6 ms·

That's more on simply poor cell service if anything at all though no? The tech even then seemingly worked for you then. Your anecdotal is comparable to saying

by bhtru 4y ago

That's more on simply poor cell service if anything at all though no? The tech even then seemingly worked for you then. Your anecdotal is comparable to saying students at a college not being able to add one another on Facebook in it's early days, because the campus Wi-Fi was on the fritz.

blahblah123456 4y ago
Yes, but in real life blame doesn't matter. What matters is the alternative (a hardwired credit card terminal or cash) would've worked, and this didn't.
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  A real cryptocurrency wallet also would have worked.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    90% of people won't use their own wallets.
    - phs318u 4y ago
      I think 90% is a massive underestimate. EDITED to correct autocorrect.
    - CameronNemo 4y ago
      Then 90% of people don't get crypto or don't care. Which seems to be true. They just keep it in their coinbase or robinhood account and wait for the price to go (back) up until they sell.
  - adrr 4y ago
    I wonder what percentage of the crypto population has wallets compared to having all their crypto on an exchange. I don’t know anyone with a wallet.
    - serf 4y ago
      having all of your currency on an exchange, regardless of the currency, has never been a good idea. (signed a MtGox victim.)
      - hnthrow1010 4y ago
        The problem with that is, these networks are rather convoluted and are basically unusable for most people without relying on exchanges or other similar services.
        dwild 4y ago
        It's no different than doing it over an exchange... The same fields are available on an application wallets and on an exchange. There's nothing convoluted there.
    - colinsane 4y ago
      > if the people in the vanguard of this movement can't figure this out the people “in the vanguard of [the cryptocurrency] movement” absolutely use non-custodial wallets (SW or HW). the part of this story where “the vanguard” is using custodial wallets is the least believable. the average speculator, sure — they’ll go with whatever’s easiest for them, which is probably to keep their crypto on the exchange. “vanguard” users? lmao.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    How would it have worked without the ability to communicate with the blockchain. I could double and triple spend to my heart's content.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      Not disagreeing with any of you but a blockchain payment terminal that’s itself connected to the internet could technically receive your signed transaction from your (offline) phone and then submit it to the network on your behalf. The balance on your phone wouldn’t update until it itself gets back onto the network and resyncs its state with the blockchain.
    - whatisweb3 4y ago
      I think commenter is suggesting a non custodial wallet with internet access would work fine, which is true. The problem seemed to be cell signal, not internet, as they were able to use the coinbase app or website.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Credit card payments have the same problem.
- arcticfox 4y ago
  I mean, if the wifi didn't work the credit card terminal likely might not have either. I've had issues tons of times in remote places with credit card readers. And cash is cash, but I don't think crypto is really competing with cash, more with cash-alternatives (like credit cards, venmo etc.)
  - logifail 4y ago
    > credit card terminal likely might not have either There's a process for taking the details for an offline credit card payment[0] which is settled later. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8322/how-are-credit-cards-processed-during-flight https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8322/how-are-cr...
    - prvit 4y ago
      Bitcoin also lets you sign transactions offline, which the recipient can broadcast next time they have an internet connection. A wire transfer is really a more apt comparison when discussing sending money from Coinbase.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  That's essentially saying the same thing as if the cell phones didn't work a hardwired landline would have. It's true, but it's also missing the point.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  If you were going to talk about the beginning of the movement, and then compare it to a credit card. . Consider his this would have worked at the beginning of the credit card movement. You would have pulled out your triplicate form and your credit card imprinter and basically made your IOUs that way... And then mailed them in!
  - dwild 4y ago
    You can build a transaction and sign it in Bitcoin without sending it though. It just that they weren't ready for that, and probably were not interested in doing it that way either.
- prvit 4y ago
  Aren’t bank transfers the obvious alternative to Coinbase payments? That wouldn’t have worked. Regular bitcoin transaction OTOH would presumably have worked just as well as credit cards.
ethanbond 4y ago
Except that… you don’t need to use Facebook to hypothetically buy food or goods or services… Facebook isn’t an appropriate analog to what BTC/crypto aims to be.
- bhtru 4y ago
  Wouldn't you still need some sort connection to the greater network to use a credit card? Of course if you're speaking about cash then yes, but BTC also comes in the form of physical coins as well if you really wanted it.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    > Wouldn't you still need some sort connection to the greater network to use a credit card? Nope. Reminder for those new to how credit cards actually work, there are two distinct transactions and they are not connected. Authorization transactions establish that this is, in fact, really a credit card issued by BIG BANK, and optionally that some credentials you've got are genuine (e.g. a PIN for modern chip and PIN cards, or a 3-4 digit security code for a remote payment). Authorization aims to protect merchants from crooked customers and to some extent to protect banks from crooked merchants. Nobody cares about the customer, if you want protecting ask your government. Settlement transactions move money from the customer's account to the merchant's account. An offline credit card terminal may be able to perform some limited Authorization with chip cards in particular, it can confirm that the chip card says this is the correct PIN for example, but regardless it can begin the Settlement transaction. Now, the Settlement won't actually happen immediately, but eventually the transactions are batched up and sent to a bank and the bank executes them, and the settlements occur. Debit cards can need an online transaction because the card may be unwilling to authorise the Settlement process if it can't confirm you actually have the money, as these cards may be issued to people who aren't allowed credit.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Bitcoin wallets can do the same. You can sign transactions without internet connectivity.
ajross 4y ago
> The tech even then seemingly worked for you then Only because they trusted each other! I mean, any currency or barter mechanism anywhere in the world or throughout history works if you trust the person to pay you tomorrow. BTC was supposed to be able to move beyond that, somehow. And it turns out that the world still runs on trust.

by bhtru 4y ago

blahblah123456 4y ago

Yes, but in real life blame doesn't matter. What matters is the alternative (a hardwired credit card terminal or cash) would've worked, and this didn't.

