7 ms·

Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another altcoin, is a po

Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another altcoin, is a positive for me.

zamadatix 5y ago
Why is it suddenly a requirement the browser also handle P2P payments in the first place?
- freedomben 5y ago
  It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a really hard problem that hasn't been solved real well. The most common strategy is ads, but everybody involved (by that I mean the producer and the consumer of the content, not an unnecessary third part like ad sellers) hate that solution. There are some attempts like Medium and their subscription model and Brave's BAT. These solve the problem of "micro payments" but they still require a third party and they have significant limitations (especially that content providers don't have any say on "price"). Direct payments so far suffer from the "micro payments" issue in that small payments aren't feasible since credit card companies and other third parties take a non-trivial portion. So yeah, if a browser can fix this problem with P2P payments, that would be huge.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    There are a lot of really hard problems and as big as fixing any such really hard problem would be the question is why this needs to be handled by the browser itself not why this would be a good problem to have solved.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      Well sure, it could be implemented without the browser, just like FTP and other things were back in the day before they got implemented in the browser (which made browsing an FTP server accessible to tons of people who didn't know how/why to use an FTP client), but it's a lot less user friendly. Instead of configuring your preferences or clicking an "approve" button or whatever, you have to provision yourself a wallet, click an "I want to pay $0.15 for this article", get the receiver's wallet address, copy it over to your wallet. Copy over a transaction ID, click send, wait for an email confirmation that includes the access code, copy paste that into the original article, and you're golden. Or all of that can just happen seamlessly in the background if the browser knows how to do it. Also, I don't see an average user ever going through those hurdles, so probably the idea dies on the vine and we'll end up stuck with ads or centralized subscription models for eternity. AFAIK they aren't advocating for the banning of other browsers (like Chrome), so if you don't want to use a browser that has support for that protocol, you can choose one that doesn't.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - bromuro 5y ago
    > It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a really hard problem that hasn't been solved real well. It’s not a “really hard problem” - cryptocurrency is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      > It’s not a “really hard problem” Then what's the solution?
  - rollcat 5y ago
    Paying content creators is a very valid problem, however using proof of work in place of CC processor fees is just moving the problem around - and arguably, making it worse: you're essentially taking on environmental debt, which all of us will eventually have to pay down.
  - joshcryer 5y ago
    What "monetizing content via a crypto browser" really means is "voluntarily submitting yourself to this 'decentralized' control structure we have set up." Which, in the case of Bitcoin, is "controlled" by 5 mining pools at any given time, who are all, one way or another, going to have to submit to government control at some point in the future. Meanwhile the whole thing about "decentralized identifiers" is people using the system will be connecting to central data centers. As far as 'micropayments,' that is begging for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'll give you an example. Netflix users watch about 100 hours of their service a month, for $15.59. So 15 cents an hour. There is no scenario in which Netflix benefits from creating a virtual currency in their system pegged at 15 cents an hour (think Flix-Bux), people are already pushing back hard on these internal 'currencies.' The irony is not lost on me the amount of energy used by smart dudes to create a browser that is proposing virtual currency which has been utilize to nickle and dime gamers from adolescence to adulthood (robux, vbucks, the plethroa of 'money sellers' on many platforms). Nothing about this is about freedom, this is all about changing one central control structure for another, with little crumbs of implication that it's better for users and sellers alike.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I suspect a cabal controls exactly what goes on despite bitcoin community claims. They are slowly selling off their positions over time and converting to real world assets for that point when they pull the rug out and it all crashes down around all the other investors ears when the curtain falls and the wizard(s) are exposed.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      The nice property that well designed cryptocurrency protocols have is that they are censorship resistant - they align incentives and telemetry such that operators shouldn't want to censor transactions, but even if they do they cant differentiate between the transactions they like and the ones they don't. Bitcoin itself doesn't really have this property but there are other ones out there that do.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  It's not a matter of requirement, it's a matter that they want to. It's their project. Since they want to, I think crypto is the best technology available for that today. I might be wrong, but no one responded to my question with an answer of a better solution than crypto. All they say is: "should not do it". Well, the question was not whether they should do it or not. They already did.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    "Don't do it" can be an acceptable answer to "what's a better solution" depending if, from your viewpoint, doing nothing is better than doing the proposed. E.g. Q: "what's a better solution for schizophrenia than lobotomy" A: "Not lobotomy, that's sketchy as can be". You think crypto is on the net positive side of nothing. A great number of HN do not see it as such they see it as a constant source of scams, funding hype source, fraud, speculation, laundering, and so on with little to actually show in the way of being the world changer it is always promised. The point of that isn't to bring up a debate about if crypto is or isn't so, that conversation has been rehashed a thousand times here and nobody really wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole plus much better resources on the topic exist than comments, it's mentioned as why that portion is wary of a product which puts a lot of spotlight on crypto payments being a core part of why it exists instead of just focusing on the initial crypto based revolution it is already promising: a p2p decentralized browsing experience. Combine the two and you've got something that for many is squarely in the "I'm not going to touch this until it is shown to not be like the other stories and wish it wasn't about payments" camp.
