7 ms·

Forcing someone to accept payments is the other side of the same coin. I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process paymen

by nathanb 12y ago

Forcing someone to accept payments is the other side of the same coin. I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. If anything, this is just a wakeup call that the credit duopoly have more power than we realized. Kim Dotcom is nothing if not resilient. It is morally and ethically complicated to root for him in every aspect, but I fully expect him to come up with a clever solution to bypass this duopoly in a way that the average user can accept. I don't know if there's any question for which Bitcoin is an unqualified right answer, but this may be as close as I've seen it come.

keslag 12y ago
I disagree. If you only have 2 viable options for accepting payment world wide, then they need to accept all lawful transactions. Bitcoin isn't a viable option for Grandma.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > Bitcoin isn't a viable option for Grandma. And if there's no market pressure, it never will be.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    It will take a lot more than "market pressure" to make Bitcoin a safe, usable option for Grandma. We desperately need a digital currency standard that offers security and user-friendliness without being centralized in a cabal of shadowy clearinghouses, and without ridiculous technical limitations that keep it from being more than an overpromoted academic exercise.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I for one would prefer a more democratic digital currency. Should Bitcoin become more widely adopted, I don't like how I would have no say in its operation or design decisions. Paper currency, I get to vote on the people who appoint those decision-makers every couple of years. Bitcoin? Not so much. (edited to fix a typo)
      - grubles 12y ago
        Actually, you can absolutely have a say in bitcoin's operation or design decisions. From the bitcoin FAQ: Bitcoin is a distributed network, so any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users. Someone trying to change the way Bitcoins are generated would have to convince every user to download and use their software – so the only changes that would go through are those that would be equally benefit all users. And thus, it is more or less impossible for anyone to change the function of Bitcoin to their advantage. If users don't like the changes, they won't adopt them, whereas if users do like them, then these will help everyone equally. Of course, one can conceive of a situation where someone manages to get a change pushed through that provides them with an advantage that no one notices, but given that Bitcoin is structurally relatively simple, it is unlikely that any major changes will go through without someone noticing first. The fact that such changes are so difficult to make testifies to the fully distributed nature of Bitcoin. Any centrally controlled currency can be modified by its central agency without the consent of its adherents. Bitcoin has no central authority, so it changes only at the behest of the whole community. Bitcoins development represents a kind of collective evolution; the first of its kind among currencies. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Could_miners_collude_to_give_themselves_money_or_to_fundamentally_change_the_nature_of_Bitcoin.3F https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Could_miners_collude_to_give_...
        Frondo 12y ago
        Can you explain the connection between what you copypasted and the idea that I have a say in how Bitcoin operates? I'm struggling to see how "any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users" is democratic, or gives any decision-making authority to the people.
        grubles 12y ago
        The wording is inaccurate in that instead of /all/ users it should say the /majority/ of users must accept changes proposed to bitcoin. Regardless, you honestly don't see how that gives the decision-making power to the people? Why do you think that?
    - shit_parade 12y ago
      ? are you talking about central banks? Because I have no idea what you are saying, and I believe you also do not understand yourself.
- Jach 12y ago
  If Grandma is that technically incompetent, the only thing viable for her is cash and check. They couldn't pay with PayPal anyway. Someone who is technical enough to pay with PayPal, however, can pay with Bitcoin all the same -- the hurdle is in making sure it's understood as a cash transaction with refunds at the mercy of the seller.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    The hurdle is with not letting someone take your money. Right now every other month there's a scandal because either some technically savvy cryptoanarchists were apparently not savvy enough and got their money stolen, or some exchange decides to rob everyone altogether. So explain to me how any grandma is supposed to work with a system that even techies constantly get burned by it?
    - Jach 12y ago
