3 ms·

Holding bitcoins isn't required to spend money using the Bitcoin network. Services can let you purchase bitcoins when you're making a payment and send them inst

by natrius 12y ago

Holding bitcoins isn't required to spend money using the Bitcoin network. Services can let you purchase bitcoins when you're making a payment and send them instantly. (They need your credit card as a backup payment method in case the ACH fails.) Sellers quote a Bitcoin price that is stable for 15 minutes. There is no price fluctuation during a purchase. It's effectively paying with your bank account over the Bitcoin network, and paying much lower fees as a result. This is why paying with Bitcoin will be common within a year.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
coryking 12y ago
What you describe is basically: Fiat -> Credit Card/ACH -> Bitcoin -> Fiat -> ACH (on supplier). You are basically adding at least two extra steps in a transaction vs. what exists now. How is this better than what exists now?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- natrius 12y ago
  ACH is slow, so taking out the Bitcoin steps isn't possible today. Bitcoin wasn't required for this flow. PayPal had all the pieces, but they didn't put them together the right way.
ssharp 12y ago
So it's an API for ACH? That could be a bonus for merchants, giving them a standardized way of processing low-fee payments, but what's the appeal for consumers? Merchants pay the credit card fees because offering the credit card option ultimately results in more revenue than not offering the credit card option. The adoption needs to happen more so on the consumer-side than the merchant-side. Merchants can offer the service, but that doesn't mean people will utilize in. I get 1.5% back on all my credit card purchases, so I'm incentivized to put as much of my spending on my credit card as I can. I also get additional consumer and fraud protections on my credit card that are either not as good or completely missing from doing ACH transfers on my bank account. I think BitCoin needs far more appealing consumer use-cases than it currently has to really hit widespread adoptions.
- wcoenen 12y ago
  > I get 1.5% back on all my credit card purchases But that money has to come from somewhere, and that's the 2% credit card fee (can be a bit less, can be a lot more) paid by the merchant. And the merchant needs to make a profit, so he pays these fees by raising his prices 2%. If the cost of the transaction would appear on your bill, it would become obvious that you are not getting any "cash back". The perverse part is that the people not using credit cards are punished because they usually pay the same price.

by natrius 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

coryking 12y ago

What you describe is basically: Fiat -> Credit Card/ACH -> Bitcoin -> Fiat -> ACH (on supplier). You are basically adding at least two extra steps in a transaction vs. what exists now. How is this better than what exists now?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
natrius 12y ago
ACH is slow, so taking out the Bitcoin steps isn't possible today. Bitcoin wasn't required for this flow. PayPal had all the pieces, but they didn't put them together the right way.

ssharp 12y ago

So it's an API for ACH? That could be a bonus for merchants, giving them a standardized way of processing low-fee payments, but what's the appeal for consumers? Merchants pay the credit card fees because offering the credit card option ultimately results in more revenue than not offering the credit card option. The adoption needs to happen more so on the consumer-side than the merchant-side. Merchants can offer the service, but that doesn't mean people will utilize in. I get 1.5% back on all my credit card purchases, so I'm incentivized to put as much of my spending on my credit card as I can. I also get additional consumer and fraud protections on my credit card that are either not as good or completely missing from doing ACH transfers on my bank account. I think BitCoin needs far more appealing consumer use-cases than it currently has to really hit widespread adoptions.

wcoenen 12y ago
> I get 1.5% back on all my credit card purchases But that money has to come from somewhere, and that's the 2% credit card fee (can be a bit less, can be a lot more) paid by the merchant. And the merchant needs to make a profit, so he pays these fees by raising his prices 2%. If the cost of the transaction would appear on your bill, it would become obvious that you are not getting any "cash back". The perverse part is that the people not using credit cards are punished because they usually pay the same price.