SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I have been using PayPal off and on since 2012 for 2 main reasons.
1 - Convenience, I didn't have to enter a credit card every time I purchased from a site other than usual trusted sites where I store my payment information, like Amazon, and sending payments to friends/family was simple.
2 - Peace of mind.
I recently found that the assumption of (2) was wrong, so I fired PayPal. I don't want to get into the details. Beyond being therapeutic, it won't really make life better moving forward.
That brings me to the question, since I have fired PayPal, I am sure that someone will want to send me, or more likely, have me send them money. Before I go out and research the providers on my own, I thought I would come here. What do Soylentils suggest for peer to peer payments?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:00PM
If there is such a system, it's got to be the cash economy (or "barter").
Other than that, there is no such thing as a Person-to-Person payment system; even Bitcoin essentially requires the use of a third party to verify the validity of each "peer-to-peer" transaction. Heck, even with cash, you might require having your bills verified by some qualified third party.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:44PM
even Bitcoin essentially requires the use of a third party to verify the validity of each "peer-to-peer" transaction.
Not really, your home computer can verify the whole blockchain from start to finish. You're relying on the fact that nobody possesses enough computing power to forge an equally long blockchain on their own, but so long as that assumption holds true you don't have to trust whatever peer(s) you're getting the record of past blocks from. The worst a malicious peer can do is lie, but you'll know they're lying so you'll reject their blocks. I could see arguing for the correctness of your statement if we're willing to call the entire blockchain a "third party," but that sort of misses of the point of a blockchain.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:22PM
Not really, your home computer can verify the whole blockchain from start to finish.
How is that practical when Bitcoin's blockchain is 110 GB (source [bitinfocharts.com])? On some Internet plans, that could take months to download. Some home ISPs such as Comcast offer 1000 GB/mo, but others don't (in particular satellite Internet). And good luck fitting that on the same 128 GB SSD as your operating system, applications, and documents.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:34PM
Or you use a light wallet that just check the headers of the chain (which is currently about 40MB if I'm correct).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:05PM
It can be ridiculously slow to start up, sure, but that's a different issue entirely than whether or not it requires the trust of a third party. I'm not arguing that point. I am betting that most first-world netizens have 110 GB of non-OS space on their home computers, and I don't think that the correctness of my "home computer" claim hinges upon whether they have to delete their pirated movies to make room for the blockchain (technically the truthiness is dependant on the specs of the rig owned by the specific AC I was replying to, and for all I know that AC might only have access to a 20 GB smartphone). With a reasonable computer and enough time (yes, potentially months over a connection with a low cap), you don't have to rely on a third party to verify the validity of transactions. I'm not contending that bitcoins are ready for mainstream use, or that they are the ideal answer to e_armadillo's original query; I'm only disagreeing with a specific claim made by AC.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:41PM
having the advantage of blissful ignorance, it sounds like it is analogous to open-source s/w, where it is *possible* to audit the source code and *theoretically* catch any malfeasance going on, but *most* people don't, trusting the hive-mind will have a drone somewhere crunching the numbers and catching any eee-vil...
and the other thing -again, based on ignorance- is that if once you download this 110 Gb blockchain, do you have to periodically update it with new transactions added to the chain, AND presumably it is only those additional transactions to download/add, NOT download the whole 110+Gb blockchain, one presumes...
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28PM
having the advantage of blissful ignorance, it sounds like it is analogous to open-source s/w, where it is *possible* to audit the source code and *theoretically* catch any malfeasance going on, but *most* people don't, trusting the hive-mind will have a drone somewhere crunching the numbers and catching any eee-vil...
I like your analogy, but if going to stretch it to one of its natural breaking points (all analogies have them): many eyes can still miss cleverly disguised backdoors whereas a single computer can independently verify the blockchain given the data. To me this seems more comparable to checking the md5 sum so that you can make sure the code wasn't tampered with en route -- and yeah, those are outdated. Being fed false data is a serious worry, if you're not verifying the data yourself. Some folks don't feel the need to be paranoid. Other folks are sort of paranoid, and will bother to check that a transaction has been processed by multiple blockchain viewing websites, but aren't paranoid enough to actually download the blockchain. Even among those verifying the blockchain on their own computers, there is the question of how many blocks past a transaction you should verify before trusting that the transaction is recorded -- a competent attacker could forge a small number of blocks once in a while, but they shouldn't be able to outrace the entire bitcoin network for a decent number of blocks. An attacker making 10 fake blocks in a believable amount of time would be incredible, but there are miners that could pull off 2.
and the other thing -again, based on ignorance- is that if once you download this 110 Gb blockchain, do you have to periodically update it with new transactions added to the chain,
To make a new transaction based on the known funds of one of your addressees, no. To make sure that a new transaction is actually recorded in the blockchain or to check and see if anybody has sent a transaction to one of your addresses, yes.
