[HN Gopher] Stripe Crypto ___________________________________________________________________ Stripe Crypto Author : seabj0rn Score : 347 points Date : 2022-03-10 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stripe.com) (TXT) w3m dump (stripe.com) | Nathanael_M wrote: | This is unrelated to the specific story, but as more and more | companies and people I respect get involved with it, the more I | realize I need to have a working knowledge of Crypto Currency so | at the very least I can be involved in the discussion. | | Does anyone have any good resources for learning the building | blocks/vocabulary of Crypto Currency? | tremarley wrote: | You could check out crypto.tre.gd | fossuser wrote: | This is the highest signal list I'm aware of on the topic: | https://danromero.org/crypto-reading/ | | For a book with more in the weeds details: | https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Cryptocurrency-Technologies-C... | Nathanael_M wrote: | Thanks for the thorough answer. | Hjfrf wrote: | Reddit.com/r/buttcoin | kayamon wrote: | https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s1... | Nathanael_M wrote: | Thanks! | BoorishBears wrote: | My respect for Stripe plummeted when I reached out about a closed | API and got a passive aggressive answer from support. | | I don't think I've ever gotten that kind of rude sarcasm/passive | aggression from a simple support inquiry, and I vowed never to | use their services again. | | Their competitors to this specific API were much nicer to work | with and onboarded us after some basic introductions, so part of | me wonders what other fronts Stripe has better but less well | known competitors on. | ndr wrote: | Can you share the API/competitor? | BoorishBears wrote: | Marqeta, Treasury Prime, Synctera | | All companies that actually spoke to us and assisted when | Stripe Treasury essentially said "why are you bothering us?" | sodality2 wrote: | Can you post the reply? I'm curious about what they said. | BoorishBears wrote: | Sure, I inquired about the API, and got a templated reply | that simply repeated the API's landing page | | I replied saying I'd be interested in knowing what they're | looking for in potential beta partners: | | > That is good to hear. All you need to do is follow the | instructions listed in my previous email and wait on contact | from the Treasury team. I am happy I was able to assist you. | | > Thank you for choosing Stripe! | | Keep in mind the "instructions" are to fill out the form that | got me into this email chain in the first place: in other | words there's nothing about what I asked there. | | There's the whole "That's good to hear" reply _to a question_ | I asked... | | And I was especially taken aback by the whole facetious | "happy I was able to assist you" bit after completely | ignoring my question. | | - | | The entire interaction felt like "why are you bothering us", | which is honestly would be a fair position if they're looking | for established players for example... but why not be direct? | | We had other companies flat out say their partners want X | million in funding before they'll work with you, and that was | fine. | | It'd actually take less work than writing out a non-answer | like that | bhaak wrote: | Doesn't sound like you even interacted with a human being | but a badly written bot. | ffritz wrote: | danuker wrote: | Is it a scam if everyone is in on it? | tchock23 wrote: | 16% of the US has owned/traded crypto. So yeah, everyone. | pastor_bob wrote: | This page is more useful: | https://support.stripe.com/questions/crypto-supportability-a... | | Basically can sell crypto for KYC backed cash in the US. No | credit cards. No paying in crypto? | jessaustin wrote: | Thanks for puncturing the silly hype. | throwaway55522 wrote: | colesantiago wrote: | dang wrote: | Please don't start yet another instance of the same old generic | flamewar on HN. The issue isn't whether you're right or wrong, | it's that we've had this flamewar hundreds of times already and | nothing new comes of it. That makes if off topic for this site, | which is supposed to be for curiosity. Curiosity withers under | repetition and fries under indignation. | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | colesantiago wrote: | But this is a valid question? I am sure other Stripe | customers are upset with this as much as I am to call it what | it is. | | Are you going to flag them too? | exdsq wrote: | Happy to see you're taking this approach now Dang. It's | really killed a lot of threads and I hope conversations can | now go up a level to the technical uses rather than generic | 'ponzi scheme' claims. | giantrobot wrote: | > I hope conversations can now go up a level to the | technical uses | | Most if not all of the "technical uses" rely on rent | extraction so it's _really_ hard to talk about the | technical uses without focusing on that major sticking | point. Cryptocurrencies /dApps et al only work because of a | network of miners _on top_ of existing Internet | infrastructure. They all add some extra cost onto every | transaction. This in addition to the fantastic number of | hucksters and scammers that need suckers to buy into the | system so they can cash out. | | The whole subject of crytocurrencies cannot be separated | from the implementation details. Talking about "technical | uses" as if the economic considerations didn't exist is | pointless. | exdsq wrote: | Yes I understand how blockchains work. Having that extra | layer allows for these projects so, as an end user, we | should shift the focus on things like the costs of using | an app rather than the implementation (except maybe for | PoS v PoW for environmental reasons). Instead of | technical uses maybe I should have said projects and | products. | colesantiago wrote: | This technology does not work as designed, advertised and | towards the environment. | | And this announcement is an endorsement of the entire space | which is full of scams, is this what you are also | endorsing? | dang wrote: | I'm not endorsing anything except good threads on Hacker | News. | exdsq wrote: | I've left the field of crypto/blockchain but worked on a | few projects such as the Cardano blockchain. Now I'm | focusing on effective altruism and food security. Anyway, | I've been aware or involved with the crypto space since | 2014 when I used to play a drinking game involving the | Bitcoin ATM at Google Campus in London (guessing if the | price would go up or down when it updated every minute or | so, around the $300 mark if I remember correctly). In | that time I've worked for several different startups in | the space and not once have I worked with anyone who's | trying to scam people. Yes scams exist. No, most projects | are not scams. Bad ideas? Sure, maybe! Bad execution? | Yep, that happens! Quickly obsolete tech? It's a fast | moving scene! But when a startup is trying to build a | product such as a financial account for developing | countries without banking infrastructure to allow people | to build a credit score, or trying to reduce | international banking fees impact on remittence payments | in countries like Nepal, or trying to allow people to | have options in countries where their own national | currency is going down the drain, I find it offensive | that people on HackerNews who on the whole are smart | well-experienced people default to this idea that it's | all one big scam. This is in fact one of the reasons I | left Crypto - because of relentless attacks on peoples | character and how toxic it can be. I'm very happy if this | style of conversation disappears from HN forever because | 1) saying it's a scam doesn't change anyones opinions 2) | the arguments have been repeated literally for years 3) | it goes against HN T&Cs anyway. | | I hope we're at the point where we can focus on | individual projects (which may well be absolutely useless | products) than judging the entire space as a whole. | dang wrote: | We've been taking this approach for a long time - it's just | hard to get the word out. | Shadonototra wrote: | slippery slope dang, HN soon the place to be for | promoting NFT's about tech | | oh it is already, does Stripe gets an exception because | it is "backed by YC"? | | https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stripe | | It should be tagged as such | | More transparency dang, please | dang wrote: | > does Stripe gets an exception because it is "backed by | YC" | | Neither Stripe nor any other YC startup. It's the other | way around actually: we moderate less, not more, when a | YC startup is the story. See https://hn.algolia.com/?date | Range=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... for many years' worth | of explanations. | tchock23 wrote: | Isn't it classified as "curiosity" when people question | whether crypto works? | | By labeling the criticisms as a "flamewar" you/HN are tacitly | endorsing it. | 10x-dev wrote: | It is not established that cryptocurrencies in general are | scams. I could make my own cryptocurrency and use it for | completely legitimate reasons. | topranks wrote: | Sounds like a scam | siruncledrew wrote: | That's an interesting 180 degree turn from saying "no" to crypto | support to now allowing crypto support. What regulations changed | behind the scenes? | lern_too_spel wrote: | If anything, with the recent executive order, I expect the | regulatory landscape to change quickly to make cryptocurrencies | even less desirable to support for payment. | Shadonototra wrote: | danielandrews43 wrote: | Some high quality humor on the page with "Cube Thingy 1", "Cube | Thingy 2", and "Cube Thingy 3" | edwinwee wrote: | And the Cube Thingies are real! | https://niftygateway.com/collections/cube-thingies | danuker wrote: | "Not yet Available". Aww. | edwinwee wrote: | Come back later today for minting time--open edition at | 6:30 PM ET for two hours. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I just want to say that the extraordinary unseriousness | of this (and the NFT twitter icon, really!?) has | convinced me that Stripe is through the looking glass, | now. | | This is such a demoralising turn of events. | llsf wrote: | "We will not rest until 1 billion people are collecting | NFTs." Is it Apr. 1st already ? | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Every day is April 1st now. | | More and more I am convinced that the weasel that crawled | into the LHC and got itself killed only died _inside_ the | collapsing time bubble it somehow created through an | unspecified accident and in which we are now all living. | | Outside the time bubble, it scampered away and Brexit, | Trump's victory, the Ukraine war and the Tiger King series | never happened. | Devasta wrote: | Stuff like this just gives credence to the farcical notion that | crypto is reputable. | | The leadership at stripe should be utterly ashamed. | bradgessler wrote: | When can I accept crypto payments for products and services with | Stripe? | | I don't expect this to have a lot of volume from the start, but | it's important that payment platforms like Stripe start accepting | cryptocurrency so this can get bigger. | johnm212 wrote: | > Build your crypto business with Stripe | | I would hesitate building any business on Stripe. However, if you | are considering using Stripe Crypto, build the integration it in | a way that you can easily migrate away. | | We built our credit card processing and invoicing on Stripe. | We've only processed $2.5m and now we are migrating away. We are | 2 months into the migration. | | It's worth the migration cost, working with Stripe has been an | absolute nightmare. Really wish we had built our billing system | differently... and not with Stripe. | cffeecffeecffee wrote: | Curious what happened with your integration and subsequent | migration? | xmprt wrote: | Do you mind giving more information? I've mostly heard good | things about Stripe about things like their documentation and | APIs. I'd love to hear stuff contrary to that. I personally | don't use Stripe either but I'm interested in hearing your | reasons so we don't go through a lengthy migration that ends up | biting us in the back. | lovingCranberry wrote: | I'm not OP, but I have a story to share: | | I worked for a company which is selling a tool that allows | windows users to spoof unique identifiers of their computer. | A lot of software these days grabs MAC addresses, disk and | monitor serials in order to identify users. So, this tool | just hooks into the windows kernel, and returns made up | identifiers when a program requests them via the windows API. | It _does not_ change any files on the user 's disk, and it | does not modify any other programs in RAM. Literally the only | thing it does is hooking the kernel like a 3rd party anti- | virus. It is basically like the "randomize MAC address" and | "change advertising identifier" on modern smartphones. Just | for windows. | | Well, one day I woke up with this email in my inbox: | https://i.imgur.com/g91KDqE.png | | They stopped the payouts, as this tool was deemed as a | "restricted product". The cited point as the reason of the | termination is the following: | | > Compliance with Applicable Laws: You must use the Services | in a lawful manner, and must obey all laws, rules, and | regulations ("Laws") applicable to your use of the Services | and to Transactions. As applicable, this may include | compliance with domestic and international Laws related to | the use or provision of financial services, notification and | consumer protection, unfair competition, privacy, and false | advertising, and any other Laws relevant to Transactions. | | As it came to light, a 70bn company namely Activision filed a | lawsuit and subpoena against us as the tool is used to bypass | their (poorly) implemented anti-cheat. Nothing had been | decided in court yet (whether the product is unfair | competition or piracy), but stripe still chose to just kill | the account for our core product. | | I'm glad that they didn't lock away the money for 180 days | minimum like PayPal usually does. Employees need to be paid, | and this just sucks for everyone. | joshstrange wrote: | Documentation is amazing, dashboard is amazing, pricing is | high, you have to have a lot of volume before they will | consider lower rates and/or removing/lowering the flat per- | transaction fee. I'm also migrating away. Another reason I'm | leaving is in-person payments. They have moved forward on | that front but their offering is still pretty lacking. Lastly | other processors will profit-share with you much earlier, | stripe will do it but again, you have to have a lot of volume | first. | edwinwee wrote: | I work at Stripe and I'd like to hear what went wrong here. | (Feel free to email me directly at edwin@stripe.com.) | chinathrow wrote: | Oh please. Long time Stripe fan and customer here - this makes me | sad from the inside. They even mention NFT marketplaces - scams | all over the places. Why would they want to support use cases | like that? | sodality2 wrote: | > _Why would they want to support use cases like that?_ | | Money? They are a business | floodyberry- wrote: | > They are a business | | with poor ethics | fmvab wrote: | Because there is money to be had, and people like money. | orangepanda wrote: | They forgot to update their terms of service. | | > Prohibited Businesses | | > You must not use Stripe's services for the following | activities: | | > * Pyramid schemes | | > * 'Get rich quick' schemes | | > * No value added services | | > * Predatory investment opportunities | atlantas wrote: | Serious question: Do you think pyramid schemes, get rich quick | schemes, no value added services and predatory investments are | new? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | Hot take! DAE crypto is a scam? | | Tweeting "buy $SHITCOIN!" isn't a pyramid scheme, do we have to | have this discussion on every thread? | PUSH_AX wrote: | It's "greater fool" theory at best. | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | yes yes and let's not forget tulip mania! Did you know that | DRUG DEALERS use crypto?! | cuteboy19 wrote: | Is there a rebuttal? Greater fools scheme is a valid | criticism, can't just handwave it away everytime | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | > Greater fools scheme _[sic]_ is a valid criticism | | Did you mean greater fool theory? That's not a financial | _scheme_ that 's listed under Stripe's ToS (our context). | | Are you arguing in good faith that Stripe should _update | the Prohibited Businesses section of their ToS_ based on | what you said? | mattdesl wrote: | presumably a Stripe service built on ERC20 would support | stablecoins (DAI, RAI, USDC), which will be pretty | central to many crypto-commerce businesses. there is no | greater fool in these closed systems. | | source: I am selling art prints via stablecoins as a | payment option for interested customers, but I'm manually | handling the transactions, invoicing, and accounting | (Stripe crypto could be an option for a small business | like me). | exdsq wrote: | Tulip mania wasn't even that big a thing. Lasted a few | weeks and consisted of a couple traders trying out new | speculative financial instruments. | colesantiago wrote: | We're just calling it what it really is, what is wrong with | that? