early tech with very few, if any, practical uses. With exorbitant unpredictable fees, extremely slow transactions, overall inefficiency etc. etc. etc. And yet for some reason it's hailed as the saviour of everyone and everybody now even though it offers a near-zero improvement on what we already have today.