from the who-said-fake-money-would-never-be-worth-anything dept.
Thanks in part to Argentina's volatile financial markets, bitcoins are helping people there cut out the banks and government entirely in their financial transactions:
That afternoon, a plump 48-year-old musician was one of several customers to drop by the rented room. A German customer had paid the musician in Bitcoin for some freelance compositions, and the musician needed to turn them into dollars. Castiglione [the bitcoin moneychanger] joked about the corruption of Argentine politics as he peeled off five $100 bills, which he was trading for a little more than 1.5 Bitcoins, and gave them to his client. The musician did not hand over anything in return; before showing up, he had transferred the Bitcoins — in essence, digital tokens that exist only as entries in a digital ledger — from his Bitcoin address to Castiglione’s. Had the German client instead sent euros to a bank in Argentina, the musician would have been required to fill out a form to receive payment and, as a result of the country’s currency controls, sacrificed roughly 30 percent of his earnings to change his euros into pesos. Bitcoin makes it easier to move money the other way too. The day before, the owner of a small manufacturing company bought $20,000 worth of Bitcoin from Castiglione in order to get his money to the United States, where he needed to pay a vendor, a transaction far easier and less expensive than moving funds through Argentine banks.
Do any Solentils manage their transactions in bitcoin? What are your experiences?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:37PM
I tried using Bitcoin once. I installed the client, and waited for it to get the blockchain data. I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Then I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Then I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Soon after, I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. And just when I thought it was nearing the end, I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited. Then I had to wait, wait, wait, and wait just a little bit more. Following that I had to still wait longer, which was followed by more waiting. Finally I gave up, but that didn't stop my ISP for charging me for the 25 GB I went over my monthly cap thanks to trying out the Bitcoin client.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:11PM
That comment should be modded up. It's actually a pretty accurate description of the Bitcoin experience.
Of course, somebody will typically come along and say, "But just use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople! Then you don't have to use the client!"
That obviously defeats the purpose of using a decentralized cryptocurrency system, plus it's just a dumb thing to do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:18PM
I down-modded it as a troll post because using that font in conjunction with a wall of text is a deliberate attempt to annoy readers.
The content might be true, but the intent of the presentation is explicitly anti-social.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:02AM
You can magically read people's minds to determine their intent simply because they use a certain font?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:29AM
> You can magically read people's minds to determine their intent simply because they use a certain font?
Maybe you like it when someone pokes you in the eye, that doesn't make it any less anti-social.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:57AM
You haven't explained how you can read someone's mind. And now you're making a serious accusation over a font choice that you don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:17AM
> You haven't explained how you can read someone's mind.
If you think font choice does not communicate information then you are just one of those geektards who insists on an excessively literal worldview.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:32AM
Please don't use the "tard" suffix. It is very offensive and demeaning to those who suffer from mental disabilities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:05AM
Make me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:03AM
Make me.
I think you mean "Like me."
But that's ok, we understand.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:26AM
If you feel that seeing that font is like poking in your eye, you should immediately see a psychiatrist.
Or at least configure your browser to use a different fixed-width font.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:08PM
It isn't the font face it's the font spacing.
If only there were a difference between a wall of text and the typical use of monospaced fonts. There is one poster, who I haven't noticed for a while, who has garnered frequent complaints for his insistence on using monospacing. This isn't some weird aberration and if you think the poster did not intend to create discomfort, then you haven't read the words of the post. As ethanol said, it was an artistic decision.
if, on the other hand, your sole point is to complain about the analogy, well then rah-rah-rah for your opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:24PM
Maybe the point was to use what he thinks is an annoying font to express how annoying he thinks Bitcoin is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @01:32AM
Maybe you like it when someone pokes you in the eye, that doesn't make it any less anti-social.
You are right, it usually makes them ophthalmologists.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:25AM
Think artistically, dude. It's seriously deep. The point is that the user was trying to share the essence, quite elegantly in this limited medium, of just how annoying the process really was. They did it literally with their word choice and symbolically with the wall of monospace text and repetition of words representing not only the amount and appearance of data but also the tedium.
Nerds have a well-deserved reputation of being oblivious to those kinds of personal expressions. Thanks for being a champion of the status-quo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:32AM
Just because it has artistic intention does not make it a positive contribution.