    - Irongirl1 5y ago
      I'm going to tell you a short story. Have patience please. I consider my industry to be Media. I wanted to be a Journalist(TM) when I grew up. Won a contest...went to a major paper in Boston as part of a group of "those that will one day be Woodward and Bernstein." Then Youtube happened. I pooh-poohed it because I couldn't wrap my head around why anyone, in my thoughts at the time, "would want to watch a bunch of amateurs do x." Fast forward to today. I watch more YouTube than Netflix and Prime Video combined. These are the only two services we still pay for...we used to also have HBO and Acorn, but they are both one trick ponies and are not adding enough compelling content quickly enough. Also after HBO ruined ASOIF, they landed on my no-go list forevermore. Acorn is simply too expensive for what it offers. It might become for compelling if it were to expand to the Scandies... I currently maintain a folder on my desktop (one of hundreds) called The Olsen Meter. And in the folder I save every article I come across about industry people-in this case finance industry folks-who I feel are making the same mistake I did all those years ago by pooh poohing crypto. The problems will get worked out...they always do. The energy issue is a sideshow. And mainly bandied about by those who (I feel) are reacting out of nervousness about the future and the unknowns. Crypto is constantly maligned because of the hacks and thefts, but the most stolen currency in the World is/was/always will be the US $100 bill. To the tune of Trillions. Crypto and is multi-billions have quite aways to go before it even comes close. As to whether or not this will solve the micropayments problem, maybe not but I like the idea of it as a stopgap. Until someone builds something newer and better. And if it keeps journalists from selling their souls to corporations via ads, then the Devil I know and like will always be a better deal. Last thing I'd like you to consider: How does Dr. Beverly Crusher pay for fabric on TNG in Episode 1? Now before you dismiss the question, realize that she has never been on this planet before, this is the first time they (the crew) have met the Bandi and she procures a whole bolt of beautiful fabric with one sentence? How does the vendor know whether or not she's good for it?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  What's the big deal? It does a lot more things these days than just "show the web". You are free not to use the feature. Clearly if no one uses it they'll remove it from the code. It doesn't really affect you at all if you never use it. If some people got their way we'd still be using lynx.
bromuro 5y ago
> Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? Yes: to not implement them at all.
- powerslacker 5y ago
  Can you elaborate?
  - z3c0 5y ago
    Personally, I don't understand why a browser needs payment functionality at all, P2P or not.
    - rollcat 5y ago
      I like Apple Pay support in Safari, and use it wherever it's available. I'm not a fan of cryptocurrencies by any measure, but I can understand why people would like that.
      - beebeepka 5y ago
        Care to explain what does it mean to have payment support in the browser. Not entirely sure what apple pay is
        rollcat 5y ago
        I see a "Pay with Apple" button (doesn't appear if you're not using Safari, I guess). I click it, and Safari pops up an OS-level dialog, prompting for TouchID / FaceID / Apple Watch / password authorisation. I authorise the payment, the goods are paid. Works on Mac, iOS, etc. The card is the same one I use to pay for stuff in a shop, so basically buying groceries and buying things online are like the same thing, one click/tap away. It's pretty neat, if you don't mind Apple being a middle man.
  - pmontra 5y ago
    Not OP but why do I want payment implemented inside the browser?
everdrive 5y ago
I don't want to implement P2P payments. I don't even know what this means. Does it just mean "sending someone money?" Why would I want that to be built into a browser? I'm a bit confused why this is being pushed.
- freedomben 5y ago
  It means there's an easy way to "pay" for "premium" content in very small forms. Like "here's 15 cents for letting me read this article." No ads, no subscription and sending all your personal info, no email spam. I think if it works, it will change everything.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I feel like this is overly idealistic, it will be $1.99 with ads and personal info harvesting and spam. Why wouldn’t you?
    - freedomben 5y ago
      I'm sure some will want to do that, sure. Especially the marketing driven blogs/sites. But they'll be competing against people that don't do that, so unless their content is really really good and unique, they'll lose in the market and either adapt or die. Maybe some mega celebrities could pull that off, but it would be pretty rare. I mean, they could easily be doing that right now. $1.99 is high enough that the problem of micro payments isn't really a problem at that price. But they don't because it would be a terrible strategy...
      - throwaway81523 5y ago
        > But they'll be competing against people that don't do that, That's already the case, yet there is no way to escape. We need to go back to browsers that don't take over our computer (harvest personal info etc).
        5y ago
indigochill 5y ago
> Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? There's tons of cool P2P web stuff to do that isn't payments. And I don't want my browser to have a payment mechanism baked in anyway. Along a different line of criticism, my bet is P2P payments in the long run is a nonstarter because once legislation catches up (which it will) every peer will need to be as compliant with financial regulations as a bank which is no fun to run as a peer so things centralize and we're back where we started. And Bitcoin is absolutely not a positive. It's incredibly destructive to the environment (and in some cases, national economies and power grids) to the extent even diehard cryptocurrency advocates are warning everyone away from Proof-of-Work in favor of alternative schemes like Proof-of-Stake. Bitcoin is notable for being the one that popularized the tech, but there have been massive improvements on the core idea since then.

Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another altcoin, is a positive for me.

zamadatix 5y ago

Why is it suddenly a requirement the browser also handle P2P payments in the first place?

freedomben 5y ago
It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a really hard problem that hasn't been solved real well. The most common strategy is ads, but everybody involved (by that I mean the producer and the consumer of the content, not an unnecessary third part like ad sellers) hate that solution. There are some attempts like Medium and their subscription model and Brave's BAT. These solve the problem of "micro payments" but they still require a third party and they have significant limitations (especially that content providers don't have any say on "price"). Direct payments so far suffer from the "micro payments" issue in that small payments aren't feasible since credit card companies and other third parties take a non-trivial portion. So yeah, if a browser can fix this problem with P2P payments, that would be huge.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  There are a lot of really hard problems and as big as fixing any such really hard problem would be the question is why this needs to be handled by the browser itself not why this would be a good problem to have solved.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    Well sure, it could be implemented without the browser, just like FTP and other things were back in the day before they got implemented in the browser (which made browsing an FTP server accessible to tons of people who didn't know how/why to use an FTP client), but it's a lot less user friendly. Instead of configuring your preferences or clicking an "approve" button or whatever, you have to provision yourself a wallet, click an "I want to pay $0.15 for this article", get the receiver's wallet address, copy it over to your wallet. Copy over a transaction ID, click send, wait for an email confirmation that includes the access code, copy paste that into the original article, and you're golden. Or all of that can just happen seamlessly in the background if the browser knows how to do it. Also, I don't see an average user ever going through those hurdles, so probably the idea dies on the vine and we'll end up stuck with ads or centralized subscription models for eternity. AFAIK they aren't advocating for the banning of other browsers (like Chrome), so if you don't want to use a browser that has support for that protocol, you can choose one that doesn't.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- bromuro 5y ago
  > It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a really hard problem that hasn't been solved real well. It’s not a “really hard problem” - cryptocurrency is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    > It’s not a “really hard problem” Then what's the solution?
- rollcat 5y ago
  Paying content creators is a very valid problem, however using proof of work in place of CC processor fees is just moving the problem around - and arguably, making it worse: you're essentially taking on environmental debt, which all of us will eventually have to pay down.
- joshcryer 5y ago
  What "monetizing content via a crypto browser" really means is "voluntarily submitting yourself to this 'decentralized' control structure we have set up." Which, in the case of Bitcoin, is "controlled" by 5 mining pools at any given time, who are all, one way or another, going to have to submit to government control at some point in the future. Meanwhile the whole thing about "decentralized identifiers" is people using the system will be connecting to central data centers. As far as 'micropayments,' that is begging for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'll give you an example. Netflix users watch about 100 hours of their service a month, for $15.59. So 15 cents an hour. There is no scenario in which Netflix benefits from creating a virtual currency in their system pegged at 15 cents an hour (think Flix-Bux), people are already pushing back hard on these internal 'currencies.' The irony is not lost on me the amount of energy used by smart dudes to create a browser that is proposing virtual currency which has been utilize to nickle and dime gamers from adolescence to adulthood (robux, vbucks, the plethroa of 'money sellers' on many platforms). Nothing about this is about freedom, this is all about changing one central control structure for another, with little crumbs of implication that it's better for users and sellers alike.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I suspect a cabal controls exactly what goes on despite bitcoin community claims. They are slowly selling off their positions over time and converting to real world assets for that point when they pull the rug out and it all crashes down around all the other investors ears when the curtain falls and the wizard(s) are exposed.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    The nice property that well designed cryptocurrency protocols have is that they are censorship resistant - they align incentives and telemetry such that operators shouldn't want to censor transactions, but even if they do they cant differentiate between the transactions they like and the ones they don't. Bitcoin itself doesn't really have this property but there are other ones out there that do.