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | > isn't a pyramid scheme | | BitConnect was an _actual_ Ponzi scheme. I don 't see how | buying my coffee with DOGE counts as a "predatory | investment opportunity." | colesantiago wrote: | Ask Elon's manipulation tactics of that specific dog coin | and it's derivatives like SHIB. | | All scams. | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | (Ask his tactics?) That's market manipulation. | | > All scams. | | "All" meaning those 2? | colesantiago wrote: | [deleted] | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | Presented without evidence, dismissed without it. | unreal37 wrote: | You keep using the word scam. I don't think it means what | you think it means. ;) | | If two people want to send some bits between each other, | and they both know what they're doing, it's not a scam. | It may be risky, it may be unwise, it may be | speculation... but scams involve deception between the | receiver and the sender. And crypto is equivalent to | dollars in this sense. | kache_ wrote: | been a while since I heard "DAE" | fmvab wrote: | Wait, isn't that exactly a pyramid scheme? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | If you're asking in good faith, it's market manipulation. | | In your own words, can you explain the difference between, | say, a Ponzi and a pyramid scheme? Pyramid and a matrix? Or | do you use "pyramid scheme" to just mean "scheme?" | fmvab wrote: | Okay, it may not be a pyramid scheme in the exact | technical sense, but combined with the other items on the | list, "get-rich-quick", etc., I think pump-and-dumping | shitcoins counts, right? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | It's not a pyramid scheme in _any_ sense. | | Pump-and-dump schemes fall under the "get-rich-quick" | language, but I don't see what this has to do with the | details of _this_ specific announcement. | fmvab wrote: | 'A pyramid scheme is a fraudulent system of making money | based on recruiting an ever-increasing number of | "investors." The initial promoters recruit investors, who | in turn recruit more investors, and so on. The scheme is | called a "pyramid" because at each level, the number of | investors increases. The small group of initial promotors | at the top require a large base of later investors to | support the scheme by providing profits to the earlier | investors.' | | Come on, many crypto projects don't seem like this in | _any_ sense? | Dylan16807 wrote: | That's a bad definition. | | The key characteristic of a pyramid scheme is that each | person gets paid by the people they recruit. | | If there is a global FIFO, that's a Ponzi scheme. | | A pump and dump is something else entirely. It doesn't | depend on an infinite series of investors, just one wave. | cuteboy19 wrote: | The general term should be "greater fools schemes". Ponzi | and Pyramid are just subtypes of this. There is also MLM | and PnD which have their own characteristics. All of | these involve finding more and more people to invest so | that early investors can exit. | | The reason why every greater fools scheme fails is that | there is no net revenue (or too small to sustain the | scheme). No matter the scheme, you will always run out of | greater fools, and so it must collapse eventually. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > All of these involve finding more and more people to | invest so that early investors can exit. | | > No matter the scheme, you will always run out of | greater fools, and so it must collapse eventually. | | That depends on how you define "collapse". After a pump | and dump, a stock might crash to zero, or settle back to | where it was, or even settle back to a higher number than | it was originally at. It doesn't require a particularly | large supply of fools, and it only requires them for a | small amount of time. And it doesn't have to move the | stock price by a huge percentage either. | fmvab wrote: | It comes from the office of the NYS attorney general. | https://ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/pyramid-schemes | | Please send them an email elucidating the finer points of | what scheme is what. | Dylan16807 wrote: | I'm aware of what page it comes from. | | I'm also aware that not all communications use exact | definitions at all times! Your smugness is not called | for. | | If you just want to link some government pages in the | google results for 'pyramid scheme', here's one following | the precise definition: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and- | safety/common-scams-and-crimes... | fmvab wrote: | My point is, it doesn't matter whether you or I consider | it a "bad definition". To say that these things are not | pyramid schemes "in any way" is unnecessarily pedantic | and not useful considering the context (the implications | of their terms of service). | Dylan16807 wrote: | As far as the terms of service go, I could see conflating | a pyramid and a ponzi, but a pump and dump is pretty | distantly related. | | And saying they need to remove that part of the ToS to | honestly accept any crypto business is silly. | | You could make an argument against allowing entirely new | coins, I guess, but that's more about the other ToS terms | than 'pyramid scheme'. | rmbyrro wrote: | You know they use Dollars, Euros, Pounds, etc as well for all | of these scams. | | Should Stripe ban businesses that deal in Dollars, Euros, | Pounds, etc? | jonathantf2 wrote: | danuker wrote: | Which cryptos are scams and why? | rewtraw wrote: | well, most cryptos are scams. that's extremely obvious. | | the 0.1% that are _not_ are going to be the foundation for | the next generation of web and finance -- this is also | obvious. | | but it's silly to pretend like most cryptos aren't just cash | grabs. but just like 99.9% of websites on the internet are | scams/ads/useless, doesn't take away from the importance of | the legitimately useful websites. | leifg wrote: | > 99.9% of websites on the internet are scams/ads/useless? | | Really? | | Does Amazon, Wikipedia count as one website or do you just | deploy an arbitrary definition of the word _useless_? | kayamon wrote: | If it's so obvious why can't you explain it? | leifg wrote: | Which ransomware doesn't use crypto? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | All ransomware that existed before crypto? | leifg wrote: | Usain Bolt and I can run. | | Magnitude matters. | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | And ransomware was making a LOT of money before crypto, | so we can't blame crypto for it. Magnitude matters. | leifg wrote: | Estimated 5 billion in 2021. | | How much was it before crypto? | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | Has anything else changed since the early 90s that might | make ransomware more profitable today than 30 years ago? | | Cryptolocker is estimated to have "only" cost its victims | millions. However, cryptocurrency already existed when it | was released. | danuker wrote: | Which ransomware doesn't use the Internet? | schleck8 wrote: | Paddle, Payoneer, Braintree and Klarna are commonly thrown | around | simonbarker87 wrote: | I just spent 12 months investigating crypto. I bought come coins, | got lucky on that ENS airdrop, made a smart contract, bought an | NFT, learned some Solidity, joined some Discords, listen to some | podcasts, set up a miner and generally tried to learn about this | area. | | 2 weeks ago I left all but one discord, unfollowed all Web3 | specific accounts on Twitter and stopped looking at Binance etc. | | My life has improved considerably. I'm sure someone is getting | rich in there but I can't work out who or how amongst the