3 ms·

And you are yet to start your run of Localism. ;) "Custodial/Non-custodial" is not the point of Hub20. It's not supposed to be used by a company that wants to

And you are yet to start your run of Localism. ;) "Custodial/Non-custodial" is not the point of Hub20. It's not supposed to be used by a company that wants to operate an exchange or to compete with Coinbase. It's supposed to be used by me and my family, or a small co-op of artisans that want to sell things online. Trust is not enforced by the technology, it is built and supported by the group that is using it. A rule of thumb for Hub20 should be do not join an instance if you can not knock on the door of its operator. > Trust them? Do business with them. Don’t trust them? Maybe don’t. Try this: - I trust Joe with the cash register from our shop, but I wouldn't trust him to manage my life savings. For the former, we can use our Hub20 server and enjoy quick, low-cost transactions. For the latter, I will keep a very secure and private wallet. - Rachel trusts me to manage the funds collected by the members of her church, but she doesn't trust me to manage the funds of a multi-million investment club which she happens to have some shares on. She can trust the blockchain contract that lets me and her pool our resources and invest in real estate development, though. - I trust Bandcamp to pay me my fair share of whatever I sell through their platform. I don't trust them to be my bank. But Bob, my Starving Artist friend is kind of crazy and he is okay with using Bandcamp as his "checking account". If Bandcamp wants to use Hub20 as a payout option (and if they implement a KYC system that satisfies Uncle Sam), they can operate their own instance of Hub20. The idea with Hub20 is to get a different kind of decentralization. I can be a part of many different hubs, just like most people have different circles of relationships and different types of relationships and different levels of trust among them. The payment network as whole gets more robust, more people can get access to crypto. It's still "permissionless" (if you don't trust anyone, you can just run your own node just for yourself) but it also enables non-technical people to use it. It brings the benefits of economies of scale without forcing people to trust and depend on some faceless company. Trust is not binary. It depends on context and the nature of the relationship. Should I be involving Visa on everything, costing me and everyone else 3%+ of our capital and rob us the opportunity to exercise this mutual trust? Also, wouldn't the act of involving a third-party signal that this mutual trust does not exist?

arcticbull 6y ago
One of the many things you’ll learn in Econ 101 is visas cost structure. Visanet makes 0.1-0.2%. The cardholder makes 1-2% depending on the card and the rewards structure. The remainder goes to the issuing bank and covers the cost of loan origination. It is after all an unsecured loan at a rate of 0% for the first month. Even this is a social policy issue as Europe has capped debit interchange at 0.2% and credit at 0.3%. Guess what they don’t have? Reward programs. Ok so what does this fee get you as a merchant? 20% higher average ticket sizes. Then there’s bitcoins $10 fee or $100 if you factor in the socialized cost of block reward. So no, it’s not a 3%+, it’s much more nuanced than you’re making it out to be, and it is by no means a clear win. Every other hypothetical actor you provided has their use case solved by permission limited accounts with your merchant acquirer. [edit] if you knew you were making a disingenuous statement to make your position sound compelling when it just isn’t. That’s lying. A better system doesn’t have to lie.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > visas cost structure. I know. I don't care. This is Homo Economicus talking. 3% or 0.03%, it's another entity that gets into the relationship and changes the social dynamics of the relationship. Shut up, Economicus! > Then there’s bitcoins $10 fee or $100 if you factor in the socialized cost of block reward. (A better system doesn’t have to lie.) Oh, did you see the part about Raiden, which uses layer-2 to bring near-zero-fee, instant transfers? Not to mention that if you are making transfers inside the hub, then the cost is actually zero? P.S.: in case you want to argue Visa lets users get their money back. My response will involve Kleros [0] and how that can (will?) become a cheaper and more efficient system to settle disputes. P.P.S: Do understand that you are trying to make an argument using quantitative issues when the whole reason you have so many people working on crypto is due to "qualitative" characteristics in the status quo that we want to change. You are arguing over the sound quality of the PSTN network while others are figuring out solutions to the problems that will lead them to building the Internet. Yeah, we know making a digital phone call over 9600 baud is kind of stupid when you are already have an AT&T line. The point is that we want to get rid of AT&T altogether. The examples I gave "could've been solved by some Visa offering"? They could, but we want to get rid of Visa - or at least to have an alternative to it. Much like we want to have an alternative to governments that grow ever-larger and ever-less-successful in working for its people. Are the first implementations going to be objectively better than the status quo? No, of course not. Can they be objectively better? I don't see why not, so why not work on it? [0]: https://kleros.io/ https://kleros.io/

arcticbull 6y ago

One of the many things you’ll learn in Econ 101 is visas cost structure. Visanet makes 0.1-0.2%. The cardholder makes 1-2% depending on the card and the rewards structure. The remainder goes to the issuing bank and covers the cost of loan origination. It is after all an unsecured loan at a rate of 0% for the first month. Even this is a social policy issue as Europe has capped debit interchange at 0.2% and credit at 0.3%. Guess what they don’t have? Reward programs. Ok so what does this fee get you as a merchant? 20% higher average ticket sizes. Then there’s bitcoins $10 fee or $100 if you factor in the socialized cost of block reward. So no, it’s not a 3%+, it’s much more nuanced than you’re making it out to be, and it is by no means a clear win. Every other hypothetical actor you provided has their use case solved by permission limited accounts with your merchant acquirer. [edit] if you knew you were making a disingenuous statement to make your position sound compelling when it just isn’t. That’s lying. A better system doesn’t have to lie.

rglullis 6y ago
> visas cost structure. I know. I don't care. This is Homo Economicus talking. 3% or 0.03%, it's another entity that gets into the relationship and changes the social dynamics of the relationship. Shut up, Economicus! > Then there’s bitcoins $10 fee or $100 if you factor in the socialized cost of block reward. (A better system doesn’t have to lie.) Oh, did you see the part about Raiden, which uses layer-2 to bring near-zero-fee, instant transfers? Not to mention that if you are making transfers inside the hub, then the cost is actually zero? P.S.: in case you want to argue Visa lets users get their money back. My response will involve Kleros [0] and how that can (will?) become a cheaper and more efficient system to settle disputes. P.P.S: Do understand that you are trying to make an argument using quantitative issues when the whole reason you have so many people working on crypto is due to "qualitative" characteristics in the status quo that we want to change. You are arguing over the sound quality of the PSTN network while others are figuring out solutions to the problems that will lead them to building the Internet. Yeah, we know making a digital phone call over 9600 baud is kind of stupid when you are already have an AT&T line. The point is that we want to get rid of AT&T altogether. The examples I gave "could've been solved by some Visa offering"? They could, but we want to get rid of Visa - or at least to have an alternative to it. Much like we want to have an alternative to governments that grow ever-larger and ever-less-successful in working for its people. Are the first implementations going to be objectively better than the status quo? No, of course not. Can they be objectively better? I don't see why not, so why not work on it? [0]: https://kleros.io/ https://kleros.io/