If I poke you in the eye and say "hey man, you just got to groove with it!" that doesn't make it acceptable.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:53AM
You just poked me in the eye with your bellicose and censorist rhetoric.
MODS! MODS! Ban that guy! He's being a dick! I'm gonna withdraw my subscription and leave if you don't ban that guy! Somebody said something online that was offensive to ME! MODS!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:56AM
You are perfectly within your rights to believe that.
The fact that you can't differentiate between form and content says everything necessary about your argument.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:11AM
The only thing that says about me is that I'm not a web developer. And you win, I lose at being a web developer. Congratulations!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:33AM
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
You need to separate your content from its presentation!
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:28AM
The difference here is that the OP was addressing the topic at hand. You are not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:47AM
It appears that artistic quality is in the eye of the beholder.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:55AM
Presentation is content.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:20AM
No it isn't. Presentation is done using CSS. Content is within the semantic HTML markup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:15AM
Are you using Firefox or some other buggy browser? I'm using Chrome and it looks like the normal Arial or Helvetica or whatever font family that's used for all of the comments.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:19AM
> Are you using Firefox or some other buggy browser? I'm using Chrome and it looks like the normal Arial or Helvetica
If chrome renders the <tt> tag with a proportional font, then chrome is the buggy browser.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:37AM
This is a perfect example of why the moderator's name should be shown next to the moderation. We should know exactly who is engaging in abusive moderation.
It's also a perfect example of why we need some way for the entire community, ACs included, to flag moderators who abuse the privilege. We need to put an end to abusive moderation.
Downmodding a comment based on the use of a markup tag that's allowed by SoylentNews is abusive beyond belief.
Abusive moderators who engage in abusive moderation need to never again moderate, using any account.
The abusive moderation is more harmful than that comment and its font could ever be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:06AM
> Downmodding a comment based on the use of a markup tag that's allowed by SoylentNews is abusive beyond belief.
Downmodding a comment based on words that are allowed by solyentnews is abusive beyond belief.
The fact that it is "allowed" does not make it inherently above judgment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:50AM
It's getting clearer every day that the moderation system here should probably be abolished. It's abused much more often than it's used beneficially.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:04AM
It's getting clearer every day that the moderation system here should probably be abolished. It's abused much more often than it's used beneficially.
As one of the people who modded the wall of text down I agree.
The fact that it is modded +5 is unequivocal proof that the moderation system is being abused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:17AM
You should lose your moderating privileges forever for modding down a comment that's insightful, informative, relevant and worth reading.
Abusive moderation should not be tolerated.
You have admitted to committing abusive moderation.
You should never be allowed to moderate ever again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:07AM
> You should lose your moderating privileges forever for modding down a comment that's insightful, informative, relevant and worth reading.
Sez you, the commentard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:25PM
Its been agreed that we need meta-moderation for a long time now. Apparently its a bitch to implement though, otherwise why don't we have it yet? There's definitely a lot of moderation abuse going on, most if it is of the "Asshole talking shit to me, take that!" kind and the "How dare you suggest my view of reality is false! Those so-called "facts" are nothing but a liberal conspiracy!" kind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:26PM
It shouldn't be hard to do. For each comment that has been moderated, there needs to be a tiny icon that, when clicked, expands a list of the users who moderated the comment, and how they moderated it. Next to each moderation is a button with the text "Report Abuse". When clicked by anyone, including anonymous users, the user who engaged in the moderation is never allowed to moderate again. Moderation should be a one-mistake-you're-done-forever situation. Even a single abusive moderation should be grounds for a user never being allowed to moderate ever again. And it's better to revoke the privileges of a good moderator than it is to allow a bad moderator to make even one abusive moderation.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JNCF on Saturday May 02 2015, @03:49PM
Of course, somebody will typically come along and say, "But just use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople! Then you don't have to use the client!"
That obviously defeats the purpose of using a decentralized cryptocurrency system, plus it's just a dumb thing to do.