hype, | pumps, grifters, scams and outright criminals. | | I'm ok missing the boat if it turns out to be any more than a | raft. My sanity and concentration is worth far more than whatever | rubbish they are all peddling. | TAKEMYMONEY wrote: | Cool. Any thoughts on the article you're commenting on? | 2ndseq wrote: | Respect for actually getting into the thick of things and | trying it out. I hope some of the hype can die down without | totally killing the momentum. | simonbarker87 wrote: | Thanks, I made a legit concerted effort and just could make | it stick. Maybe I'll look stupid in the future but from where | I am now with the information I have I'm ok with that. | muttantt wrote: | If you got into crypto in 2021-22.. you already missed the | boat. This is the cashing out phase. | danuker wrote: | Can it not compete with, say, gold, a lump of metal that does | nothing and is not able to be sent over the internet? | | Because if it can, then crypto market cap is 5-10x | undervalued. | risho wrote: | people have been saying this since 2011. thats not to say | that the speculation that is taking place in crypto isnt | ridiculous and destructive, but your claim is completely | unfounded | muttantt wrote: | The risk reward ratio is just not there anymore. We may see | $100K bitcoin, sure, but that's just 3x, you can get that | buying and holding TSLA starting today. But IMHO the risk | of bitcoin crashing to, say, $10K is pretty significant, | especially when Russia sanctions could be used as pretext | to regulate crypto to death. | servercobra wrote: | Sure, but that's only looking at BTC. There's a lot of | other coins still jumping a 100-1000x in this bull run, | even if BTC only went up a few times. The point about it | all crashing is true though, high risk-high reward (and | that risk likely outweighs the reward for BTC in my | opinion). | risho wrote: | this is how you prove that you just learned about crypto | last week. if you think that bitcoin was more of a sure | thing and less risky relative to reward in 2011 then you | have no idea what you are talking about. first of all if | bitcoin crashed from 65k to 10k that wouldn't even be the | worst drop bitcoin has ever seen. thats like an 85 | percent drop. bitcoin has seen MULTIPLE 95+ percent drops | over the course of it's life. it's harder to regulate | bitcoin today than it has ever been because there are | multiple fortune 500 companies and s&p companies that | would be massively negatively effected by this change. | bitcoin is in a less risky political position than it has | ever been in before. | muttantt wrote: | I've been in crypto since 2012.. | nightski wrote: | Very bullish for you to think TSLA is going to be a $3T | company in the near future! I'm sure it will happen at | some point. Maybe it will due to inflation hah. | | But on average the market takes very roughly 7 years | (probably more) to double your money. So you are talking | about a ~10 year time frame. | simonbarker87 wrote: | Who knows at this stage but I'm not smart enough to work it | out that's for sure | m00dy wrote: | we haven't build economies on crypto yet. I think we are in | buy-and-wait-for-price-up phase. Once we use crypto for | utility, we will be in different phase. | johnisgood wrote: | > buy-and-wait-for-price-up phase | | This is what I did 2-4 years ago... then it started going | down by a lot so I cashed out. I actually did lose. Not | THAT much, thankfully. | loeg wrote: | > I'm sure someone is getting rich in there but I can't work | out who or how amongst the hype, pumps, grifters, scams and | outright criminals. | | I think you figured out exactly who is profiting from it. | simonbarker87 wrote: | After I posted and reread it I thought "well I guess that is | who's getting rich" | muhammadusman wrote: | Went through this same cycle back in 2017-2018 and I realized | that I didn't have enough energy to keep up with all the news | popping up and some seemingly spiking the price of a crypto | while other news just as juicy/valuable/hype-worthy didn't seem | to do the same. | | I know some friends who made good money from NFTs and some | crypto pumps but most have either stayed flat or lost money. | | So, I'm in the same place as you, I'll put my money on less | "cool" investments and continue to watch the space. | ryanSrich wrote: | Yeah you missed this bull run if you've only been in for 12 | months. The run up in 2020 was the time to be in it. For | example you could have bought SOL at sub $1 and made millions. | I know so many people (literally dozens) that made that one | trade and they're now set for life. | | So much of crypto is about being early to the bull run, finding | the few coins that are going to outpace everything else, and | just putting a few thousand into each. | | Once the first big pump happens there are maybe a few other | 5-10x opportunities, but certainly 2 years in everything is | dried up. Exit pumps have already started and most major CT | personalities are selling, regardless of what they're saying | publicly. | | The good news is that you'll have another opportunity in | another 2-3 years. | ATsch wrote: | I'm sure this will go very differently from the last | cryptocurrency bubble, where a whole bunch of merchants started | accepting them, just to realize half a year later that beneath | the hype, nobody was really interested in using these so-called | currencies as an actual currency and quietly shelved it. | TomGullen wrote: | Used to be a big Bitcoin advocate, we accepted it on our | website but removed it due to it just not being worth it for | the odd sale with the extra accounting required. | | Bitcoins original goal was to be an online currency, this has | not transpired nor do I think it ever will which is why I | (unfortunately!) got out. Talking to random people on the | street the main feeling I'm getting now is as some sort of gold | analogue, which I also think is doomed to fail. I just don't | see Bitcoin growing out of it's main use which is criminality | and unregulated gambling. | rufusroflpunch wrote: | I think you're not correct, your timescale is just too short. | Monetization happens in three phases, roughly. | | First, it is the store-of-value phase. Anticipation of future | value, based on past and present value, will cause people to | hoard a good as a savings technique. Bitcoin is still in this | phase. Usually when you say this on the internet, someone | will come in and say "Oh, but Bitcoin's volatility makes it a | poor store-of-value!" But again, it's short-sighted. Looking | at the 200 WMA will easily demonstrate the store-of-value | aspect of Bitcoin. | | Second phase is "medium of exchange". This is the thing | people always point to and say that Bitcoin has failed. But | it hasn't failed, it just hasn't reached it yet. This phase | is started when a good becomes valuable enough that merchants | begin to demand or incentivize payments in the good. As you | mentioned, there are accounting, tax and technological | impediments currently that make it less convenient to accept | Bitcoin payments. These will be overcome with time, however, | as the impediments are eliminated, or the value of Bitcoin | makes it economically worthwhile to transact anyway. | | The final phase will be "unit of account". Once a Bitcoin | circular economy starts, people will begin to think of prices | in Bitcoin, instead of dollars, euros, etc. | | This may sound far-fetched to skeptics, but I consider this | to be a near guarantee to happen eventually. Bitcoin's | network effects and unique balance of incentives more or less | ensures that it can't be killed, that everyone is better off | participating in the network or they will be worse off in the | long run. | JaimeThompson wrote: | The main point of crypto these days appears to be to replace the | current middlemen with different middlemen who can make more | profit while offering the consumer much less legal protection. | | It's a bit concerning. | schleck8 wrote: | How to participate in crypto? Just head to a privately owned | exchange that might be traded at a stock exchange! | Alternatively use a startup service that in turn relies on a | privately owned backend that might as well go public at any | point. | xtracto wrote: | Or get to localcrypto, localbitcoin, localmonero and find a | peer who is willing to give you crypto for your cash. | schleck8 wrote: | Which are run by private companies and take cuts don't | they? Also last time I checked the rates on P2P exchanges | are ridiculous for any trusted seller | samstave wrote: | CryptoBarter is here! | | So we simply ~~kill the batman~~ -- er... trade resources | for resources, and determine a balance between what I am | asking for vs your offer? | | Its amazing we need digital fn currency to algorithm this | bullshit for us to maintain trust in such NOTES | toolz wrote: | or more protection, depending on your perspective. I'd think | russians wanting to interface with US services right now would | find crypto offers more protection than fiat. | | Further, I know a few small businesses that have had large sums | of money locked up by services like paypal without any | communication. Crypto also provides far more protection from | issues like that. | tmp_anon_22 wrote: | Except any company facilitating this would be in violation of | US sanctions. No way Stripe-crypto is going to be a 1-click | money laundering tool | skybrian wrote: | I don't know how this applies to their crypto offering, but: | | > Stripe currently does not support users located in Russia, | Ukraine and Belarus. While users with direct or indirect | activities involving Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are not | broadly considered prohibited by Stripe at this time, all | major credit card networks have announced that they are | ceasing services to Russian financial institutions. | Additionally, Stripe will not process transactions involving | sanctioned Russian financial institutions and does not | support Mir. This means transactions involving Russian-issued | cards are likely to be unsuccessful. We encourage you to | ensure compliance with relevant sanctions regulations in your | jurisdiction. | | https://support.stripe.com/questions/impact-of-sanctions- | on-... | khanan wrote: | Why the fsck would they block Ukrainians? Makes no sense. | antaviana wrote: | I figure they are betting that Ukraine will be sooner or | later part of Russia. | vmception wrote: | or the limited partners of the private equity firms that | invested in them are Russian oligarchs telling them what | to do lol | | This is pretty common (simply by the size of the | investments), and Yuri Milner's DST Global was in some | funding rounds so they probably have a big stake. | | Yuri Milner is exhibit A of how the offshore feeders fund | a bunch of US tech startups, mostly for the alpha, but | that also comes with influence | | https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11 | /yu... | | So, sanctions result in cutting off Russia, investors | result in cutting off Ukraine ha. | skybrian wrote: | I don't know but for some context, see the end of [1]. | (It's not about Stripe specifically, but about why banks | do this.) The whole article is useful background. | | [1] https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/moving-money- | international... | banannaise wrote: | Like seemingly everything these days, crypto has a grifter | problem. | | It's becoming a predictable story - something with potential | arises, with a community of mostly true believers. The true | believers make money, but they're not optimizing for profit, | they're optimizing for making the ecosystem better. The | grifters, optimizing only for profit, not only start to take | the lion's share of the profit, but also attract more grifters. | The grifters eventually outnumber the true believers, because: | | 1. true believers are hard to make; grifters already exist | | 2. grifting as a skill can be applied anywhere; true believers | need relevant skills | | 3. lower profits and higher burnout leads to attrition among | the true believers; some of them even convert to grifters | | So the grifters completely dominate the market. They then | siphon the market dry, offering essentially nothing in return, | and then move onto the next grift, flush with the proceeds from | the last one. | samhw wrote: | It's just bizarre. You end up paying your cut twice: once to | convert it into crypto (paying the exact same card fees you'd | pay for a _direct_ card payment), and then once again to pay | someone like Stripe for this. For either a business owner or a | customer, that 's a loss - increased infrastructure fees just | to do business. | | It's the opposite of the crypto dream. But that's not Stripe's | fault; it's Bitcoin's, for not creating a product which is | actually capable of living up to its goals, and instead | requiring all this 'glue business' to make it work. I hope | someone else creates a new radically-different cryptocurrency | which can be truly new, and not just a novelty stuck on top of | Visa/Mastercard. | ordinaryradical wrote: | I think this is exactly right. The implementation of the | technology has necessitated all of these different layers, | each of which create new opportunities to take a cut. | | Many of the crypto businesses in the ecosystem talk about | removing financial friction and control, but it seems they | are only interested in introducing their own versions of | them, and building their own little Wall Street while they | can still get in on the ground floor. | | Here's a great example: how are you going to "reach the | unbanked" in the third world if you have transaction fees, | paid by the user, inherent in your architecture? That's just | nonsense. It's a step down from cash in every way. Cryptos | which aren't feeless but talk about the "unbanked" are full | of hot air. And this pattern of false promises is all over | this space. | mattdesl wrote: | transaction fees on L2s are in fractions of a cent, | certainly lower than the fees paid to PayPal or Stripe on | regular international payments. | | a feeless public ledger seems unlikely to ever work at | scale; it would immediately be polluted by spam. | vmception wrote: | there are many many more ways to acquire crypto, which many | many people have done already | | it sounds like _you_ have only attempted to acquire it by a | combination of | | 1) Purchasing it | | 2) with a credit or debit card | | All it comes down to is that its a $2 trillion market with an | extremely high volume of transactions, at all and when | compared to the capitalization of the market | | so service providers cater to that, and fortunately for the | end users, a very large portion of that $2 trillion did not | require people to pay once to convert their existing cash | into crypto. | the_gastropod wrote: | So liquid, in fact, that it needs a host of very opaque and | questionable stable coins to maintain some semblance of | liquidity. | | A $2T market cap doesn't mean a whole lot. It's unclear how | much money actually changes hands in this system. You and I | could make a $2T market cap system today, right now. I'll | start an excel spreadsheet and sell you a cell for ~$40. | BAM! $2T market cap excel spreadsheet, even though only $40 | has changed hands! Neat, eh? | | I've argued with crypto enthusiasts long enough to | anticipate the requisite "WHAT ABOUT STOCKS" retort. Yes. | Stock market caps are also a sloppy measure, though | significantly less so in magnitude. Businesses are | regularly purchased outright at their market caps. There | are, of course, exceptions, like Gamestop, Tesla, AMC, and | many other meme stocks. But these are the exception to the | rule. | vmception wrote: | The questionable stable coins are 10% of the total market | capitalization ($180bn) and even the _worst_ , most fear | addled estimates are that 90% of that is paid up capital, | where dollars were exchanged directly to create an | equivalent stablecoin, and a large portion of it is | overcollateralized. The people just wish that was 100%, | in the case of Tether. | | Strawman arguments are interesting, because usually it | involves creating an argument nobody had offered just to | discredit that argument, hoping to discredit the thing | people actually were talking about. But in your case, | your argument isn't a problem? The crypto ecosystem | doesn't _need_ to host stablecoins, it just does because | people launched them and others found utility in that. | They contribute to the market capitalization, and the | liquidity, bolstering my observation. Is there a term for | that? Reverse strawman? | the_gastropod wrote: | Hmm. I'm not sure I follow. My point was two-fold: | | 1. Market capitalization is fairly meaningless, | especially when you don't know how much money is changing | hands (wash trading, for example, is rampant in the | crypto world). I'm confused why you're citing market | caps, again, to try to suggest stable coins don't play a | significant role in crypto's liquidity. That doesn't make | any sense. | | 2. Liquidity is very much lacking in the crypto world. | Bitcoin's order books are extremely thin, which is one | reason volatility is so high. Stable coins were developed | not in a vacuum, but precisely because liquidity was so | lacking. | vmception wrote: | > Market capitalization is fairly meaningless | | I agree with that. Marketcap + Volume can still be | compared to other assets. Determining how much is wash | trading versus something else is unfalsifiable in crypto, | the nature of transactions cannot be determined with only | a limited analysis available on centralized and | decentralized exchanges. But not the unlit markets, or | the nature of transactional demand. | | Compared to currencies, crypto assets function similarly | with M0 and M1 being the tiny liquid cash thats actually | moving and M2 and M3 being the illiquid much larger | aspect of the currency. It requires a completely new | standard to criticize crypto assets based on the exact | same observation. | | Compared to securities and commodities, crypto's much | lower marketcap and high volume (see my first paragraph | for why I don't mind the volume) is a great proportion. | So, in your two-fold point, there still must be some | standard for relative comparison, what would your | alternative be? I choose market capitalization, | understanding that a significant portion of it is | relevant to value transferred from other financial | ecosystems directly for exchange of the crypto asset, | supporting its valuation much better than a low float | asset we make in a spreadsheet. | | > Liquidity is very much lacking in the crypto world | | Its pretty decent. The unlit markets are bigger than the | lit ones. Any OTC desk can corroborate that. Someone | trying to swap in and out can use both the lit markets | and the darkpools. For the size of the market, crypto's | liquidity again relatively great. Of course, I see how | paradoxical it is to mention "size" of the market, again, | but you're not leaving me with much in the English | language to work with for relative comparison. Although | its totally fine for me. The market works for me. | | > Stable coins were developed not in a vacuum, but | precisely because liquidity was so lacking. | | Although I disagree with the liquidity issue, I don't ... | care about this distinction? I consider stablecoins to | fulfill a market need and are crypto assets, the market | noticed and used them, some of the biggest ones are | currently surrogates of fiat assets. Liquidity begets | liquidity, so anything that attracts liquidity is a net | good to me. I don't consider the crypto space to "need" | them, I consider the market to have chosen the thing that | fulfilled a need, and that grows/grew the market. | fossuser wrote: | The capability of self-custody is the thing to pay attention | to. | | Nothing else has this capability to the same extent. | | Today we store most of our wealth in assets (market index | funds, stocks, real estate, etc.) and some (typically very | little, and rarely outside of a bank account) in cash. | | Most of this is not actually controlled by you. | | With BTC (and cryptocurrency more generally) you have the | capability of having your private key in a hardware wallet | under your control and retain the capability to transact | independently of other institutions. | | If you keep some percentage of your wealth here you retain | certain advantages that you can't get elsewhere. The closest | alternative would be having cash (in cash form), but it's hard | to have that much, hard to travel with it (you can memorize | your wallet seed words and recreate your wallet on the other | side of a border), and cash is vulnerable to government | stupidity (see: Russia). | | I'm not sympathetic to the Canadian truck protests, but whether | or not you care about what they're protesting - it's the | capability wielded by the Canadian government over their | private finances that's alarming. | | All this is to say the focus on middleman and paying with | crypto in the general case is kind of missing the forest for | the trees. | | The capability of a global self-custody capable store of value | that can be trivially moved anywhere is a big deal and puts | power back in the hands of individuals. | pphysch wrote: | It's funny because some Bitcoin evangelists point to the US | govt's 1933 confiscation of a gold as a reason to use Bitcoin | instead. | | ... How is nabbing a gold ingot and different than nabbing a | storage device? If anything, the threat surface of a digital | wallet is much greater (you could steal it remotely if the | user doesn't have good cybersecurity practices, unlike a gold | ingot). | fossuser wrote: | The storage device doesn't matter - it's the seed words | that generate the wallet that matter. If you memorize them | you're good (short of someone beating it out of you or | legally compelling you - even then they'd have to be able | to prove it existed in the first place). | | You can trivially prove your gold ingot exists because you | can just find it. It's also way harder to move your gold | ingot out of your war-torn country, harder to transact with | it, etc. The storage device does not hold the actual coins, | just a private key that lets you update the public ledger | that determines ownership (thinking the storage device | holds the coins is a common misunderstanding). | | I'm an open-minded skeptic, but there are real technology | advantages to blockchain and cryptocurrency, there are a | lot of scams too for sure - but that's not the interesting | part. The HN median opinion on this is wrong as it often is | (it was wrong about EVs and Tesla too). | pphysch wrote: | You can also bury your ingots/drives deep in the | wilderness and only memorize where they are at | fossuser wrote: | Obviously that is not as easy/useful/realistic as a | wallet you can generate from memorized seed words to | instantly recover your wealth anywhere. | lottin wrote: | How does that protect you from someone who can seize your | device? If they can seize your device they can also seize | any physical assets that you possess. So your wealth | exists only nominally, you can't really spend it. | fossuser wrote: | The device holds a private key that can be regenerated | from 12 seed words. | | The device itself doesn't really matter if you know these | 12 words. | | The key is what lets you update ownership information on | the public block chain. The wallet doesn't hold any coins | on the device, just a key that let's you update the chain | of public ownership. | | For example: | | - You live in Russia and see the writing on the wall for | invasion and currency collapse | | - Prior to the invasion you move 90% of your wealth into | a BTC wallet. | | - The invasion happens and the currency collapses. | | - You want to escape the country, but the border exits | are guarded by corrupt guards that will steal any | money/valuables you try to cross with. | | - You memorize the 12 seed words of your wallet and cross | the border with nothing. | | - On the other side you recreate your wallet and restore | access to your wealth in a safe country. | | This isn't just a hypothetical, this kind of thing has | already happened: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29518181 | Dylan16807 wrote: | So a key step in there is finding someone that's willing | to take your local currency in exchange for a not-local | asset that you can access later. | | Would it be very different if that asset was Euros? Or | ownership of gold that's stored in Chile? | | If you need any documents you can store them in a secret | passworded account. | fossuser wrote: | You're right that if you have access to foreign bank | accounts or currency that can be an option (can be hard | to get if you're in a country with a hostile government). | Often BTC is the most accessible option available. | | Crypto