10 ms·

One thing crypto does having going for it is the lack of moralising payment processors. I'm really baffled that sex workers and other groups who provide legal s

One thing crypto does having going for it is the lack of moralising payment processors. I'm really baffled that sex workers and other groups who provide legal services that payment processors don't like aren't embracing crypto. Seems like a perfect environment for it and the on and off-ramps today are far better than what existed back in 2016.

emodendroket 3y ago
Most customers are not willing to go to these lengths unless they’re doing something illegal.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Many sex workers are doing something illegal.
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    The majority of sex workers online are not.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      How do you know? Most prostitutes still have to advertise.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        Because the umbrella is big enough to cover people selling nudes, I suppose.
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        That is often illegal. It's not illegal in the US. Even there, it is often a leader service for illegal prostitution. https://twitter.com/KristineParkerH/status/1662508217807642624 https://twitter.com/KristineParkerH/status/16625082178076426... It does not appear to be justified to make claims about what's true of "the majority of sex workers online". This is not an area where reliable numbers exist.
  - Etrnl_President 3y ago
    [dead]
- eru 3y ago
  You are right in practice. But it sounds an awful lot bit like the old "I have nothing to hide" argument against encryption, too? Many payment processors do restrict the business they want to deal with beyond what the letter of the law requires. (And that is their prerogative as a private business!)
  - FpUser 3y ago
    If they refuse business to let's say gays the government would come after them. How is refusing to serve legal sex workers different?
    - pjc50 3y ago
      Sex workers are less likely to be "out" under their real name, which is a prerequisite for achieving redress through the courts.
    - eru 3y ago
      Which government would come after them? There are lots of different governments around the world, with different views and different laws. > How is refusing to serve legal sex workers different? As far as I can tell, in the US discrimination is forbidden against certain protected groups / along certain protected differences only. But you are free to discriminate on all other grounds. Eg a restaurant can legally discriminate against people who don't wear a tie. The UK rules are similar, see eg https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights In the British rules, sexual orientation is explicitly mentioned, but your trade ain't. So as far as I can tell, it's illegal in the UK to discriminate against gays but legal to discriminate against sex workers. (However, a government might come after you, if you do something they don't like, even if it's perfectly legal. Eg the government could just 'randomly' decide to audit your taxes all the time, or 'randomly' apply other regulations and rules more strictly.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group for a list of the protected groups in the US. Wikipedia lists sexual orientation, but not vocation.
      - 3y ago
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Most customers weren't willing to enter their CC information online in the late 90s and early 00s. It took horny trailblazers to get us to where we are today, to the overall benefit of e-commerce. Comparatively, putting CC info in to Coinbase and putting an address to withdraw the crypto in is far safer than what horny people did back then.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It varied by country, but in general CC had risk mitigation built into them in the late 90’s and early 00s limiting their risks vastly below what most people sending money to Coinbase take on. US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1643 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1643 This goes beyond the question of legal risks and statutory limits, CC’s are debt which means someones money isn’t tied up during a dispute.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Real quick, how do I challenge a transaction I made with Bitcoin?
