3 ms·

Sadly still nowhere close to the free transaction up to €15'000 within of 10 seconds that’s being rolled out across the European banks right now. Bitcoin was s

Sadly still nowhere close to the free transaction up to €15'000 within of 10 seconds that’s being rolled out across the European banks right now. Bitcoin was supposed to be an improvement upon existing payment methods, so far, it’s not quite there yet.

TTPrograms 9y ago
It was so nice of them to, out of the goodness of their hearts, provide such a competitively priced service. It sure seems unlikely that it was at all motivated by competition with alternative financial systems.
- lox 9y ago
  This seems like a particularly uncharitable take, can’t businesses ever do both what they want to make happen as individuals and what makes good business sense?
- kuschku 9y ago
  SEPA has provided free transfers years before Satoshi even posted his first post, and SEPA ICT's first draft was at a time when Bitcoin was published, but no one had used it yet. The reason isn't the goodness of their hearts, it's simply a government mandated program to improve the payment infrastructure.
koonsolo 9y ago
Sadly still nowhere close to the free transactions from 0.00001 to whatever amount, within 3 seconds, that's already possible today with Nano, worldwide. No need for a bank account. Bitcoin is old technology. Let's see how banks will compete with next gen coins.
ripberge 9y ago
What is this method of transaction? Credit cards?
- kuschku 9y ago
  SEPA Instant Credit Transfer. The Eurozone has had for many years a free transfer system between bank accounts, nowadays thanks to recent upgrades it's not only free, but also instant. And banks now have to provide an open API to all functionality as well, so that it's very easy to build technology on top to allow people to just quickly transfer money to someone, or pay online with it. But technically, it's just international wire transfers, for free, instantly, with an open API. Like most banks already provided.
  - loeg 9y ago
    > But technically, it's just international wire transfers, for free, instantly, with an open API. Like most banks already provided. Eurozone banking is far ahead of the US in this regard :-(. Wires still cost $20-25 per here and ACH takes days.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      ACH will be same day next month.
      - loeg 9y ago
        Do any US banks actually let users initiate ACH payments to other individuals? As far as I know, my bank does not (USAA).
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Not through ACH, but through a bank owned consortium: https://www.zellepay.com/ https://www.zellepay.com/ USAA is a participant in that network. Transfers are (EDIT: mostly immediate below a certain dollar amount, next day above) between participant bank users. https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/mobile_banking_send_money_zelle_faqs_index https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/mobile_banking_send_money_zelle...
        9y ago
tekproxy 9y ago
Lol. It's advantages are that it's sound money and uncensorable, not faster than visa. Layer one will never scale to superior global currency. It's an immutable, append only database. DCS is a trade-off.
- mrep 9y ago
  > it's sound money Can you explain what you mean by that? > and uncensorable With all the hacks, that is literally the last place people want to hold their money
  - arianvanp 9y ago
    With sound he means it's verifyable. All currency is accounted for
    - mrep 9y ago
      That sounds good until fraud/hacks/mistakes happen and your are the customer that needs them to modify the account. Example: I got my bank routing/account numbers from a bank in a state in which I had not set up my checking account in but the bank teller put the routing number as if I had creating the account in that state. Thus, my first paycheck went to an empty account and I went to the bank that day and they fixed it for me. Putting any of my money in a place that is irreversibly is the last place I would put it.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - nicky0 9y ago
        As long as you can trust your banks and your nation's government then that is fine. You probably live in a stable western country. Nice for you.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
icelancer 9y ago
>> Bitcoin was supposed to be an improvement upon existing payment methods, so far, it’s not quite there yet. Your proposed "better" transaction method is worse in many ways that are important to people on the Internet, namely tracking, non-psuedonoymous, not the physical representation of the money, and many other related issues. It isn't all about speed and cost for people who transact in cryptocurrency.
- asymmetric 9y ago
  How important they are to people on the Internet remains to be seen. Until now, privacy and decentralization have not been successful selling points for any technology looking for wide acceptance (diaspora, mastodon, ...)
FreeRadical 9y ago
You may want to look into the Cyprus bank depositor haircuts of early 2013
- kuschku 9y ago
  That's a good point, but won't do anything for adoption. Bitcoin will be supported by stores and websites only if enough people use it, and people will use what is most convenient, not what is most secure or most private. As long as people don't care about privacy, Bitcoin won't succeed. And if people ever care about it, half the users of HN will be without a job, considering they're almost all working at Google/Facebook/Amazon/startups selling private data
jebeng 9y ago
> Bitcoin was supposed to be an improvement upon existing payment methods Where are you getting that from? People noted as early as 2009/2010(Hal Finney particularly) that it was inherently inefficient for that purpose. And that perhaps people would build addition layers on top of it, but it was always clear that it wasn't some magic solution to payments at any reasonable scale. Not to mention the value proposition of credit cards for consumers(cash back, fraud protection, various perks like travel insurance ect) has always been obviously superior. Bitcoin is cool/interesting/potentially part of a well balanced portfolio as an investment with unique properties. But I feel anyone who jumped into Bitcoin because they thought it was going to be great at payments was badly mislead.