is the only option where you have the (practical) | capability of true custodial ownership (as opposed to | trusting a third party to hold it for you). Practical | meaning you can actually take it with you in a low risk | way (you're probably not escaping your hostile government | with gold bars if you're even able to buy them in the | first place). | lottin wrote: | First of all, if you have to liquidate 90% of your wealth | in the middle of a market crash you're going to lose most | of it before you even get it out of the country. This, of | course, assuming you can get out of the country, which | for many people is not a realistic option. And finally, | movements of capital across borders are highly regulated. | You can't simply cross the border and "recreate" your | wealth on the other side, because all you will have re- | created is a pile of dirty money that now will have to be | laundered at a great expense. All this is illegal, by the | way. | fossuser wrote: | > "if you have to liquidate 90% of your wealth in the | middle of a market crash" | | That's why I said before the invasion, if the market | already crashed probably too late to matter, but you'd | still want to get whatever you have out. | | > "And finally, movements of capital across borders are | highly regulated. You can't simply cross the border and | "recreate" your wealth on the other side, because all you | will have re-created is a pile of dirty money that now | will have to be laundered at a great expense. All this is | illegal, by the way." | | We're talking about escaping an autocratic authoritarian | government. With BTC you _can_ simply cross the border | and recreate your wealth in a way that protects you from | that government accessing it - that 's my point. | | I don't think you're arguing in good faith so this is the | last reply from me. | JaimeThompson wrote: | You can currently take physical possession of commodities | including all the precious medals, one doesn't have to allow | their stock certs to be help by others, cash and other such | methods still work but most people chose to let middlemen do | it for them, just like most people do for Crypto judging by | the market valuations of some of those companies. | fossuser wrote: | You're right of course, but it's way riskier to take | physical possession of commodities and it's harder to move | them. These are things crypto is better at. | | For cash, the advantage is that crypto is independent of | government action and global. The crash of the Russian | currency is an example of why this is important. Crypto is | obviously more volatile than USD, so there's a tradeoff | depending on the government backed currency's stability. | | It's also harder to move similar amounts of wealth in cash | or commodities (you could have self custody of a wallet | with a billion dollars in it, can't really move a billion | dollars in cash or gold). | | These advantages are real and people are relying on them: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29518181 | JaimeThompson wrote: | As are the disadvantages as evidenced by all the ransoms | paid in crypto, these ransoms are also evidence that the | security required to keep your crypto secure isn't | exactly all that common in some of the market segments | the crytpo companies are trying to reach. | fossuser wrote: | I don't disagree with you and I don't pretend there are | no risks with cryptocurrency. The security requirements | are obviously harder, the UX is bad and even technical | users fuck it up. | | Some of this will be improved by tooling, some of it is | just what's required for self-custody. | | Still, the _capability_ it provides is new and gives | individuals more power even with these tradeoffs. That | capability is valuable and shouldn 't be dismissed imo. | It's a lever against authoritarian control and increasing | centralization of power. | [deleted] | logicalmonster wrote: | > The main point of crypto these days appears to be... | | Maybe you can ask people who get their funds randomly blocked | and restricted by PayPal and seized for months/years while an | "investigation" takes place if there's any use-case for crypto. | | Maybe you can ask ordinary Russian citizens what their legal | protections are worth once they've been un-personed by the | world. | | Or perhaps you can ask Canadian mandate protesters what their | legal protections in their currency are worth at their bank | middlemen. | Spooky23 wrote: | How about the people who saw crypto wealth disappear with the | ebb and flow of the cybercrime and money laundering industry? | | Or the people who will inevitably be fleeced when the main | settlement token is an outright fraud which implodes? | rrdharan wrote: | Crypto has not helped any of these people. | logicalmonster wrote: | Is it not possible to hypothesize how cryptocurrencies | afford them options that other financial tools do not? | the_gastropod wrote: | Do you know the reasons traditional financial services do | not afford such options? | [deleted] | lostcolony wrote: | I can hypothesize those...and then also hypothesize a | counter as to why it won't help, for long at least. Maybe | you'd like to counter with an actual example of how it's | enabled them, and why increased regulation of the crypto | space won't prevent that (i.e., "I was able to buy a | Domino's pizza with donated crypto" - additional | regulation that would prevent you from traditional | banking could also make such crypto, with its traceable | history, be unspendable. They can't take it from you, but | they can levy the same threats they do for people who | ignore sanctions, which would mean crypto you've touched | is now effectively untradeable amongst regulated | businesses). | JaimeThompson wrote: | >Maybe you can ask ordinary Russian citizens what their legal | protections are worth once they've been un-personed by the | world. | | Their own government will "un-person" them for converting | Rubles into crypto too. | quadrifoliate wrote: | It is important to recognize that Stripe is largely selling well- | made shovels for the gold rush here. They have a history of | diving more deeply into this market [1] and withdrawing from it | before [2], so this is just Take 2. This time around, they are | not _themselves_ buying Cube Thingies or similar and don 't have | any exposure to the volatile world of ETH or other coins. | | I think there will be decent transfer of money from venture- | funded NFT startups to Stripe for the next few years, followed by | a dip in the market when the startups discover that selling | digital art is less of a viable market than they realize. | | I am personally skeptical about the end market, but Stripe seem | well-insulated from the risks. I'm curious what people who are | bullish on this think though - what might I be missing about the | digital art market? I think paying 12 million pounds for a Renoir | is bananas too, but people certainly do it [3]. I just expect | digital stuff to be more volatile because it's hard to | communicate that combination of artisanship and rarity. | | On the topic of well-made shovels, I highly recommend the Voile | Telepro in HN Orange [4] as a portable snow shovel to keep in | your car if you live in a snowy climate. They will probably be on | sale in spring and summer. | | ---------------------------------------- | | [1] | https://web.archive.org/web/20150516061807/https://stripe.co... | | [2] https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support | | [3] https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-pierre-auguste- | renoir-1... | | [4] https://snowmetrics.com/shop/voile-shovel/ | wahnfrieden wrote: | My interest in web3 + art is from finding new livable income | sources for artists generally. Less about big money | speculation, more about getting more artists supported such | that they don't need a day job or purely commercial art | pursuits (as opposed to "fine art"). I understand the current | state of crypto isn't near offering this outside of hyped | speculative investments | | I'm also not interested in ideas on a shelf that could do this | better in an alternate reality but aren't active | | I also recognize there are uphill battles conceptually for both | adopters and builders, such as ownership models where access is | not exclusive (which