CameronNemo 4y ago
A real cryptocurrency wallet also would have worked.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  90% of people won't use their own wallets.
  - phs318u 4y ago
    I think 90% is a massive underestimate. EDITED to correct autocorrect.
  - CameronNemo 4y ago
    Then 90% of people don't get crypto or don't care. Which seems to be true. They just keep it in their coinbase or robinhood account and wait for the price to go (back) up until they sell.
- adrr 4y ago
  I wonder what percentage of the crypto population has wallets compared to having all their crypto on an exchange. I don’t know anyone with a wallet.
  - serf 4y ago
    having all of your currency on an exchange, regardless of the currency, has never been a good idea. (signed a MtGox victim.)
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      The problem with that is, these networks are rather convoluted and are basically unusable for most people without relying on exchanges or other similar services.
      - dwild 4y ago
        It's no different than doing it over an exchange... The same fields are available on an application wallets and on an exchange. There's nothing convoluted there.
  - colinsane 4y ago
    > if the people in the vanguard of this movement can't figure this out the people “in the vanguard of [the cryptocurrency] movement” absolutely use non-custodial wallets (SW or HW). the part of this story where “the vanguard” is using custodial wallets is the least believable. the average speculator, sure — they’ll go with whatever’s easiest for them, which is probably to keep their crypto on the exchange. “vanguard” users? lmao.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  How would it have worked without the ability to communicate with the blockchain. I could double and triple spend to my heart's content.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Not disagreeing with any of you but a blockchain payment terminal that’s itself connected to the internet could technically receive your signed transaction from your (offline) phone and then submit it to the network on your behalf. The balance on your phone wouldn’t update until it itself gets back onto the network and resyncs its state with the blockchain.
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    I think commenter is suggesting a non custodial wallet with internet access would work fine, which is true. The problem seemed to be cell signal, not internet, as they were able to use the coinbase app or website.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Credit card payments have the same problem.
arcticfox 4y ago
I mean, if the wifi didn't work the credit card terminal likely might not have either. I've had issues tons of times in remote places with credit card readers. And cash is cash, but I don't think crypto is really competing with cash, more with cash-alternatives (like credit cards, venmo etc.)
- logifail 4y ago
  > credit card terminal likely might not have either There's a process for taking the details for an offline credit card payment[0] which is settled later. [0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8322/how-are-credit-cards-processed-during-flight https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8322/how-are-cr...
  - prvit 4y ago
    Bitcoin also lets you sign transactions offline, which the recipient can broadcast next time they have an internet connection. A wire transfer is really a more apt comparison when discussing sending money from Coinbase.
idiotsecant 4y ago
That's essentially saying the same thing as if the cell phones didn't work a hardwired landline would have. It's true, but it's also missing the point.
chrismcb 4y ago
If you were going to talk about the beginning of the movement, and then compare it to a credit card. . Consider his this would have worked at the beginning of the credit card movement. You would have pulled out your triplicate form and your credit card imprinter and basically made your IOUs that way... And then mailed them in!
- dwild 4y ago
  You can build a transaction and sign it in Bitcoin without sending it though. It just that they weren't ready for that, and probably were not interested in doing it that way either.
prvit 4y ago
Aren’t bank transfers the obvious alternative to Coinbase payments? That wouldn’t have worked. Regular bitcoin transaction OTOH would presumably have worked just as well as credit cards.

ethanbond 4y ago

Except that… you don’t need to use Facebook to hypothetically buy food or goods or services… Facebook isn’t an appropriate analog to what BTC/crypto aims to be.

bhtru 4y ago
Wouldn't you still need some sort connection to the greater network to use a credit card? Of course if you're speaking about cash then yes, but BTC also comes in the form of physical coins as well if you really wanted it.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > Wouldn't you still need some sort connection to the greater network to use a credit card? Nope. Reminder for those new to how credit cards actually work, there are two distinct transactions and they are not connected. Authorization transactions establish that this is, in fact, really a credit card issued by BIG BANK, and optionally that some credentials you've got are genuine (e.g. a PIN for modern chip and PIN cards, or a 3-4 digit security code for a remote payment). Authorization aims to protect merchants from crooked customers and to some extent to protect banks from crooked merchants. Nobody cares about the customer, if you want protecting ask your government. Settlement transactions move money from the customer's account to the merchant's account. An offline credit card terminal may be able to perform some limited Authorization with chip cards in particular, it can confirm that the chip card says this is the correct PIN for example, but regardless it can begin the Settlement transaction. Now, the Settlement won't actually happen immediately, but eventually the transactions are batched up and sent to a bank and the bank executes them, and the settlements occur. Debit cards can need an online transaction because the card may be unwilling to authorise the Settlement process if it can't confirm you actually have the money, as these cards may be issued to people who aren't allowed credit.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Bitcoin wallets can do the same. You can sign transactions without internet connectivity.

ajross 4y ago

> The tech even then seemingly worked for you then Only because they trusted each other! I mean, any currency or barter mechanism anywhere in the world or throughout history works if you trust the person to pay you tomorrow. BTC was supposed to be able to move beyond that, somehow. And it turns out that the world still runs on trust.