5 ms·

Hopefully making enough noise on HN and social media will help your case move quickly. That appears to be the only way to get a response these days. Maybe one

Hopefully making enough noise on HN and social media will help your case move quickly. That appears to be the only way to get a response these days. Maybe one day non-custodial and permissionless payment rails will prevent this situation, for those services that choose to use it. Shame that HN is so polarized about blockchain that they refuse to entertain the idea.

AdrianEGraphene 4y ago
AFAIK, there are no permissionless payment rail that do fiat-> crypto payment processing. They all require intermediaries and presumably would run into similar issues. Crypto-> crypto would be a different story, but requires a more sophisticated buyer. I play in this space, so would definitely like to hear what you've got in mind.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  Imagining either crypto to crypto, or a permissioned rollup handling crypto to fiat that lets the sequencer block a users address for KYC purposes, but user can still trustlessly withdraw funds to mainnet.
negamax 4y ago
But what about the people who don't have social clout? I think for every person like this, there are 100s if not thousands who's money and accounts get locked away.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  That’s my point. A system where your funds are locked unless your complaint goes viral is a terrible system.
noasaservice 4y ago
This is a *legal* issue,and not a shitcoin-solving issue.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  Poor technical and legal frameworks for digital payment processors is how we have gotten to this point. Strict AML, KYC, copyright protection, and anti-adult requirements forces payment processors to err on the side of caution and deploy mass automated systems to flag and lock accounts that trigger the slightest internal alarm bells, even if this leads to some false positives and destroys a few small businesses along the way.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Maybe one day non-custodial and permissionless payment rails will prevent this situation, for those services that choose to use it. Shame that HN is so polarized about blockchain that they refuse to entertain the idea. It's a shame that we've only figured out "pay $200 to the guy using a derelict coal plant to run the world's fanciest space heater" and "pay $200 to the guy who hoards the most of your 'currency'" then and not "non-custodial and permissionless payment rails" then.
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  Lol this comment reveals a lot of ignorance. My last transaction fee on Eth was in the range of $1, most of that value is burned and not sent to a miner, and anyone who wants to participate in protocol rewards can do so through delegation. PoS is not perfect but far better than current norm of “pay a billion dollar corporation a fixed fee and also give them total control of the world’s payment rails.”
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Burning is identical to regressive redistribution. It takes value from those who transact and assigns it directly to those who hoard through deflation. If you have a money velocity of 5 and an average transaction of $100 and burn 1% every transaction, it is equivalent to a ~5% pa tax directly into the pockets of currency hoarders. No different to paying visa 1% or $1 per transaction. It's not an improvement. Just a changing of the guard with less oversight.
    - whatisweb3 4y ago
      "Pay $1 to a single private company" is not the same as "pay $1 toward every circulating token in the network." If you consider this a tax, it is a tax distributed to all current and future holders of the currency, including the user doing the transaction. If "changing of the guard" means replacing VISA with thousands of VISAs in a decentralized network, where any non-VISA can become yet another VISA through permissionless software, that is far better in my opinion. If you have another economic model than EIP 1559 that you feel is superior, you have the power to propose that as an EIP and start to develop consensus around it. EIP 1559 was first proposed in 2019 and it took some years for consensus to build around it.

AdrianEGraphene 4y ago

AFAIK, there are no permissionless payment rail that do fiat-> crypto payment processing. They all require intermediaries and presumably would run into similar issues. Crypto-> crypto would be a different story, but requires a more sophisticated buyer. I play in this space, so would definitely like to hear what you've got in mind.

whatisweb3 4y ago
Imagining either crypto to crypto, or a permissioned rollup handling crypto to fiat that lets the sequencer block a users address for KYC purposes, but user can still trustlessly withdraw funds to mainnet.

negamax 4y ago

But what about the people who don't have social clout? I think for every person like this, there are 100s if not thousands who's money and accounts get locked away.

whatisweb3 4y ago
That’s my point. A system where your funds are locked unless your complaint goes viral is a terrible system.

noasaservice 4y ago

This is a *legal* issue,and not a shitcoin-solving issue.

whatisweb3 4y ago
Poor technical and legal frameworks for digital payment processors is how we have gotten to this point. Strict AML, KYC, copyright protection, and anti-adult requirements forces payment processors to err on the side of caution and deploy mass automated systems to flag and lock accounts that trigger the slightest internal alarm bells, even if this leads to some false positives and destroys a few small businesses along the way.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Maybe one day non-custodial and permissionless payment rails will prevent this situation, for those services that choose to use it. Shame that HN is so polarized about blockchain that they refuse to entertain the idea. It's a shame that we've only figured out "pay $200 to the guy using a derelict coal plant to run the world's fanciest space heater" and "pay $200 to the guy who hoards the most of your 'currency'" then and not "non-custodial and permissionless payment rails" then.

whatisweb3 4y ago
Lol this comment reveals a lot of ignorance. My last transaction fee on Eth was in the range of $1, most of that value is burned and not sent to a miner, and anyone who wants to participate in protocol rewards can do so through delegation. PoS is not perfect but far better than current norm of “pay a billion dollar corporation a fixed fee and also give them total control of the world’s payment rails.”
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Burning is identical to regressive redistribution. It takes value from those who transact and assigns it directly to those who hoard through deflation. If you have a money velocity of 5 and an average transaction of $100 and burn 1% every transaction, it is equivalent to a ~5% pa tax directly into the pockets of currency hoarders. No different to paying visa 1% or $1 per transaction. It's not an improvement. Just a changing of the guard with less oversight.
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    "Pay $1 to a single private company" is not the same as "pay $1 toward every circulating token in the network." If you consider this a tax, it is a tax distributed to all current and future holders of the currency, including the user doing the transaction. If "changing of the guard" means replacing VISA with thousands of VISAs in a decentralized network, where any non-VISA can become yet another VISA through permissionless software, that is far better in my opinion. If you have another economic model than EIP 1559 that you feel is superior, you have the power to propose that as an EIP and start to develop consensus around it. EIP 1559 was first proposed in 2019 and it took some years for consensus to build around it.