6 ms·

You kidding me? You're a complainer in search of an issue, there's nothing wrong with this. "Buying things on the internet" obviously works already, in the form

by sdwr 4y ago

You kidding me? You're a complainer in search of an issue, there's nothing wrong with this. "Buying things on the internet" obviously works already, in the form of patreon, subscriptions, and digital purchases. This is a minimal, clean service, does exactly what it says on the tin. IDK if it gets any uptake, and the UI doesn't quite look trustworthy enough for my taste, but the idea itself is pretty much perfect.

dale_glass 4y ago
> You kidding me? You're a complainer in search of an issue, there's nothing wrong with this. "Buying things on the internet" obviously works already, in the form of patreon, subscriptions, and digital purchases. And I've used such services, yes. But this looks way too minimalistic to me to be useful. On Patreon I subscribe to a specific artist. I know who they are and they can know me if we talk to each other. I can favorite posts, provide feedback, get perks, etc. When an artist says that for $10 I'll get access to their latest sketches that's a public announcement on Patreon, and if they don't hold up their promise, fans will get upset. Here there's an obscure link. I don't know what I'm paying for, or who made it. I don't know whether it belongs to the actual person who's supposed to benefit. Somebody could pay for the first access, make their own link and then leech off the actual artist by spreading their link around.
- TylerE 4y ago
  What happens when the URL inevitably starts 404ing would be my first question.
  - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
    It would be a plus if paidlink.to actually made a call to the link before accepting payment, and put up a warning / stopped the transaction if it didn't get a 200, "We're sorry but thingyouwanted.com/enticing.html isn't currrently available, please try again later."
- yyu990 4y ago
  The artist can just have a webpage/blog/... where they would include such "paid links". That is, the audience still knows who they are and still builds some trust etc. But now they don't have to deal with setting up payment systems and account handling and billing and all that stuff. The value proposition of the OP service is to take care of all that and the artist can focus on their art instead. A per-click webshop, basically.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    The issue is I as a scammer can create a paid link to any arbitrary URL, including your URL. There's no verification of control like how say LetsEncrypt works. As a user I'm taken to a link with no verification of what I might be paying for. There's no preview of the content or even a declaration of who might own rights to the linked content. So I get a link that says I need to pay $10, what the fuck am I paying for? Even if I followed a link and expect to be paying, a scammer could also send me a link to the same content. I expected to pay through this site so I go ahead and pay for the content. Since I followed the scammer's link they get paid instead of the content owner. This is a system just rife with abuse potential.
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      You don't seem to have addressed your parent's point. A creator can post a paidlink link on their own site. You already know they're not a scammer because you're part of their happy fanbase. So you trust the links they post will do what they say. Of course you wouldn't just pay money for some random link you found on Google search.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > The issue is I as a scammer can create a paid link to any arbitrary URL, including your URL. Sure, but that was a problem that already existed. People already sell other people's artworks / pictures / etc.. Having to copy a file rather than a link is not a significant barrier. > Even if I followed a link and expect to be paying, a scammer could also send me a link to the same content. I expected to pay through this site so I go ahead and pay for the content. Since I followed the scammer's link they get paid instead of the content owner. Presumably you're getting the link from somewhere reputable - the creator's own site, or their patreon/twitter/etc.. Sure, a scammer can create a fake profile to impersonate them - but again, that's something that already happens.
- Mystery-Machine 4y ago
  Wtf man? First you claim this is useless, then, in this reply you claim that you've used similar services before. Make up your mind. Yes, it's simplistic and ugly af. But don't attack the idea. And, I guess, you got that link from somewhere, or rather from someone.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    He said he used similar services to Patreon.
wpietri 4y ago
It is "perfect" in the H L Mencken sense: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." One of the reasons that Bitcoin never took off for their stated purpose, payment, is that they had a similarly too-simple model of irreversible one-shot transfers. Anybody who has worked on an actual payment system can tell you that commerce is more complex than that.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  I don't think that was the main issue. Bitcoin's main use as an actual currency was for things like drugs, where the legal system wouldn't be on your side anyway. So lack of chargebacks wasn't an issue anyway. The bigger issues with BTC is the onboarding problem, limited capacity and rapidly fluctuating exchange rate.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I don't think I said it was the main issue. I agree that it had other problems too, including the ones you name. But I think you're missing my point. The anonymous, one-shot nature of things made it most appealing to only one set of merchants and one set of customers: people doing crime, and who were therefore most tolerant of the risks. The onboarding problem is also partly a consequence of this. Because a bitcoin transaction is irreversible, and exchange can't just take a credit card payment and give you bitcoin.
- iopq 4y ago
  Bitcoin actually DID take off for payments. The issue is it became too popular and the people in charge of it didn't want to extend the block size limit. I would use Bitcoin to play poker online because the alternative was using Western Union - which is much more of a hassle. Because of this issue, online poker sites now use Litecoin, BSV, BCH, etc. See: bovada.lv and other poker sites who still offer their services to US players
  - wpietri 4y ago
    It actually did not. I agree that it's useful for certain niche quasi-legal cases, but it poses absolutely no competition to both traditional payment media like credit cards and debit cards or modern options like Venmo and MPesa. It was accepted for a brief period by something like 1% of top internet retailers but it's down to at best a handful.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
> IDK if it gets any uptake This is pretty much what solution in search of a problem is. "Here, we made this thing that solves this problem someone could theoretically have." crickets
- drusepth 4y ago
  I still think there's value in a solution already existing if someone were to have that problem. As long as the site isn't hemmoraging money and/or needs users to survive, I don't see any reason the site couldn't just sit until someone needs it and/or grow slowly.

