4 ms·

Trust in transactions isn't an issue at all. When was the last time you threw down your Visa card and worried about ... anything? They offer redress via chargeb

Trust in transactions isn't an issue at all. When was the last time you threw down your Visa card and worried about ... anything? They offer redress via chargebacks. You trust Visa, Visa trusts the merchants. Something goes wrong, call your bank. Ezpz. Now you may argue that you can't pay for your, uh, illegal or immoral material with a Visa card. That's a different matter. In my opinion, the government should recognize modern payments rails as critical infrastructure and require them to process all legal transactions without discrimination. A sort of payments net neutrality. [edit] You may also argue that merchant fees are "too high" - yeah they're high in America. They're 0.3% in Europe, because again, that's a job for regulation. They don't get card transaction rewards (because that's where the overwhelming majority of interchange goes) but that's the trade-off they've chosen to make. Replacing modern payment rails with magic beans that live in your computer solves literally nothing for the overwhelming majority of people, which indeed, is why the overwhelming majority of people never transact on-chain. They speculate on the sidelines from centralized, trusted exchanges. It's gambling on unregistered securities to most people.

trevelyan 5y ago
If you read the whitepaper it flags (first paragraph) that the problem with payment systems that rely on trusted third parties like Visa is not that they don't work but that these parties are compelled to mediate. You may not mind yourself -- Visa is useful -- but adding this kind of closure isn't cost-free (look at Wikileaks) and the fundamental innovation in how to do this without introducing any trusted third parties is a big deal. With that said, I agree most of the new POS variants and DAGs are sneaking closure back in amd pretending it is OK because the resulting systems look and feel like Bitcoin.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > You may not mind yourself -- Visa is useful -- but adding this kind of closure isn't cost-free (look at Wikileaks) and the fundamental innovation in how to do this without introducing any trusted third parties is a big deal. A Bitcoin transaction costs a few hundred dollars once you price in both the direct transaction fees and the socialized fees (block reward). I'll stick with Visa. note: Of course Bitcoin still has trusted third parties - just lots of them.
once_inc 5y ago
I'd like to point out that the majority of people on Earth don't transact digitally at all, because those systems we trust don't allow them on. I'd also like to point out that trusting a system of accounting is a moot point when that system is built on a flawed monetary system where unelected officials can debase the unit of account with a press of a button. The significant asset inflation we've seen in real estate, stocks, bitcoin, gold, etc, is all due to that. Bitcoin isn't a solution to trustless banking. Its a solution to trustless _central_ banking.
- camjw 5y ago
  Sure, the monetary system is flawed (in the sense that all systems are flawed and the current one seems to be doing particularly poorly _at the moment_) but we also had a trustless central banking system before called the Gold Standard and iirc that didn't work either? What is it about digital currencies that make this better than the Gold Standard?
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Ok, so hold all your assets in real estate, stocks, or gold and only convert it to fiat when you need to pay for something. I'm not sure what cryptocurrency adds here besides another (rather volatile) investment vehicle.
  - once_inc 5y ago
    bit late, but: real estate and stocks (and most gold) isn't held sovereignly, but in vaults, managed by gatekeepers. I own some stocks though a platform that manages it for me. They can force me off their system at a moments notice. Real estate is managed by the government. They can also take it away. The first counter-argument would be that we have laws and procedures that protect most people from such actions, which is mostly true. There are however a number of clear examples where either the government or society underwent rapid change which allowed for these assets to be seized (think: revolutions, exectutive order 6102, etc). Bitcoin (not crypto -> bitcoin) solves this through offering you the option or sovereignly hold an asset outside the control of anyone who doesn't have the private keys.
mattdesl 5y ago
Merchant fees are pretty high for most online and international payment systems. For example donating to an artist via Ko-Fi will result in 2-3.4% + $0.30 fees due to Stripe/PayPal payment processor. IMHO the larger concern is that our current online payment rails and modes of value transfer & digital ownership are all inextricably linked with centralized, oligopolistic, and for-profit corporate entities (and, typically US-based and USD-dependent). A public, open source, decentralized, and peer-to-peer transactional system that spans the globe is a desirable goal, even if you do not feel the current blockchain-based solutions are sufficient or user-friendly enough.
- automatic6131 5y ago
  >For example donating to an artist via Ko-Fi will result in 2-3.4% + $0.30 fees due to Stripe/PayPal payment processor Cryptobros would kill for transaction fees that low
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    Many digital artists I know have a Tezos address, and I could send them a donation of any size for a fixed fee of about 0.000544 XTZ or $0.001 USD.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      And since you can't exchange Tezos for goods and services, you need to send it to an exchange, sell it for 1-2%, deal with foreign exchange changes over the time you held it, counter-party risk on the exchange, then perform a domestic transfer into your bank account, and add the transaction to your income taxes.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        not really. I just checked a CEX - to exchange 1,000 XTZ into 2,268K GBP and have it directly deposited into fiat account, the fee is 3.76 GBP, i.e. 0.17% rather than 1-2%. you also seem to be taking the opinion that all crypto must eventually be exchanged to fiat. obviously it is wise to exchange enough to fiat for taxes, monthly expenses, and to have a balanced portfolio. but some users may choose to keep some in crypto, for example to stake, continue paying for other crypto-localized goods and services, or exchange into a stablecoin in order to have self-custody of a USD-pegged asset. fwiw, if more merchants did accept crypto and taxes were payable in crypto (as it is becoming the case in some very specific jurisdictions around the world), there would be less need to exchange to fiat via a CEX.