Not really. You can generate addresses without having a copy of the blockchain, which means that you can have an offline computer in charge of managing your private keys. You only put the public addresses on a connected computer, and you use $SomeSketchyOnlineServiceRunByUnknownPeople to query the blockchain about account balances. When you need to transfer coins from one of your addresses, you either
a) briefly move the relevant private key to your internet-connected, probably-compromised computer. Immediately build and sign a transaction transferring all of the unspent coins from that address. Propagating this transaction is not dangerous, $SomeSketchyOnlineService can't change it, but there is the potential that somebody who has already compromised your computer could build and propogate a different transaction that spends your coins first. They would have to be moving fast. Still, somebody really paranoid might want to
b) keep the private key from the online computer at all times. Query $SomeSketchyOnlineService for information about unspent coins owned by your address, and then use your offline computer to build and sign a transaction based on that data. Move a copy of the signed transaction to your online computer, and tell $SomeSketchyOnlineService to propagate it. Once again, they can't change the transaction once it has been signed.
If you're using option A, you can keep your private keys on a paper wallet rather than having a secure computer dedicated to them. You only need access to a safe computer on one occasion, to initially generate and print a bunch of key/address pairs. For extra credit, destroy the printer.
I'm not arguing that Bitcoin's ecosystem is ready for mass-adoption, just that using random APIs for basic operations isn't actually dangerous or dumb. That's the whole beauty of their decentralised ledger system, you don't have to trust your peers. If you're using an ECMAScript brain-wallet to store your private keys, that's obviously not a good idea. But it's only slightly worse than keeping them on an internet-connected computer, period. I think that OP's criticism of the core Bitcoin client's user experience is valid, I just think that he probably wasn't the audience originally intended to use that client. We don't need everybody to have a full copy of the blockchain. This is a cutting-edge system, and a polished, safe, easy, consumer-ready interface isn't available yet. It will be, either for Bitcoin or for whatever replaces Bitcoin, but it isn't yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:00AM
Nobody claimed Bitcoin isn't shady, it's just less horrible than regular, above-board Argentinian banks.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:58PM
Sounds like storing the entire history of transactions in a Git repository. Those kinds of implementations don't tend to scale well.
Isn't it possible to compress the block chain? Like merge the first half of the chain into a single block. Otherwise I can't see cryptocurrency having a long lifetime, despite its potential utility.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:43PM
If you don't understand what the fuck your submission is, well, fuck off. I am talking to you, "anontechie". For fuck's sake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:48PM
I don't get it. This is a Phoenix666 submission. Are you saying that Phoenix666 is AnonTechie?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday May 01 2015, @11:00PM
Have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time?
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 01 2015, @11:00PM
Have not dabbled in it, but from all the negative [wsj.com] press I've read it doesn't yet seem like a good idea -- at least not until shit hits the fan and my government imposes martial law and outlaws cash transactions.
The person closest to me who has messed with Bitcoins claimed that they lost 1600 bucks in the "investment."
At this point it seems to be about as stable an investment as walking into a casino. Fuck gambling, I could spend that money on booze and at least know for certain I'm gonna have a good time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:13PM
Do you like it when you drink so much booze that you kill most of your intestinal bacteria and then you have diarrhoea for a week afterward?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @11:21PM
Yes. I happen to be into Scheiße. It's the best of both worlds, really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @02:00AM
Mere diarrhea is for n00bs! A man's not going pro until hand-washing unexpected wet farts from underwear at work and sneakily drying them in the office microwave becomes a commonplace afternoon activity
along with the 'ouch my hemorrhoids' chair dance.
(Score: 5, Informative) by demonlapin on Friday May 01 2015, @11:34PM
The key is that the money flowing into Argentina limits how much can flow out (the wealthy launderees have the pesos to put in people's hands, but you need to intercept the hard currency before it enters the Argentine financial system). More coming in means more can be laundered. You could do the same thing with anything for which there is a reasonably liquid market, but BTC has low transaction costs and can be bought and sold electronically. No need to smuggle physical objects, just transfer BTC and watch the block chain for confirmation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 01 2015, @11:39PM
from all the negative press I've read it doesn't yet seem like a good idea -- at least not until shit hits the fan and my government imposes martial law and outlaws cash transactions.
Once the martial law is imposed, it's way too late to try to salvage your life savings. They'd be gone a year or two earlier in an endless spiral of inflation. The whole purpose of the martial law is to deny you your last option - to take up arms against the system. That last option becomes appealing only after you had nothing to eat for a week. Few people would be considering buying BTC at that point.
The person closest to me who has messed with Bitcoins claimed that they lost 1600 bucks in the "investment."
BTC is not an investment - not any more than buying Chinese RMB or Russian Rouble or $any_other_foreign_currency. It might be an object of speculation, though. But playing on the FX market is not for a common man who gets all his information from interested parties. He'd get fleeced.
