7 ms·

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 optio

by 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?
        Frondo 12y ago
        I don't see how that gives decision-making power to the people. I do think that sets an extraordinarily high barrier to making any changes; far higher than a citizenship test or a poll tax, two other things that have been discarded as antithetical to a democratic right to vote.
  - 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.

by 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?
        Frondo 12y ago
        I don't see how that gives decision-making power to the people. I do think that sets an extraordinarily high barrier to making any changes; far higher than a citizenship test or a poll tax, two other things that have been discarded as antithetical to a democratic right to vote.
- 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.