6 ms·

>Any wallet could offer the same thing. No, its not a wallet at all its a protocol like TCP but for money. If you are interested go read about it first. There

by noxer 5y ago

>Any wallet could offer the same thing. No, its not a wallet at all its a protocol like TCP but for money. If you are interested go read about it first. There is no point in arguing about something you dont know what it is. >PayPal could offer it Yes, they could but its not lucrative and if it would be they would not be interested in using a public interoperable protocol where everyone can offer the same service and compete. So you have some sites that use PayPal and other sites use 15 other payment companies. You just recreated subscription hell. Its completely missing the point. If its decentral and standardized all systems work together. If I have the wrong token or currency the decentral system finds a way to swap them so I can use any services no matter what "wallet" or currency I use. I cold stream Netflix and Amazon Prime and only pay what I watch and when I watch. Also why would I want PayPal to know whom I stream money? If its central its impossible to hide such data. If its p2p no third party know what content I pay for. That's how it should be. >Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments We already have it.... its called ads. Ever page load, every click, every interaction and every data collected about you is a form of inefficient micropayment. One that does not respect your privacy, tires to maximize the time you waste and tries to trick you into buying stuff you dont need. And the cost of that is slapped onto the product you may buy. Don't you think there are tons of people out there who would rather not annoy their visitors with ads? They would rather have them pay a few fraction of a cent directly to them without the ad-mafia taking a huge junk out of the revenue. And dont you think there are people who would rather pay a few fraction of a cent than see ads or block ads knowing that the content creator does not get paid then? >Further, this is just revisiting whether people are willing to pay for content online. They are not. They would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything. That's your personal opinion. The facts are not on your side. People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. It does not scale to the number or services the average user wants to use. And it hardly adjust to the actual use. Its objectively just so much worse than if you could stream for what you use in real time. You could go a long way without ads for a few bucks if you would replace them with the actual revenue they create. Only if your time is worthless you would rather watch a 15 second ad than pay 1/10 cent or whatever to not see it.

reedjosh 5y ago
> People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. People will pay if it's a frictionless payment of a small amount reflective of the value gained. Netflix did this with movies, Spotify with music, `crypto with everything?` if the tech and business models are worked out.
- noxer 5y ago
  Imagine how awesome it would be if you could search for a movie choose the service that current has the best cost/byte ratio for your location (they can make this variable to manage load). Then you start streaming. No registering needed. Not even a login. After 10 min you notice the film sucks so you stop the stream. You only payed for the first 10 min. Totally friction-less ofc. You could watch on a random TV anywhere and stream the money from your phone. Sounds like sci-fi but we have all the key tech needed for this.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    It sounds not very compelling. Id rather give Netflix $50/mth and not worry about any of that. [edit] not to mention, content creators don't price their movies in dollars per byte haha, they price it based on what they think people will pay. This is part of the reason all you can eat is much more enjoyable.
    - noxer 5y ago
      I think you didn't get the bigger picture. Its not for streaming a movie is for everything on the web. Why would you pay 50 for Netflix if you can just consume content wherever you want for 50 bucks instead. They can still offer you a flat rate if they want. The option to pay what you use doesn't take the option to pay upfront or whatever away. There is no doubt they will lure you into using the same service somehow but that's kind irrelevant. The goal is to have the choice and that you can pay/support the small fishes too. The one you would never make a subscription for. Same with donation. You probably dont have Wikipedia or hacker news subscription. But leaving a few cents for free content ever month would probably be a good idea to keep it free. Its not "all you can eat" is "you can eat where you want" you never missed that because it was always like that you never needed a subscription for certain food or restaurant chains. You just go and eat wherever you want and they all expect you to pay what you ordered or whatever deal they offer. This system makes it far more likely you go eat somewhere new and far more likely that you eat spaghetti where you like it the most and pizza somewhere ease. Web content should work the same.

by noxer 5y ago

reedjosh 5y ago

> People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. People will pay if it's a frictionless payment of a small amount reflective of the value gained. Netflix did this with movies, Spotify with music, `crypto with everything?` if the tech and business models are worked out.

noxer 5y ago
Imagine how awesome it would be if you could search for a movie choose the service that current has the best cost/byte ratio for your location (they can make this variable to manage load). Then you start streaming. No registering needed. Not even a login. After 10 min you notice the film sucks so you stop the stream. You only payed for the first 10 min. Totally friction-less ofc. You could watch on a random TV anywhere and stream the money from your phone. Sounds like sci-fi but we have all the key tech needed for this.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  It sounds not very compelling. Id rather give Netflix $50/mth and not worry about any of that. [edit] not to mention, content creators don't price their movies in dollars per byte haha, they price it based on what they think people will pay. This is part of the reason all you can eat is much more enjoyable.
  - noxer 5y ago
    I think you didn't get the bigger picture. Its not for streaming a movie is for everything on the web. Why would you pay 50 for Netflix if you can just consume content wherever you want for 50 bucks instead. They can still offer you a flat rate if they want. The option to pay what you use doesn't take the option to pay upfront or whatever away. There is no doubt they will lure you into using the same service somehow but that's kind irrelevant. The goal is to have the choice and that you can pay/support the small fishes too. The one you would never make a subscription for. Same with donation. You probably dont have Wikipedia or hacker news subscription. But leaving a few cents for free content ever month would probably be a good idea to keep it free. Its not "all you can eat" is "you can eat where you want" you never missed that because it was always like that you never needed a subscription for certain food or restaurant chains. You just go and eat wherever you want and they all expect you to pay what you ordered or whatever deal they offer. This system makes it far more likely you go eat somewhere new and far more likely that you eat spaghetti where you like it the most and pizza somewhere ease. Web content should work the same.