7 ms·

> If a centralized company wants to roll out electronic payments through its services it can just, you know, do that. Not it can't. There's a world outside of

> If a centralized company wants to roll out electronic payments through its services it can just, you know, do that. Not it can't. There's a world outside of the US where whole businesses run on WhatsApp. There is no solution, simply none today that exists to allow anyone from any country to register and start making and receiving payments. Not Stripe, not Paypal, none. If Facebook can deliver something that can then be exchanged for real dollars, that could be huge. If a person in a small village in Peru can just start receiving money from another person in another country and that the only barrier of entry is having WhatsApp installed on your phone, this could get ridiculously successful overnight.

jamespo 8y ago
I presume the point was why do FB / WA need to use the blockchain?
- bsaul 8y ago
  because you still want the currency to have value if facebook closes one day, or stop supporting the idea. Facebook would endorse the currency, but the currency ecosystem would have a life of its own. At least that’s my guess..
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    If bitcoin and eth don't have a stable value in 2018, how does WhatsAppCoin sans Facebook guarantee have to stay stable?
    - ralusek 8y ago
      I would imagine because actual commerce is built around it, rather than its valuation being mostly derived from speculative investment as a value hold.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Why would Facebook have any interest in this? Public trust? Is the public that smart?
    - bsaul 8y ago
      my guess is if facebook is working on its own blockchain currency, the algorithm describing the currency would be a bit different from bitcoin or ethereum. Contrary to what you read sometimes, those cryptocurrencies have properties that are not desirable for a real world currency ( aka inflationary and very poor number of transaction per seconds capacity).
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    ...or it could be they want to literally print money and have people use it in everyday commerce so they become a de facto Central Bank. If it were merely an account one used to pay for things then they just get to take a small percentage in transaction fees but with a blockchain they can create a bunch of FaceCoins, sell them on the open market and if things go south with their cryptocurrency laugh all the way to the bank counting their billions.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Is anyone actually more skeptical in the long-term future of Facebook than of any altcoin? (Remember that in order to prevent double-spend attacks, you need to ensure that nobody—and no potential mining pool—is sitting on more computing power than your network has. That's feasible for a single proof-of-work currency; it's technically impossble with even two unless one outcompetes and kills the other, and certainly practically impossible for a new one at this point. And if you're not using proof-of-work, what stability does the coin have once the corporate backer is gone?)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zuron7 8y ago
India came up with UPI for this exact reason. Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Whatsapp Payments, etc. are all built on UPI in India. UPI is interoperable with all apps. So you can use whatever app you prefer. ie Whatsapp Payements can send money to someone using Google Pay directly.
gregschlom 8y ago
And how does that person in that small village in Peru converts their WhatsApp coins, or whatever they are called, into actual money? And if the answer is: they do a transaction with someone else who wants to trade their money for WhatsApp coins then again, why do you need the blockchain versus a centralized WhatsApp currency. Blockchain is a solution when there cannot be trust. If I trust WhatsApp, and you trust WhatsApp, and WhatsApp has a money exchange feature, we don't need the blockchain.
- the_clarence 8y ago
  It could be about the legality of aetting a bank in every country and figuring out rate exchange
  - geofft 8y ago
    Why would it be more legal / legally easier to set up a service in Peru that turns WhatsDubloons into soles and vice versa, affiliated with a multinational company that converts WhatsDubloons into USD, than an entity that directly transfers soles and USD?
    - the_clarence 8y ago
      Because these crypto exchanges already exist
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> If Facebook can deliver something that can then be exchanged for real dollars, that could be huge. There's absolutely zero reason for that something to be blockchain-based. They can just release Facebucks, a private fiat currency that's just backed by ... drumroll please... a relational database.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  You mean like WeChat’s Yuan balances? The app where it’s extremely difficult for Americans to buy currency but that is ubiquitous throughout China? It’s almost like none of these middle-brow dismissals have ever actually experienced a payment problem in another country.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Perhaps your better-positioned brow could clarify exactly how the involvement of a blockchain would solve WeChat's problem and make it easy for Americans to buy in? In particular, if it could be done, why isn't WeChat doing it? And if WeChat can't do it, why can WhatsApp do it?
scottlocklin 8y ago
This is probably the use-case. There's other obvious usecases as well; advertising, p2p loans, annoying the Winkelvoss entity, etc. Since I said no even to an interview, it's hard to say what the parameters are for their thing, but I hope they fail.

