Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the define-"best" dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:28PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:28PM (#435646) Journal

    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!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @12:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @12:53PM (#435904)

    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

      by JNCF (4317) on Friday December 02 2016, @03:42PM (#435982) Journal

      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.