trevelyan 5y ago

If you read the whitepaper it flags (first paragraph) that the problem with payment systems that rely on trusted third parties like Visa is not that they don't work but that these parties are compelled to mediate. You may not mind yourself -- Visa is useful -- but adding this kind of closure isn't cost-free (look at Wikileaks) and the fundamental innovation in how to do this without introducing any trusted third parties is a big deal. With that said, I agree most of the new POS variants and DAGs are sneaking closure back in amd pretending it is OK because the resulting systems look and feel like Bitcoin.

arcticbull 5y ago
> You may not mind yourself -- Visa is useful -- but adding this kind of closure isn't cost-free (look at Wikileaks) and the fundamental innovation in how to do this without introducing any trusted third parties is a big deal. A Bitcoin transaction costs a few hundred dollars once you price in both the direct transaction fees and the socialized fees (block reward). I'll stick with Visa. note: Of course Bitcoin still has trusted third parties - just lots of them.

once_inc 5y ago

I'd like to point out that the majority of people on Earth don't transact digitally at all, because those systems we trust don't allow them on. I'd also like to point out that trusting a system of accounting is a moot point when that system is built on a flawed monetary system where unelected officials can debase the unit of account with a press of a button. The significant asset inflation we've seen in real estate, stocks, bitcoin, gold, etc, is all due to that. Bitcoin isn't a solution to trustless banking. Its a solution to trustless _central_ banking.

camjw 5y ago
Sure, the monetary system is flawed (in the sense that all systems are flawed and the current one seems to be doing particularly poorly _at the moment_) but we also had a trustless central banking system before called the Gold Standard and iirc that didn't work either? What is it about digital currencies that make this better than the Gold Standard?
AlexandrB 5y ago
Ok, so hold all your assets in real estate, stocks, or gold and only convert it to fiat when you need to pay for something. I'm not sure what cryptocurrency adds here besides another (rather volatile) investment vehicle.
- once_inc 5y ago
  bit late, but: real estate and stocks (and most gold) isn't held sovereignly, but in vaults, managed by gatekeepers. I own some stocks though a platform that manages it for me. They can force me off their system at a moments notice. Real estate is managed by the government. They can also take it away. The first counter-argument would be that we have laws and procedures that protect most people from such actions, which is mostly true. There are however a number of clear examples where either the government or society underwent rapid change which allowed for these assets to be seized (think: revolutions, exectutive order 6102, etc). Bitcoin (not crypto -> bitcoin) solves this through offering you the option or sovereignly hold an asset outside the control of anyone who doesn't have the private keys.

mattdesl 5y ago

Merchant fees are pretty high for most online and international payment systems. For example donating to an artist via Ko-Fi will result in 2-3.4% + $0.30 fees due to Stripe/PayPal payment processor. IMHO the larger concern is that our current online payment rails and modes of value transfer & digital ownership are all inextricably linked with centralized, oligopolistic, and for-profit corporate entities (and, typically US-based and USD-dependent). A public, open source, decentralized, and peer-to-peer transactional system that spans the globe is a desirable goal, even if you do not feel the current blockchain-based solutions are sufficient or user-friendly enough.

automatic6131 5y ago
>For example donating to an artist via Ko-Fi will result in 2-3.4% + $0.30 fees due to Stripe/PayPal payment processor Cryptobros would kill for transaction fees that low
- mattdesl 5y ago
  Many digital artists I know have a Tezos address, and I could send them a donation of any size for a fixed fee of about 0.000544 XTZ or $0.001 USD.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    And since you can't exchange Tezos for goods and services, you need to send it to an exchange, sell it for 1-2%, deal with foreign exchange changes over the time you held it, counter-party risk on the exchange, then perform a domestic transfer into your bank account, and add the transaction to your income taxes.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      not really. I just checked a CEX - to exchange 1,000 XTZ into 2,268K GBP and have it directly deposited into fiat account, the fee is 3.76 GBP, i.e. 0.17% rather than 1-2%. you also seem to be taking the opinion that all crypto must eventually be exchanged to fiat. obviously it is wise to exchange enough to fiat for taxes, monthly expenses, and to have a balanced portfolio. but some users may choose to keep some in crypto, for example to stake, continue paying for other crypto-localized goods and services, or exchange into a stablecoin in order to have self-custody of a USD-pegged asset. fwiw, if more merchants did accept crypto and taxes were payable in crypto (as it is becoming the case in some very specific jurisdictions around the world), there would be less need to exchange to fiat via a CEX.