by sdwr 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago

> You kidding me? You're a complainer in search of an issue, there's nothing wrong with this. "Buying things on the internet" obviously works already, in the form of patreon, subscriptions, and digital purchases. And I've used such services, yes. But this looks way too minimalistic to me to be useful. On Patreon I subscribe to a specific artist. I know who they are and they can know me if we talk to each other. I can favorite posts, provide feedback, get perks, etc. When an artist says that for $10 I'll get access to their latest sketches that's a public announcement on Patreon, and if they don't hold up their promise, fans will get upset. Here there's an obscure link. I don't know what I'm paying for, or who made it. I don't know whether it belongs to the actual person who's supposed to benefit. Somebody could pay for the first access, make their own link and then leech off the actual artist by spreading their link around.

TylerE 4y ago
What happens when the URL inevitably starts 404ing would be my first question.
- blacksmith_tb 4y ago
  It would be a plus if paidlink.to actually made a call to the link before accepting payment, and put up a warning / stopped the transaction if it didn't get a 200, "We're sorry but thingyouwanted.com/enticing.html isn't currrently available, please try again later."
yyu990 4y ago
The artist can just have a webpage/blog/... where they would include such "paid links". That is, the audience still knows who they are and still builds some trust etc. But now they don't have to deal with setting up payment systems and account handling and billing and all that stuff. The value proposition of the OP service is to take care of all that and the artist can focus on their art instead. A per-click webshop, basically.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  The issue is I as a scammer can create a paid link to any arbitrary URL, including your URL. There's no verification of control like how say LetsEncrypt works. As a user I'm taken to a link with no verification of what I might be paying for. There's no preview of the content or even a declaration of who might own rights to the linked content. So I get a link that says I need to pay $10, what the fuck am I paying for? Even if I followed a link and expect to be paying, a scammer could also send me a link to the same content. I expected to pay through this site so I go ahead and pay for the content. Since I followed the scammer's link they get paid instead of the content owner. This is a system just rife with abuse potential.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    You don't seem to have addressed your parent's point. A creator can post a paidlink link on their own site. You already know they're not a scammer because you're part of their happy fanbase. So you trust the links they post will do what they say. Of course you wouldn't just pay money for some random link you found on Google search.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > The issue is I as a scammer can create a paid link to any arbitrary URL, including your URL. Sure, but that was a problem that already existed. People already sell other people's artworks / pictures / etc.. Having to copy a file rather than a link is not a significant barrier. > Even if I followed a link and expect to be paying, a scammer could also send me a link to the same content. I expected to pay through this site so I go ahead and pay for the content. Since I followed the scammer's link they get paid instead of the content owner. Presumably you're getting the link from somewhere reputable - the creator's own site, or their patreon/twitter/etc.. Sure, a scammer can create a fake profile to impersonate them - but again, that's something that already happens.
Mystery-Machine 4y ago
Wtf man? First you claim this is useless, then, in this reply you claim that you've used similar services before. Make up your mind. Yes, it's simplistic and ugly af. But don't attack the idea. And, I guess, you got that link from somewhere, or rather from someone.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  He said he used similar services to Patreon.

wpietri 4y ago

It is "perfect" in the H L Mencken sense: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." One of the reasons that Bitcoin never took off for their stated purpose, payment, is that they had a similarly too-simple model of irreversible one-shot transfers. Anybody who has worked on an actual payment system can tell you that commerce is more complex than that.

dale_glass 4y ago
I don't think that was the main issue. Bitcoin's main use as an actual currency was for things like drugs, where the legal system wouldn't be on your side anyway. So lack of chargebacks wasn't an issue anyway. The bigger issues with BTC is the onboarding problem, limited capacity and rapidly fluctuating exchange rate.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I don't think I said it was the main issue. I agree that it had other problems too, including the ones you name. But I think you're missing my point. The anonymous, one-shot nature of things made it most appealing to only one set of merchants and one set of customers: people doing crime, and who were therefore most tolerant of the risks. The onboarding problem is also partly a consequence of this. Because a bitcoin transaction is irreversible, and exchange can't just take a credit card payment and give you bitcoin.
iopq 4y ago
Bitcoin actually DID take off for payments. The issue is it became too popular and the people in charge of it didn't want to extend the block size limit. I would use Bitcoin to play poker online because the alternative was using Western Union - which is much more of a hassle. Because of this issue, online poker sites now use Litecoin, BSV, BCH, etc. See: bovada.lv and other poker sites who still offer their services to US players
- wpietri 4y ago
  It actually did not. I agree that it's useful for certain niche quasi-legal cases, but it poses absolutely no competition to both traditional payment media like credit cards and debit cards or modern options like Venmo and MPesa. It was accepted for a brief period by something like 1% of top internet retailers but it's down to at best a handful.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

> IDK if it gets any uptake This is pretty much what solution in search of a problem is. "Here, we made this thing that solves this problem someone could theoretically have." crickets

drusepth 4y ago
I still think there's value in a solution already existing if someone were to have that problem. As long as the site isn't hemmoraging money and/or needs users to survive, I don't see any reason the site couldn't just sit until someone needs it and/or grow slowly.