At this point it seems to be about as stable an investment as walking into a casino.
Theoretically, BTC could be stable. However there is no benefit in that. The BTC market is so small that quite a few players are able to influence it - and profit is generated by the old "buy low, sell high" method.
I do not deal in BTC. There is no need to in a well functioning society. I have no desire to cheat on taxes, even if that is possible - the risk is not worth it. There is no other reason to bother with BTC, given that it requires a high level of computer and cybersecurity skills. And for the SHTF day... one of pretty good investments is precious metals. Namely, brass and lead, with a touch of copper. They last forever, and they are always in demand. Especially after the SHTF.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:27AM
I do not deal in BTC. There is no need to in a well functioning society. I have no desire to cheat on taxes, even if that is possible - the risk is not worth it.
Nor to you have to. If you bought your bitcoin with fiat, you paid income tax on the fiat. When you sell your bitcoin for fiat, it will be income and taxable.
Just don't try to hide those transactions, and the IRS has no problem with bitcoin.
There are ways where your purchases can offset your redemptions that require some record keeping, just like moving money from bank to bank. Not a big deal.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance [irs.gov]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:54PM
Hey, if you walk into a casino with money, they give you booze too!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday May 01 2015, @11:26PM
> Had the German client instead sent euros to a bank in Argentina, the musician would have been required to fill out a form to receive payment and,
> as a result of the country’s currency controls, sacrificed roughly 30 percent of his earnings to change his euros into pesos.
Considering the source is the NYT, they would go really far out of their way to find any plausible example illustrating that currency controls are BAAAD.
Bitcoin is the clickbait. "evil government oppressing people by preventing the free flow of money" is the message.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 01 2015, @11:49PM
Politicians disrupt the financial systems. Users makes use of technology in the form of BTC to correct it.
If a system is abused then only the resistant ones survive and you got less than you started with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @09:17AM
Politicians disrupt the financial systems.
Large financial interests disrupt the financial systems, politicians are just the enablers.
Users makes use of technology in the form of BTC to correct it.
<sarcasm>Oh, I see BTC is right on top of that!</sarcasm>
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday May 01 2015, @11:55PM
Bitcoin is like Tor, interesting idea but only useful if you live in an unfree hellhole, are doing something highly illegal and more than likely both.
You certainly would never, under any likely circumstance, want to actually hold BTC longer than it takes to complete the transaction needing to evade the authorities. For basic moving of money over the Internet there is Paypal and Google Pay along with Visa/MC/AMEX.
If you are wanting to store wealth for a breakdown of the monetary system, hold real property, stack PMs, fill a bunker with ammo or cans of beanie weenies. When the system collapses hard the Internet is also going down and your BTC will be worthless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:13AM
Bitcoin is like Tor
No, it isn't. Tor is useful anywhere to help protect your privacy.
(Score: 2) by demonlapin on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:39AM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:38AM
IIRC the protocol allows you to link transactions so that both the dollar-to-BTC and BTC-to-other-currency transactions either succeed or fail.
This is an incomprehensible gibberish to all the Earth's population minus several thousand active users of BTC exchanges. If I need to send $10K from the USA to, say, Philippines, I'd go to the bank and pay $40 for the wire transfer. I'm not going to do the research on how to use BTC and how to download all these gigabytes of the blockchain and how to pick an exchange and... especially when someone else, on the other end of the transaction, needs to know all this as well. If I use the wire transfer, the other guy only needs to browse to his bank's Web site (or just call them) to find out that the payment has arrived. The hassle with BTC - even if the transfer is free, which it is not - costs more than $40, and you also have certainty that the exchange rate will change unfavorably to one or to the other side of the deal within a few hours or a day that it takes to fully convert from one currency into another. The bank will do a conversion atomically, so both sides buy and sell at the same time at the same shared rate.
It may well be that BTC is the only way to transfer money into countries like North Korea or Iran (if the person there has access to the Internet.) So there is some value in this digital coin. But such a narrow niche will necessarily confine BTC. Its exchange rate will not be stable or uniform without a large market with a good number of buyers and sellers. In other words, the underground money launderer in NK will be able to demand any exchange rate that he wants.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:16AM
From the post you replied to:
From your post:
So you consider $10K a relatively small sum?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:12AM
So you consider $10K a relatively small sum?