rmbyrro 5y ago
It's not a matter of requirement, it's a matter that they want to. It's their project. Since they want to, I think crypto is the best technology available for that today. I might be wrong, but no one responded to my question with an answer of a better solution than crypto. All they say is: "should not do it". Well, the question was not whether they should do it or not. They already did.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  "Don't do it" can be an acceptable answer to "what's a better solution" depending if, from your viewpoint, doing nothing is better than doing the proposed. E.g. Q: "what's a better solution for schizophrenia than lobotomy" A: "Not lobotomy, that's sketchy as can be". You think crypto is on the net positive side of nothing. A great number of HN do not see it as such they see it as a constant source of scams, funding hype source, fraud, speculation, laundering, and so on with little to actually show in the way of being the world changer it is always promised. The point of that isn't to bring up a debate about if crypto is or isn't so, that conversation has been rehashed a thousand times here and nobody really wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole plus much better resources on the topic exist than comments, it's mentioned as why that portion is wary of a product which puts a lot of spotlight on crypto payments being a core part of why it exists instead of just focusing on the initial crypto based revolution it is already promising: a p2p decentralized browsing experience. Combine the two and you've got something that for many is squarely in the "I'm not going to touch this until it is shown to not be like the other stories and wish it wasn't about payments" camp.
  - Irongirl1 5y ago
    I'm going to tell you a short story. Have patience please. I consider my industry to be Media. I wanted to be a Journalist(TM) when I grew up. Won a contest...went to a major paper in Boston as part of a group of "those that will one day be Woodward and Bernstein." Then Youtube happened. I pooh-poohed it because I couldn't wrap my head around why anyone, in my thoughts at the time, "would want to watch a bunch of amateurs do x." Fast forward to today. I watch more YouTube than Netflix and Prime Video combined. These are the only two services we still pay for...we used to also have HBO and Acorn, but they are both one trick ponies and are not adding enough compelling content quickly enough. Also after HBO ruined ASOIF, they landed on my no-go list forevermore. Acorn is simply too expensive for what it offers. It might become for compelling if it were to expand to the Scandies... I currently maintain a folder on my desktop (one of hundreds) called The Olsen Meter. And in the folder I save every article I come across about industry people-in this case finance industry folks-who I feel are making the same mistake I did all those years ago by pooh poohing crypto. The problems will get worked out...they always do. The energy issue is a sideshow. And mainly bandied about by those who (I feel) are reacting out of nervousness about the future and the unknowns. Crypto is constantly maligned because of the hacks and thefts, but the most stolen currency in the World is/was/always will be the US $100 bill. To the tune of Trillions. Crypto and is multi-billions have quite aways to go before it even comes close. As to whether or not this will solve the micropayments problem, maybe not but I like the idea of it as a stopgap. Until someone builds something newer and better. And if it keeps journalists from selling their souls to corporations via ads, then the Devil I know and like will always be a better deal. Last thing I'd like you to consider: How does Dr. Beverly Crusher pay for fabric on TNG in Episode 1? Now before you dismiss the question, realize that she has never been on this planet before, this is the first time they (the crew) have met the Bandi and she procures a whole bolt of beautiful fabric with one sentence? How does the vendor know whether or not she's good for it?
stjohnswarts 5y ago
What's the big deal? It does a lot more things these days than just "show the web". You are free not to use the feature. Clearly if no one uses it they'll remove it from the code. It doesn't really affect you at all if you never use it. If some people got their way we'd still be using lynx.