      The same way they currently work in a system everyone gets burned by? The main benefits of the current system from my perspective are that fraud detection algorithms are really good now, in the cases of credit card fraud the CC companies usually just credit back the stolen amount to the customer (which unfortunately hurts sellers since buyer fraud is still common), and when events like $300m-$900m getting stolen from banks happen, the overall system generates so much profit that it mostly gets swept under the rug and the average person isn't hurt. (FDIC helps too.) Despite all these benefits, the elderly are still routinely scammed out of money. (Some reports suggest increasingly.) I haven't heard anything about outright bitcoin thefts from privately owned wallets with a password protecting them, but then again I don't follow bitcoin too closely. The typical drama I hear is an exchange shutting down (why would the elderly have their btc on an exchange when their bank account funds aren't on an exchange?) and occasionally someone's unencrypted wallet backup on a compromised server being taken. There was also the issue with the android wallets a while back generating insecure keys. I'm not convinced the elderly would lose any more than they already do on average given they're using bitcoin (which I think they're fully capable of using if they're already using online payment systems). Anyway this is kind of a fruitless discussion for this instance. Grandmas don't use MEGA.
- zaroth 12y ago
  Let's wait, if you please, and see what kind of shit-show "network neutrality" turns into before we go clamoring for payment neutrality!
  - keslag 12y ago
    You mean like the shit-show that railways, telephones, and the internet as it stands right now are? edit: In addition to down voting me zaroth, would you mind including examples of how common carrier doesn't work for the examples I provided? I'm genuinely interested.
    - Jach 12y ago
      OT FYI note: you can't downvote direct replies.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      There's better discussion elsewhere on this thread about some reasons why it's actually better to live in a world where PayPal can drop Mega if they feel like it than a world in which they can't. Umm... and FYI, I pretty much always upvote replies to my comments regardless of content. I would not down vote your reply even if I could.
      - keslag 12y ago
        I'm sorry about that incorrect assumption, I was unaware of how the system worked, and it happened seemingly instantly. And there may have been some beer somewhere in the mix... Again, sincere apology.
moe 12y ago
But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject customers at will?
- eli 12y ago
  Yes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Not only are they allowed to reject customers at will, but they are required to by US law. The PATRIOT Act altered US anti money laundering rules in a subtle but important way. It deleted the "mens rea" requirement and converted money laundering into what's called a strict liability crime. In English, that means any company that routes money around is criminally liable for any crimes committed by their clients - even if they didn't know about them or believed the activity was legal. In effect, every banker and money transmitter in the world can face a 20 year jail sentence and/or crippling fines if ANY of their clients are themselves considered to be or merely suspected of being, criminals. No trial needed. This is why you keep reading about banks being involved in money laundering. It's impossible to move money and not be considered a money launderer by the US government these days. So this puts VISA/MC/PayPal in an impossible bind. They can look at Mega and say, well, this seems like a legal business. There's no law obviously being broken. But the guy is being charged over a previous business, accused of being a criminal. If they give him financial services and then years later this new Mega is also suspected of being criminal (note: suspected not proved) then VISA/MC can find headlines like "Visa found guilty of money laundering". They have lots of clients, so from their perspective, eliminating all the politically risky ones is a no brainer. Same thing for Wikileaks, CAGE (UK civil rights group), the entire nation of Somalia etc ... they all lose banking services because they are politically unpopular and therefore expose bankers to AML violations.
  - ab5tract 12y ago
    How do you explain the complete lack of any consequences to HSBC, then?
higherpurpose 12y ago
Except if there's a monopoly or even duopoly, it should very much do just that. Or split them up.
Jare 12y ago
> I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments Most industries are regulated to some extent to prevent collusion and abuse of various forms. Do you disagree with regulation in general, or what makes you think payment processors in particular should not be forced to accept all lawful transactions?
- nroets 12y ago
  For a start, payment processors should have some freedom to refuse merchants selling any thing that looks like snake oil: Requiring merchants to keep deposits and having putative chargebacks may not be enough to compensate processors for the reputational risks they are taking.
- nathanb 12y ago
  Capitalism in general lends itself to institutionalized repression of the minority, and I don't claim to have a solution to that. My gut tells me that the government forcing private business is not always the right answer (though it sometimes is; I'm not anti-regulation in general). Perhaps my gut is wrong, because I can't come up with a higher-level solution.
BinaryIdiot 12y ago
> I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. While I 100% agree in principal in reality there are so few options to accepting payments online that if a couple of the big guys block you then you're completely out of business. When you have an industry controlled by just a couple of companies that everyone in the world has to essentially use, there is a big concern there. Not sure what the right answer is here.
logn 12y ago
Actually what you oppose is considering them common carriers. The government has forced business to accept customers in the past and they applied similar theory to net neutrality yesterday.

