2 ms·

>> Any high charge-back industry Not if your the person buying. Bitcoin guarantees 1 way movement of 'currency', it makes no guarantees on your product or serv

>> Any high charge-back industry Not if your the person buying. Bitcoin guarantees 1 way movement of 'currency', it makes no guarantees on your product or service. This is why charge-backs exist. >> With respect to volatility, that's largely a function of very thin trading volumes That only get thinner due to limited (and loosable) deflationary currency and increasing fees due to extrodinary power consumption. >>In a mass adoption scenario, immediately converting to fiat currencies through exchanges will not be necessary. Not possible due to volatility and fees. See previous. >> Absolutely false. The failure rate of exchanges has dramatically declined over the last several years. Brick and mortar banks still get hacked, if they havent solved it, unregulated crypto exchanges certainly wont. The problem can be mitigated in traditional currency by simply 'undo'ing the damage, or holding a regulated institution responsible. >> While it is true that criminals benefit the most from censorship-resistant payments, this is no different than criminals benefiting the most from privacy. You've conflated privacy into this argument, which is strange because normal currencies have privacy. Crypto generally does not.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Not if your the person buying. Bitcoin guarantees 1 way movement of 'currency', it makes no guarantees on your product or service. This is why charge-backs exist. In the article I linked, it explains that part of the reason high charge-back industries have a high rate of charge back is that the payment processors they're stuck with don't conduct the fraud prevention validations that more established credit card processors conduct. So the result is that credit card scammers have an easier time conducting scams, which honest buyers end up paying for with higher prices. While the risks posed by the merchants in these industries aren't mitigated by using irreversible cryptocurrency payments, the additional costs incurred by credit card scammers are. Where cryptocurrency has a use is where the customer trusts a merchant in a high charge-back industry. They can enjoy high discounts for using cryptocurrency in this case. >>That only get thinner due to limited (and loosable) deflationary currency and increasing fees due to extrodinary power consumption. Trading volumes should have no relationship with the nominal money supply in cryptocurrency, since the units are highly divisible. 1 Ether == 1000 Finney == 1000000 Szabo == 1000000000000000000 Wei. The choice of units is up to the user. So no, in a mass adoption scenario, thin trading volumes won't get thinner. That would be totally absurd. >>increasing fees due to extrodinary power consumption. Power consumption follows fees, not the other way around. Power consumption is a function of mining revenues. The cost of the energy consumed approaches mining revenues. Since much of mining revenues consists of the block subsidy, as the portion of mining revenues consisting of subsidies decreases, as a result of greater fee revenue from a larger volume of transaction, power consumption per transaction decreases. >>Brick and mortar banks still get hacked, if they havent solved it, unregulated crypto exchanges certainly wont. Straw man. I didn't say hacks will stop. I said that exchanges are getting more secure, in contradiction to the claim made in the paper. >>You've conflated privacy into this argument I haven't conflated anything. I was illustrating a general principle using privacy as an example of the principle in action.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>Not if your the person buying. Bitcoin guarantees 1 way movement of 'currency', it makes no guarantees on your product or service. This is why charge-backs exist. In the article I linked, it explains that part of the reason high charge-back industries have a high rate of charge back is that the payment processors they're stuck with don't conduct the fraud prevention validations that more established credit card processors conduct. So the result is that credit card scammers have an easier time conducting scams, which honest buyers end up paying for with higher prices. While the risks posed by the merchants in these industries aren't mitigated by using irreversible cryptocurrency payments, the additional costs incurred by credit card scammers are. Where cryptocurrency has a use is where the customer trusts a merchant in a high charge-back industry. They can enjoy high discounts for using cryptocurrency in this case. >>That only get thinner due to limited (and loosable) deflationary currency and increasing fees due to extrodinary power consumption. Trading volumes should have no relationship with the nominal money supply in cryptocurrency, since the units are highly divisible. 1 Ether == 1000 Finney == 1000000 Szabo == 1000000000000000000 Wei. The choice of units is up to the user. So no, in a mass adoption scenario, thin trading volumes won't get thinner. That would be totally absurd. >>increasing fees due to extrodinary power consumption. Power consumption follows fees, not the other way around. Power consumption is a function of mining revenues. The cost of the energy consumed approaches mining revenues. Since much of mining revenues consists of the block subsidy, as the portion of mining revenues consisting of subsidies decreases, as a result of greater fee revenue from a larger volume of transaction, power consumption per transaction decreases. >>Brick and mortar banks still get hacked, if they havent solved it, unregulated crypto exchanges certainly wont. Straw man. I didn't say hacks will stop. I said that exchanges are getting more secure, in contradiction to the claim made in the paper. >>You've conflated privacy into this argument I haven't conflated anything. I was illustrating a general principle using privacy as an example of the principle in action.