bromuro 5y ago

> Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? Yes: to not implement them at all.

powerslacker 5y ago
Can you elaborate?
- z3c0 5y ago
  Personally, I don't understand why a browser needs payment functionality at all, P2P or not.
  - rollcat 5y ago
    I like Apple Pay support in Safari, and use it wherever it's available. I'm not a fan of cryptocurrencies by any measure, but I can understand why people would like that.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      Care to explain what does it mean to have payment support in the browser. Not entirely sure what apple pay is
      - rollcat 5y ago
        I see a "Pay with Apple" button (doesn't appear if you're not using Safari, I guess). I click it, and Safari pops up an OS-level dialog, prompting for TouchID / FaceID / Apple Watch / password authorisation. I authorise the payment, the goods are paid. Works on Mac, iOS, etc. The card is the same one I use to pay for stuff in a shop, so basically buying groceries and buying things online are like the same thing, one click/tap away. It's pretty neat, if you don't mind Apple being a middle man.
- pmontra 5y ago
  Not OP but why do I want payment implemented inside the browser?

everdrive 5y ago

I don't want to implement P2P payments. I don't even know what this means. Does it just mean "sending someone money?" Why would I want that to be built into a browser? I'm a bit confused why this is being pushed.

freedomben 5y ago
It means there's an easy way to "pay" for "premium" content in very small forms. Like "here's 15 cents for letting me read this article." No ads, no subscription and sending all your personal info, no email spam. I think if it works, it will change everything.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I feel like this is overly idealistic, it will be $1.99 with ads and personal info harvesting and spam. Why wouldn’t you?
  - freedomben 5y ago
    I'm sure some will want to do that, sure. Especially the marketing driven blogs/sites. But they'll be competing against people that don't do that, so unless their content is really really good and unique, they'll lose in the market and either adapt or die. Maybe some mega celebrities could pull that off, but it would be pretty rare. I mean, they could easily be doing that right now. $1.99 is high enough that the problem of micro payments isn't really a problem at that price. But they don't because it would be a terrible strategy...
    - throwaway81523 5y ago
      > But they'll be competing against people that don't do that, That's already the case, yet there is no way to escape. We need to go back to browsers that don't take over our computer (harvest personal info etc).
      - 5y ago

indigochill 5y ago

> Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency? There's tons of cool P2P web stuff to do that isn't payments. And I don't want my browser to have a payment mechanism baked in anyway. Along a different line of criticism, my bet is P2P payments in the long run is a nonstarter because once legislation catches up (which it will) every peer will need to be as compliant with financial regulations as a bank which is no fun to run as a peer so things centralize and we're back where we started. And Bitcoin is absolutely not a positive. It's incredibly destructive to the environment (and in some cases, national economies and power grids) to the extent even diehard cryptocurrency advocates are warning everyone away from Proof-of-Work in favor of alternative schemes like Proof-of-Stake. Bitcoin is notable for being the one that popularized the tech, but there have been massive improvements on the core idea since then.