For any business this is a laughable sum. But if we focus only on individuals, someone (say, an H1B) who works in the USA may want to send this kind of money to their family back home. Maybe half of that. I wouldn't call it small, but this is the standard excuse for BTC even existing - it has no market appeal anywhere else. Anyone who has enough education and computer knowledge to use BTC earns some decent money. Those who walk around with leafblowers for a living have neither the cash, nor the skills to use BTC.
This also brings up another, somewhat related issue: the low volume of transactions. BTC cannot mature without millions, or tens of millions of USD being bought, sold and traded for goods and services every single day on every single exchange. Lacking that, it remains a toy currency for many years now. Sure, enthusiasts can use it - but that won't be enough, and it isn't. BTC is an inconvenient way to pay for things on the spot, having 20x longer transaction time and 10x higher complexity - and the chance of an error. (Imagine a prank when someone at a checkout replaces the QR code of the store's wallet with his own :-) BTC is not acceptable for micropayments (the "dust" issue.) BTC is OK for small to medium sized purchases ($10-100) that are done remotely. But so is a credit card, which also gives you a safety net. BTC is risky for medium to large purchases ($100-1000) because there is no way to revert a bad transaction. BTC is very cumbersome for transfers regardless of the sum, as you have to deal with exchanges, twice - and those exchanges are not trusted (hello, Mt. Gox.) I might want to send some cash to my parents via BTC, but I know well that they will NEVER figure out what I just did, and how it relates to real money. That's why there are too few people who use BTC; most of them were users of the Silk Road. The rest can't care less because there is no business case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:58PM
What is the "dust" issue?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:10AM
What is the "dust" issue?
"Bitcoin dust refers to the thousands and thousands of tiny transactions that some sites flood the network and thus the blockchain with." (link [stackexchange.com].) Any large number of small transactions is a concern. If transaction fees are involved, any transaction that has to pay more than, say, 1% for the privilege of being accepted, is also uneconomical:
People often claim that with Bitcoin "you can send money between any two points on earth for free". While that is true in some cases, sometimes a transaction fee is required. The fee, when it is required, is usually worth less than 40 US cents.
I am unsure if $0.40 is a current figure, given the rise and fall of BTC, but obviously a micropayment of 50 cents is not going to involve paying extra 40 cents for the delivery of that payment. (Nor such a micropayment deserves to be forever registered in a planet-wide blockchain.) Everyone has his own threshold for fees, but probably 1% is a reasonable figure. VISA charges up to 5% per transaction, but you get a completely different level of service on a credit card - the credit to begin with, and rollback, and paper trail, and convenience of payment, and convenience of putting money onto the card... and besides, merchants have already included this overhead into all their prices. You cannot buy anything without these 5% - at best you can pay with cash, and then the merchant will be glad to pocket the fee. I know only of few gas station owners who offer "cash discounts" - but they are in a terribly competitive market.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:12AM
Do not trust.
I cannot find Google Pay. Do you mean Google Wallet? Anyway, too much tied to the Google ecosystem. Probably cannot be used without an all-encompassing Google account.
Unsuitable for personal money transactions.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:39AM
For basic moving of money over the Internet there is Paypal
- Do not trust.
Over the last 7-8 years I've received about 50 PayPal payments, mostly about $500 each. These are from universities in over a dozen different countries (I'm in USA) -- their money is pooled for an expensive service and the results are shared around.
So far, no problems with PayPal at all (knock on wood). On the other hand, international bank transfers were such a disaster that I quit accepting them. The most common problems were no tracking info (couldn't confirm the senders name), or random fees deducted by intermediary banks.
What I think is going on is that the USA banking system computerized first (and probably not with the best system design), but when Europe and the rest of the world computerized they didn't bother making anything compatible with the US system. Can anyone confirm this theory?
(Score: 4, Informative) by kbahey on Saturday May 02 2015, @12:13AM
People living in Argentina say that the claims in the article are dubious. They have not heard of any of that ...
Here are the comments, on the old site ...
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7345421&cid=49588289 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7345421&cid=49587335 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7345421&cid=49587937 [slashdot.org]
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday May 02 2015, @02:26AM
Yeah, but I wouldn't know about any bitcoin conversion services operating covertly in my state either.
There are a few places advertising they take bitcoin, but the average non-geek wouldn't even notice these.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.