    - eru 3y ago
      On the one hand, in general with raw bitcoin, you can't. On the other hand, you can only lose the bitcoins you actually have. With a credit card you can go into debt.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        That seems worse unless your big problem is not being able to exercise discipline (in which case a debit card would also meet your needs).
        eru 3y ago
        Oh, I wasn't worried about debt, but about scams and fraud.
- cft 3y ago
  Gab.com has been banned by PayPal, Visa and MasterCard: https://news.gab.com/2021/08/an-alternative-to-paypal-is-coming/ https://news.gab.com/2021/08/an-alternative-to-paypal-is-com... Free speech, no matter how disgusting, is constitutional in the US. This is a legal use case of crypto. Another is micropayments for content or for upvotes with Lightning Network, for example https://stacker.news https://stacker.news
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Other than the data outlier of the US basically no nation considers hate speech to be free speech. The US has plenty of asinine speech restrictions too that no one seems to find a 1st amendment problem with, like broadcasting a recent marvel film on my own personal website.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      The requirement on communication providers to police the speech of people using them is just insane and I am still gobsmacked it's what has happened.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        Who’s requiring them? Nobody in the US if that’s where they’re operating. The issue is that that content is so off-putting to the average person that it kills the platform. Nobody is hanging around a site full of hate speech unless that’s specifically what they’re looking for.
        concordDance 3y ago
        In Europe. The UK, Germany, France, etc. Actually, even in the US communication providers are required to stop people sending certain images to each other.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
> I'm really baffled that sex workers and other groups who provide legal services that payment processors don't like aren't embracing crypto. These people also need to pay their bills and not have their money stolen or otherwise disappear in the “fraud all the way down” world of crypto. Cash solves most of these problems, as well as basic intermediate layers like LLCs.
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  Cash is not reasonable for internet-based transactions. Payment processors like Stripe and Braintree are better, but they have moralising terms of service and will drop you the moment they find out what you're doing, and good luck getting your money out of that. Banks will frequently give you a hard time or not work with you if you're a sex worker so bank transfers are much more difficult and probably more info than you're willing to give to Johns. OnlyFans bans a lot of (legal) fetish content because of pressure applied by their payment processors, and they take a fat cut (20%) of what you're making on top it. In an industry where getting fucked by payment processors regularly is part of the business, I think there is obvious appeal to pseudonymous transactions for both buyer and seller. Again, off-ramps are far better in 2023. I can deposit crypto and get cash in my bank account in a working day or two.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    …and yet these systems all still outcompete crypto for the use cases you cite. We must therefore discern that the risk of getting fucked by payment processors is less than getting fucked by the crypto ecosystem.
    - PretzelPirate 3y ago
      It sounds like you don't work in the adult industry and don't have empathy for how difficult it is do deal with payment processors deciding you can't get paid anymore. This is a common problem in these discussions. The HN crowd tends to have better access to payment infrastructure and reliable income from their industry. Not everyone has those benefits and many people are punished by our existing system for doing completely legal work that some see as immoral.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

