5 ms·

Crypto has a viable micropayments for content story, see e.g. https://stacker.news https://stacker.news . An upvote costs a minimum of 1 Satoshi (currently abo

by cft 3y ago

Crypto has a viable micropayments for content story, see e.g. https://stacker.news https://stacker.news . An upvote costs a minimum of 1 Satoshi (currently about 0.025¢)

imtringued 3y ago
>This is a special guide, for all those bitcoiners looking to escape from tyranny and go to El Salvador. I guess my definition of tyranny is different...
dporter 3y ago
Imagine paying to upvote content as a consumer. I can see this being popular with brands that are already paying for engagement, but that’s just going to result in the same media landscape we’re already in.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Crypto boosters need to transactionalize absolutely everything and anything because every transaction, by design, incurs a tax to the miner/validator/magic oracle machine owner. Since you become that person by buying lots of physical hardware with real money, or buying lots of <token> with real money, it by design is someone who already has a lot. Crypto is people who see the tax that credit card networks are on all transactions, but their problem with it isn't that it's wealth redistribution from those with bad credit to those with good credit, but rather that they aren't the ones collecting the tax.
lolinder 3y ago
That pretty much falls in the same category as #1—content micropayments are a niche use case that primarily interests people who are ideologically opposed to advertising. I count myself in that group, but it's not a large enough group to drive an entire currency. Illegal activity is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FabHK 3y ago
Micropayments have been around since the 90’s, and never taken off. At any rate, a centralised version would likely be cheaper, more efficient, easier to use, with more functionality and better customer service.
- _5uxp 3y ago
  You mean like Paypal etc and how they can just ban you and take your money? + Many countries can't access to "centralised version" by default. Imagine internet being country restricted and centralized so they can just choose which country/people can access it. That would be horrible
- ericd 3y ago
  I don’t know if a centralized payment service that’s usable for that and trustworthy, do you? Most of the services that I know of charge a fixed fee that’s ~7x higher than that, in addition to ~3%.

by cft 3y ago

Crypto has a viable micropayments for content story, see e.g. https://stacker.news https://stacker.news . An upvote costs a minimum of 1 Satoshi (currently about 0.025¢)

imtringued 3y ago

>This is a special guide, for all those bitcoiners looking to escape from tyranny and go to El Salvador. I guess my definition of tyranny is different...

dporter 3y ago

Imagine paying to upvote content as a consumer. I can see this being popular with brands that are already paying for engagement, but that’s just going to result in the same media landscape we’re already in.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Crypto boosters need to transactionalize absolutely everything and anything because every transaction, by design, incurs a tax to the miner/validator/magic oracle machine owner. Since you become that person by buying lots of physical hardware with real money, or buying lots of <token> with real money, it by design is someone who already has a lot. Crypto is people who see the tax that credit card networks are on all transactions, but their problem with it isn't that it's wealth redistribution from those with bad credit to those with good credit, but rather that they aren't the ones collecting the tax.

lolinder 3y ago

That pretty much falls in the same category as #1—content micropayments are a niche use case that primarily interests people who are ideologically opposed to advertising. I count myself in that group, but it's not a large enough group to drive an entire currency. Illegal activity is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

FabHK 3y ago

Micropayments have been around since the 90’s, and never taken off. At any rate, a centralised version would likely be cheaper, more efficient, easier to use, with more functionality and better customer service.

_5uxp 3y ago
You mean like Paypal etc and how they can just ban you and take your money? + Many countries can't access to "centralised version" by default. Imagine internet being country restricted and centralized so they can just choose which country/people can access it. That would be horrible
ericd 3y ago
I don’t know if a centralized payment service that’s usable for that and trustworthy, do you? Most of the services that I know of charge a fixed fee that’s ~7x higher than that, in addition to ~3%.