by nathanb 12y ago

keslag 12y ago

I disagree. If you only have 2 viable options for accepting payment world wide, then they need to accept all lawful transactions. Bitcoin isn't a viable option for Grandma.

jMyles 12y ago
> Bitcoin isn't a viable option for Grandma. And if there's no market pressure, it never will be.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  It will take a lot more than "market pressure" to make Bitcoin a safe, usable option for Grandma. We desperately need a digital currency standard that offers security and user-friendliness without being centralized in a cabal of shadowy clearinghouses, and without ridiculous technical limitations that keep it from being more than an overpromoted academic exercise.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I for one would prefer a more democratic digital currency. Should Bitcoin become more widely adopted, I don't like how I would have no say in its operation or design decisions. Paper currency, I get to vote on the people who appoint those decision-makers every couple of years. Bitcoin? Not so much. (edited to fix a typo)
    - grubles 12y ago
      Actually, you can absolutely have a say in bitcoin's operation or design decisions. From the bitcoin FAQ: Bitcoin is a distributed network, so any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users. Someone trying to change the way Bitcoins are generated would have to convince every user to download and use their software – so the only changes that would go through are those that would be equally benefit all users. And thus, it is more or less impossible for anyone to change the function of Bitcoin to their advantage. If users don't like the changes, they won't adopt them, whereas if users do like them, then these will help everyone equally. Of course, one can conceive of a situation where someone manages to get a change pushed through that provides them with an advantage that no one notices, but given that Bitcoin is structurally relatively simple, it is unlikely that any major changes will go through without someone noticing first. The fact that such changes are so difficult to make testifies to the fully distributed nature of Bitcoin. Any centrally controlled currency can be modified by its central agency without the consent of its adherents. Bitcoin has no central authority, so it changes only at the behest of the whole community. Bitcoins development represents a kind of collective evolution; the first of its kind among currencies. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Could_miners_collude_to_give_themselves_money_or_to_fundamentally_change_the_nature_of_Bitcoin.3F https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Could_miners_collude_to_give_...
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Can you explain the connection between what you copypasted and the idea that I have a say in how Bitcoin operates? I'm struggling to see how "any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users" is democratic, or gives any decision-making authority to the people.
        grubles 12y ago
        The wording is inaccurate in that instead of /all/ users it should say the /majority/ of users must accept changes proposed to bitcoin. Regardless, you honestly don't see how that gives the decision-making power to the people? Why do you think that?
  - shit_parade 12y ago
    ? are you talking about central banks? Because I have no idea what you are saying, and I believe you also do not understand yourself.
Jach 12y ago
If Grandma is that technically incompetent, the only thing viable for her is cash and check. They couldn't pay with PayPal anyway. Someone who is technical enough to pay with PayPal, however, can pay with Bitcoin all the same -- the hurdle is in making sure it's understood as a cash transaction with refunds at the mercy of the seller.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  The hurdle is with not letting someone take your money. Right now every other month there's a scandal because either some technically savvy cryptoanarchists were apparently not savvy enough and got their money stolen, or some exchange decides to rob everyone altogether. So explain to me how any grandma is supposed to work with a system that even techies constantly get burned by it?
  - Jach 12y ago
    The same way they currently work in a system everyone gets burned by? The main benefits of the current system from my perspective are that fraud detection algorithms are really good now, in the cases of credit card fraud the CC companies usually just credit back the stolen amount to the customer (which unfortunately hurts sellers since buyer fraud is still common), and when events like $300m-$900m getting stolen from banks happen, the overall system generates so much profit that it mostly gets swept under the rug and the average person isn't hurt. (FDIC helps too.) Despite all these benefits, the elderly are still routinely scammed out of money. (Some reports suggest increasingly.) I haven't heard anything about outright bitcoin thefts from privately owned wallets with a password protecting them, but then again I don't follow bitcoin too closely. The typical drama I hear is an exchange shutting down (why would the elderly have their btc on an exchange when their bank account funds aren't on an exchange?) and occasionally someone's unencrypted wallet backup on a compromised server being taken. There was also the issue with the android wallets a while back generating insecure keys. I'm not convinced the elderly would lose any more than they already do on average given they're using bitcoin (which I think they're fully capable of using if they're already using online payment systems). Anyway this is kind of a fruitless discussion for this instance. Grandmas don't use MEGA.
zaroth 12y ago
Let's wait, if you please, and see what kind of shit-show "network neutrality" turns into before we go clamoring for payment neutrality!
- keslag 12y ago
  You mean like the shit-show that railways, telephones, and the internet as it stands right now are? edit: In addition to down voting me zaroth, would you mind including examples of how common carrier doesn't work for the examples I provided? I'm genuinely interested.
  - Jach 12y ago
    OT FYI note: you can't downvote direct replies.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    There's better discussion elsewhere on this thread about some reasons why it's actually better to live in a world where PayPal can drop Mega if they feel like it than a world in which they can't. Umm... and FYI, I pretty much always upvote replies to my comments regardless of content. I would not down vote your reply even if I could.
    - keslag 12y ago
      I'm sorry about that incorrect assumption, I was unaware of how the system worked, and it happened seemingly instantly. And there may have been some beer somewhere in the mix... Again, sincere apology.