TTPrograms 9y ago

It was so nice of them to, out of the goodness of their hearts, provide such a competitively priced service. It sure seems unlikely that it was at all motivated by competition with alternative financial systems.

lox 9y ago
This seems like a particularly uncharitable take, can’t businesses ever do both what they want to make happen as individuals and what makes good business sense?
kuschku 9y ago
SEPA has provided free transfers years before Satoshi even posted his first post, and SEPA ICT's first draft was at a time when Bitcoin was published, but no one had used it yet. The reason isn't the goodness of their hearts, it's simply a government mandated program to improve the payment infrastructure.

koonsolo 9y ago

Sadly still nowhere close to the free transactions from 0.00001 to whatever amount, within 3 seconds, that's already possible today with Nano, worldwide. No need for a bank account. Bitcoin is old technology. Let's see how banks will compete with next gen coins.

ripberge 9y ago

What is this method of transaction? Credit cards?

kuschku 9y ago
SEPA Instant Credit Transfer. The Eurozone has had for many years a free transfer system between bank accounts, nowadays thanks to recent upgrades it's not only free, but also instant. And banks now have to provide an open API to all functionality as well, so that it's very easy to build technology on top to allow people to just quickly transfer money to someone, or pay online with it. But technically, it's just international wire transfers, for free, instantly, with an open API. Like most banks already provided.
- loeg 9y ago
  > But technically, it's just international wire transfers, for free, instantly, with an open API. Like most banks already provided. Eurozone banking is far ahead of the US in this regard :-(. Wires still cost $20-25 per here and ACH takes days.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    ACH will be same day next month.
    - loeg 9y ago
      Do any US banks actually let users initiate ACH payments to other individuals? As far as I know, my bank does not (USAA).
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Not through ACH, but through a bank owned consortium: https://www.zellepay.com/ https://www.zellepay.com/ USAA is a participant in that network. Transfers are (EDIT: mostly immediate below a certain dollar amount, next day above) between participant bank users. https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/mobile_banking_send_money_zelle_faqs_index https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/mobile_banking_send_money_zelle...
        9y ago

tekproxy 9y ago

Lol. It's advantages are that it's sound money and uncensorable, not faster than visa. Layer one will never scale to superior global currency. It's an immutable, append only database. DCS is a trade-off.

mrep 9y ago
> it's sound money Can you explain what you mean by that? > and uncensorable With all the hacks, that is literally the last place people want to hold their money
- arianvanp 9y ago
  With sound he means it's verifyable. All currency is accounted for
  - mrep 9y ago
    That sounds good until fraud/hacks/mistakes happen and your are the customer that needs them to modify the account. Example: I got my bank routing/account numbers from a bank in a state in which I had not set up my checking account in but the bank teller put the routing number as if I had creating the account in that state. Thus, my first paycheck went to an empty account and I went to the bank that day and they fixed it for me. Putting any of my money in a place that is irreversibly is the last place I would put it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - nicky0 9y ago
      As long as you can trust your banks and your nation's government then that is fine. You probably live in a stable western country. Nice for you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago

icelancer 9y ago

>> Bitcoin was supposed to be an improvement upon existing payment methods, so far, it’s not quite there yet. Your proposed "better" transaction method is worse in many ways that are important to people on the Internet, namely tracking, non-psuedonoymous, not the physical representation of the money, and many other related issues. It isn't all about speed and cost for people who transact in cryptocurrency.

asymmetric 9y ago
How important they are to people on the Internet remains to be seen. Until now, privacy and decentralization have not been successful selling points for any technology looking for wide acceptance (diaspora, mastodon, ...)

FreeRadical 9y ago

You may want to look into the Cyprus bank depositor haircuts of early 2013

kuschku 9y ago
That's a good point, but won't do anything for adoption. Bitcoin will be supported by stores and websites only if enough people use it, and people will use what is most convenient, not what is most secure or most private. As long as people don't care about privacy, Bitcoin won't succeed. And if people ever care about it, half the users of HN will be without a job, considering they're almost all working at Google/Facebook/Amazon/startups selling private data

jebeng 9y ago

> Bitcoin was supposed to be an improvement upon existing payment methods Where are you getting that from? People noted as early as 2009/2010(Hal Finney particularly) that it was inherently inefficient for that purpose. And that perhaps people would build addition layers on top of it, but it was always clear that it wasn't some magic solution to payments at any reasonable scale. Not to mention the value proposition of credit cards for consumers(cash back, fraud protection, various perks like travel insurance ect) has always been obviously superior. Bitcoin is cool/interesting/potentially part of a well balanced portfolio as an investment with unique properties. But I feel anyone who jumped into Bitcoin because they thought it was going to be great at payments was badly mislead.