AND presumably it is only those additional transactions to download/add, NOT download the whole 110+Gb blockchain, one presumes...
One presumes correctly.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:51PM
thank you, jncf
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday December 02 2016, @11:19AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday December 02 2016, @03:25PM
Sigh... it's not that you're wrong, it's that you're throwing away all of the precious and worthless data in the UXTO, and I resent that. I'm not disagreeing, though. The data can be pruned, you fucking barbarian. 😒 People like you make ASCII Bernanke cry tiny text-based tears.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:40PM
> How is that practical [...]
MicroSD cards with 128 GB, 200 GB, and 256 GB capacities are on the market. A 200 GB one can be had for US$70.
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Ultra-200GB-Micro-SDSDQUAN-200G-G4A/dp/B00V62XBQQ [amazon.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 02 2016, @10:22AM
Yes, but how do you buy the card?
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday December 02 2016, @10:58AM
No idea, I'm just saying they exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4EdSpc6lVA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Max Hyre on Saturday December 03 2016, @03:30AM
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 07 2016, @02:50AM
I wasn't the first to think of that:
Romanian mobile payments provider Netopia mobilPay is now backing a proposal [...] for a system that allows microSD cards in mobile phones to generate, store, transmit and delete bitcoin private keys.
-- https://web.archive.org/web/20150703003704/http://www.coindesk.com/netopia-internet-free-bitcoin-transactions [archive.org]
This tutorial is to install Bitcoin Core v0.13.0 (or possibly higher) on a Raspberry Pi 2 or 3. Options are given to install the GUI and wallet or not. We'll store the blockchain on an external USB flash drive (or hard drive), as that is more modular and better than storing it on a large microSD card with the OS
-- http://raspnode.com/diyBitcoin.html [raspnode.com]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 02 2016, @02:02AM
If I had more faith in Bitcoin as a sustainable currency, I'd consider making and selling a semiportable device that could validate bitcoins. Biggest hurdle I see is that it would probably cost as much as a cheap laptop.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:25PM
The blockchain is created by the Bitcoin Network.
Guess what? That Bitcoin Network is... wait for it... a THIRD PARTY!!!1111
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:02PM
"The blockchain is created by the Bitcoin Network.
Guess what? That Bitcoin Network is... wait for it... a THIRD PARTY!!!1111"
With fees up the wazoo to access it best part unlike Paypal once sent you are guaranteed to never get it back if scammed or mis-directed, at least them weasels at Paypal will sometimes make sure you get it back.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:43PM
unlike Paypal once sent you are guaranteed to never get it back if scammed or mis-directed, at least them weasels at Paypal will sometimes make sure you get it back.
Unless the scammer is the one requesting a refund, in which case Paypal might make sure they get your money back.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Friday December 02 2016, @03:44AM
Must have missed the sometimes in it did you? At least you have chance, Bitcoin no hope in hell of getting it back.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday December 02 2016, @03:28PM
Nah, just pointing out that other times the ball lands differently and the blackjack table takes your money. I personally prefer the idea of knowing that my transactions can't be reversed by a third party, but I get that other people want to make different gambles and I respect that.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:28PM
Okay Trollsy McGee, have fun ignoring the context that language is used in. I need a new word that means the same thing Satoshi Nakamoto meant when he used the term "trusted third party" in the Bitcoin Whitepaper (direct PDF link). [bitcoin.org] Any suggestions?
If you read my link, you'll grok what I'm saying. It's only nine pages, I believe in you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @12:53PM
The Bitcoin Network (if it's actually working) just distributes the trust across independent actors. It's still a third party, and there is still the need to trust a third party, albeit that trust can be rendered very small. Why don't you understand this? Appealing to authority won't help you...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday December 02 2016, @03:42PM
You are trusting that the entire network won't switch to a different protocol, which is the same sort of trust as trusting that people in aggregate will still value gold in the future. But given the rules of the protocol, you are not trusting a third party. If the entire bitcoin network conspired to spend a transaction that was sent to an address they didn't possess the private key to, they could not do that without changing the protocol. They could block you from being able to spend it, at a cost to each conspiring member.
We would not generally describe the storage of gold bars in a locked box under the floor-boards as relying on the trust of a third party, even though you technically are relying on the aggregate economy to value gold in the future. I still contend that you're not recognizing the context of this term.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:50PM
in the us, theres nothing stopping you from asking for a bank routing number and accout number from your intended recipient to do an EFT to from your online banking app.
Of course, this requires some legwork and trust... if recipient is paranoid, their bank should allow them to set up a new checking account just for this kind of thing...
Of course this is not an ad hoc spur of the moment one-timer solution...