moe 12y ago

But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject customers at will?

eli 12y ago
Yes.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mike_hearn 12y ago
Not only are they allowed to reject customers at will, but they are required to by US law. The PATRIOT Act altered US anti money laundering rules in a subtle but important way. It deleted the "mens rea" requirement and converted money laundering into what's called a strict liability crime. In English, that means any company that routes money around is criminally liable for any crimes committed by their clients - even if they didn't know about them or believed the activity was legal. In effect, every banker and money transmitter in the world can face a 20 year jail sentence and/or crippling fines if ANY of their clients are themselves considered to be or merely suspected of being, criminals. No trial needed. This is why you keep reading about banks being involved in money laundering. It's impossible to move money and not be considered a money launderer by the US government these days. So this puts VISA/MC/PayPal in an impossible bind. They can look at Mega and say, well, this seems like a legal business. There's no law obviously being broken. But the guy is being charged over a previous business, accused of being a criminal. If they give him financial services and then years later this new Mega is also suspected of being criminal (note: suspected not proved) then VISA/MC can find headlines like "Visa found guilty of money laundering". They have lots of clients, so from their perspective, eliminating all the politically risky ones is a no brainer. Same thing for Wikileaks, CAGE (UK civil rights group), the entire nation of Somalia etc ... they all lose banking services because they are politically unpopular and therefore expose bankers to AML violations.
- ab5tract 12y ago
  How do you explain the complete lack of any consequences to HSBC, then?

higherpurpose 12y ago

Except if there's a monopoly or even duopoly, it should very much do just that. Or split them up.

Jare 12y ago

> I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments Most industries are regulated to some extent to prevent collusion and abuse of various forms. Do you disagree with regulation in general, or what makes you think payment processors in particular should not be forced to accept all lawful transactions?

nroets 12y ago
For a start, payment processors should have some freedom to refuse merchants selling any thing that looks like snake oil: Requiring merchants to keep deposits and having putative chargebacks may not be enough to compensate processors for the reputational risks they are taking.
nathanb 12y ago
Capitalism in general lends itself to institutionalized repression of the minority, and I don't claim to have a solution to that. My gut tells me that the government forcing private business is not always the right answer (though it sometimes is; I'm not anti-regulation in general). Perhaps my gut is wrong, because I can't come up with a higher-level solution.

BinaryIdiot 12y ago

> I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. While I 100% agree in principal in reality there are so few options to accepting payments online that if a couple of the big guys block you then you're completely out of business. When you have an industry controlled by just a couple of companies that everyone in the world has to essentially use, there is a big concern there. Not sure what the right answer is here.

logn 12y ago

Actually what you oppose is considering them common carriers. The government has forced business to accept customers in the past and they applied similar theory to net neutrality yesterday.