emodendroket 3y ago

Most customers are not willing to go to these lengths unless they’re doing something illegal.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
Many sex workers are doing something illegal.
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  The majority of sex workers online are not.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    How do you know? Most prostitutes still have to advertise.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Because the umbrella is big enough to cover people selling nudes, I suppose.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        That is often illegal. It's not illegal in the US. Even there, it is often a leader service for illegal prostitution. https://twitter.com/KristineParkerH/status/1662508217807642624 https://twitter.com/KristineParkerH/status/16625082178076426... It does not appear to be justified to make claims about what's true of "the majority of sex workers online". This is not an area where reliable numbers exist.
- Etrnl_President 3y ago
  [dead]
eru 3y ago
You are right in practice. But it sounds an awful lot bit like the old "I have nothing to hide" argument against encryption, too? Many payment processors do restrict the business they want to deal with beyond what the letter of the law requires. (And that is their prerogative as a private business!)
- FpUser 3y ago
  If they refuse business to let's say gays the government would come after them. How is refusing to serve legal sex workers different?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Sex workers are less likely to be "out" under their real name, which is a prerequisite for achieving redress through the courts.
  - eru 3y ago
    Which government would come after them? There are lots of different governments around the world, with different views and different laws. > How is refusing to serve legal sex workers different? As far as I can tell, in the US discrimination is forbidden against certain protected groups / along certain protected differences only. But you are free to discriminate on all other grounds. Eg a restaurant can legally discriminate against people who don't wear a tie. The UK rules are similar, see eg https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights In the British rules, sexual orientation is explicitly mentioned, but your trade ain't. So as far as I can tell, it's illegal in the UK to discriminate against gays but legal to discriminate against sex workers. (However, a government might come after you, if you do something they don't like, even if it's perfectly legal. Eg the government could just 'randomly' decide to audit your taxes all the time, or 'randomly' apply other regulations and rules more strictly.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group for a list of the protected groups in the US. Wikipedia lists sexual orientation, but not vocation.
    - 3y ago
cmcaleer 3y ago
Most customers weren't willing to enter their CC information online in the late 90s and early 00s. It took horny trailblazers to get us to where we are today, to the overall benefit of e-commerce. Comparatively, putting CC info in to Coinbase and putting an address to withdraw the crypto in is far safer than what horny people did back then.
- Retric 3y ago
  It varied by country, but in general CC had risk mitigation built into them in the late 90’s and early 00s limiting their risks vastly below what most people sending money to Coinbase take on. US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1643 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1643 This goes beyond the question of legal risks and statutory limits, CC’s are debt which means someones money isn’t tied up during a dispute.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Real quick, how do I challenge a transaction I made with Bitcoin?
  - eru 3y ago
    On the one hand, in general with raw bitcoin, you can't. On the other hand, you can only lose the bitcoins you actually have. With a credit card you can go into debt.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      That seems worse unless your big problem is not being able to exercise discipline (in which case a debit card would also meet your needs).
      - eru 3y ago
        Oh, I wasn't worried about debt, but about scams and fraud.
cft 3y ago
Gab.com has been banned by PayPal, Visa and MasterCard: https://news.gab.com/2021/08/an-alternative-to-paypal-is-coming/ https://news.gab.com/2021/08/an-alternative-to-paypal-is-com... Free speech, no matter how disgusting, is constitutional in the US. This is a legal use case of crypto. Another is micropayments for content or for upvotes with Lightning Network, for example https://stacker.news https://stacker.news
- flangola7 3y ago
  Other than the data outlier of the US basically no nation considers hate speech to be free speech. The US has plenty of asinine speech restrictions too that no one seems to find a 1st amendment problem with, like broadcasting a recent marvel film on my own personal website.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    The requirement on communication providers to police the speech of people using them is just insane and I am still gobsmacked it's what has happened.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Who’s requiring them? Nobody in the US if that’s where they’re operating. The issue is that that content is so off-putting to the average person that it kills the platform. Nobody is hanging around a site full of hate speech unless that’s specifically what they’re looking for.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        In Europe. The UK, Germany, France, etc. Actually, even in the US communication providers are required to stop people sending certain images to each other.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

> I'm really baffled that sex workers and other groups who provide legal services that payment processors don't like aren't embracing crypto. These people also need to pay their bills and not have their money stolen or otherwise disappear in the “fraud all the way down” world of crypto. Cash solves most of these problems, as well as basic intermediate layers like LLCs.

cmcaleer 3y ago
Cash is not reasonable for internet-based transactions. Payment processors like Stripe and Braintree are better, but they have moralising terms of service and will drop you the moment they find out what you're doing, and good luck getting your money out of that. Banks will frequently give you a hard time or not work with you if you're a sex worker so bank transfers are much more difficult and probably more info than you're willing to give to Johns. OnlyFans bans a lot of (legal) fetish content because of pressure applied by their payment processors, and they take a fat cut (20%) of what you're making on top it. In an industry where getting fucked by payment processors regularly is part of the business, I think there is obvious appeal to pseudonymous transactions for both buyer and seller. Again, off-ramps are far better in 2023. I can deposit crypto and get cash in my bank account in a working day or two.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  …and yet these systems all still outcompete crypto for the use cases you cite. We must therefore discern that the risk of getting fucked by payment processors is less than getting fucked by the crypto ecosystem.
  - PretzelPirate 3y ago
    It sounds like you don't work in the adult industry and don't have empathy for how difficult it is do deal with payment processors deciding you can't get paid anymore. This is a common problem in these discussions. The HN crowd tends to have better access to payment infrastructure and reliable income from their industry. Not everyone has those benefits and many people are punished by our existing system for doing completely legal work that some see as immoral.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]