jamespo 8y ago

I presume the point was why do FB / WA need to use the blockchain?

bsaul 8y ago
because you still want the currency to have value if facebook closes one day, or stop supporting the idea. Facebook would endorse the currency, but the currency ecosystem would have a life of its own. At least that’s my guess..
- smileysteve 8y ago
  If bitcoin and eth don't have a stable value in 2018, how does WhatsAppCoin sans Facebook guarantee have to stay stable?
  - ralusek 8y ago
    I would imagine because actual commerce is built around it, rather than its valuation being mostly derived from speculative investment as a value hold.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Why would Facebook have any interest in this? Public trust? Is the public that smart?
  - bsaul 8y ago
    my guess is if facebook is working on its own blockchain currency, the algorithm describing the currency would be a bit different from bitcoin or ethereum. Contrary to what you read sometimes, those cryptocurrencies have properties that are not desirable for a real world currency ( aka inflationary and very poor number of transaction per seconds capacity).
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  ...or it could be they want to literally print money and have people use it in everyday commerce so they become a de facto Central Bank. If it were merely an account one used to pay for things then they just get to take a small percentage in transaction fees but with a blockchain they can create a bunch of FaceCoins, sell them on the open market and if things go south with their cryptocurrency laugh all the way to the bank counting their billions.
- geofft 8y ago
  Is anyone actually more skeptical in the long-term future of Facebook than of any altcoin? (Remember that in order to prevent double-spend attacks, you need to ensure that nobody—and no potential mining pool—is sitting on more computing power than your network has. That's feasible for a single proof-of-work currency; it's technically impossble with even two unless one outcompetes and kills the other, and certainly practically impossible for a new one at this point. And if you're not using proof-of-work, what stability does the coin have once the corporate backer is gone?)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zuron7 8y ago

India came up with UPI for this exact reason. Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Whatsapp Payments, etc. are all built on UPI in India. UPI is interoperable with all apps. So you can use whatever app you prefer. ie Whatsapp Payements can send money to someone using Google Pay directly.

gregschlom 8y ago

And how does that person in that small village in Peru converts their WhatsApp coins, or whatever they are called, into actual money? And if the answer is: they do a transaction with someone else who wants to trade their money for WhatsApp coins then again, why do you need the blockchain versus a centralized WhatsApp currency. Blockchain is a solution when there cannot be trust. If I trust WhatsApp, and you trust WhatsApp, and WhatsApp has a money exchange feature, we don't need the blockchain.

the_clarence 8y ago
It could be about the legality of aetting a bank in every country and figuring out rate exchange
- geofft 8y ago
  Why would it be more legal / legally easier to set up a service in Peru that turns WhatsDubloons into soles and vice versa, affiliated with a multinational company that converts WhatsDubloons into USD, than an entity that directly transfers soles and USD?
  - the_clarence 8y ago
    Because these crypto exchanges already exist

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> If Facebook can deliver something that can then be exchanged for real dollars, that could be huge. There's absolutely zero reason for that something to be blockchain-based. They can just release Facebucks, a private fiat currency that's just backed by ... drumroll please... a relational database.

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
You mean like WeChat’s Yuan balances? The app where it’s extremely difficult for Americans to buy currency but that is ubiquitous throughout China? It’s almost like none of these middle-brow dismissals have ever actually experienced a payment problem in another country.
- geofft 8y ago
  Perhaps your better-positioned brow could clarify exactly how the involvement of a blockchain would solve WeChat's problem and make it easy for Americans to buy in? In particular, if it could be done, why isn't WeChat doing it? And if WeChat can't do it, why can WhatsApp do it?

scottlocklin 8y ago

This is probably the use-case. There's other obvious usecases as well; advertising, p2p loans, annoying the Winkelvoss entity, etc. Since I said no even to an interview, it's hard to say what the parameters are for their thing, but I hope they fail.