is also not without precedence outside | crypto) | | Not interested in discussing these distractions: the perceived | quality of current art, what types of art are more deserving of | their artists having a livable income off, ideas on a shelf for | solving this at scale in an alternate reality, scam activity, | or pretending proof of work chains are state of the art | karpierz wrote: | My concern around this space is less "does it make sense" and | more "if the bubble collapses as I expect, what will happen | to people who take the crypto/NFT money for granted"? | | I'm more interested in solutions that I expect to be stable | and last. I do understand why artists are hoping to cash on | the NFT wave; I just worry that a lot of people will come | crashing down along with the hype. | fivre wrote: | This is a solved problem: you pay them for their work, which | is how artists have made money since time immemorial. The | degree to which artists can make a living off their art is a | function of demand and discoverability, not whether they have | a payment system (they do need this, but they already have | them). | | I'd be curious to know what fraction of NFT enthusiasts had | previously commissioned a piece of art, and of those how many | were truly aghast at the dire state of payment systems | without NFTs or at their inability to assert ownership via a | blockchain. I suspect both are quite small. | | The former is ludicrous, because Paypal/Kofi/Patreon/what | have you offer a wide array of easy-to-use, feature-rich | payment systems. | | The latter maybe less inconceivable, but IMO it's driven by a | desire to use blockchain tech for _something_, find something | that it can conceivably do, and then deciding that that thing | is therefore important. Personally, proving ownership and | providence hasn't ever been a concern for any of my art | purchases because they, like the vast majority of art, isn't | worth selling a forgery of--nobody is coming to steal the | forum avatar I commissioned or selling unauthorized prints of | the obscure photographer I like. | | This is just round three (or whatever) of blockchain being a | solution in search of a problem: having failed to evangelize | its wide use as a consumer payments system in general, its | adherents moved on to hyping it as a solution to Enterprise | IT problems (where selling bullshit is the name of the game | anyway), failed to find traction (because everyone discovered | it didn't actually solve any problems), and so we've circled | back round to a consumer market, but now with more celebrity | endorsements. It's still an effort to convince people that | the blockchain version of something is much better and | therefore worthwhile so that the worth of the tokens is tied | to something other than transactions illegal goods and wild | speculation. It's about supporting the livelihoods of people | hoarding GPUs and wasting electricity to mine the tokens, not | artists. | atlantas wrote: | In the current system when an artist creates something and | sells it, they typically get paid once, often lowballed. | The buyer may turn around and sell it for 100x. The buyer | made far more than the artist, who gets nothing in this | scenario. | | With NFTs the artist can get a cut of every transfer | indefinitely. | pyrale wrote: | Physical art typically doesn't get flipped that much, | especially art from artists that _actually_ need support. | OGWhales wrote: | > With NFTs they can get a cut of every transfer | indefinitely | | How does that work? | | Also, what is to stop people copying it anyway and what | is to stop artist from getting underpaid? | | All serious questions that I'd like to see answers to but | don't understand how NFTs would solve any of them. | almostkorean wrote: | Royalties are built into marketplace smart contracts. | Individuals can do P2P trades where the artist doesn't | receive any royalty but this doesn't happen very often. | Anecdotally, it typically only happens on large deals and | people who do a P2P trade often send the artist their | royalty anyway (but still benefit from not paying the | OpenSea fees for example) | | Not sure what you mean by the second question | fivre wrote: | Wait, so the purported royalty benefit of wrapping this | in a contract can be circumvented, but the NFT tech is | still good because people who circumvent this kindly send | the artist the royalty anyway? Would they not be able to | send the same courtesy royalty if no NFTs were involved? | [deleted] | Tenoke wrote: | Ownership transfer is done by a function call. The | function often has extra logic like % of the funds for | the transfer going to the artist. I guess you can cheat | by sending a small amount in the transfer and seperately | paying the seller the rest but then you make the thing | you bought seem cheaper in the official records so that's | in most cases counter-productive. | Gwypaas wrote: | So I guess the next goal here is a startup to implement | this as a smart contract to go full circle. The market | will do it because any transaction fee is a hindrance to | it's liquidity and is a possibility to undercut someone | else. | tashoecraft wrote: | No you're assuming based on what seems like no knowledge | of the industry. | aerostable_slug wrote: | > With NFTs the artist can get a cut of every transfer | indefinitely. | | Too bad this hadn't been invented when Ted Nelson was | alive. | MathCodeLove wrote: | Oh so it's a pyramid scheme as well? What a horrible | payment system. Imagine if whenever you sold your car you | had to take a fraction of what you received for it and | give it back to the dealership (or rather, the | manufacturer in this case). | cinntaile wrote: | How to say you don't know what a pyramid scheme is | without saying it. | mupuff1234 wrote: | That's still beneficial to the artist as it usually | raises the market value for the rest of their work. | KarlKemp wrote: | That's not always true. German copyright law, for | example, includes a right for artists to a cut of the | proceeds for auctions in the secondary market. | wahnfrieden wrote: | This is what I mean by idea on a shelf - this idea | doesn't have mass adoption momentum and is also not | accessible to less established artists | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | Buddy, think about the poor starving VCs. They got into | certain coins at prices at fraction of a dollar. They need | 10000x returns so they can keep putting 100m into a saas | company that sales force can buy. | syntheweave wrote: | It was never a solved problem, it was an addressed problem. | And the method of address poorly allocated credit. | | Maintaining records for art transactions, and thus enacting | a fee structure that would benefit the artist when art is | traded, traditionally meant introducing a middleman - and | the associated overheads are why "fine arts" are known as a | gatekept world and commissions have become the default for | digital art. A sneer like "yeah well did you commission art | before NFTs" is tautological. Commissions are the business | model because they're available with minimal financial | technology, not because they're ideal for society. The | result you want is "more art is produced and more artists | can afford to produce at a high level". But not everyone is | interested in commissioning a large quantity of art of | their furry OC getting porked. And likewise, people have | trouble commissioning an artist to work freely without | adding some kind of externalized upside like "build my own | personal brand". There's a saturation point to that | business model in and of itself. | | It's only been relatively recently that artists also | started to be able to access intellectual property law as a | business model, but running an IP business involves a | perpetual defense of property through legal enforcements, | since we are in the age of mechanical reproduction. So it | also has barriers to entry and ongoing overheads. I don't | hear anyone saying that game developers should all work on | commission, though. | | The proposition of NFT art is just a revision of the | gallery system - make intellectual work an asset, but on a | much broader scale. The fee structure is automated, and the | art itself is open to viewing and therefore doesn't need | the same degree of IP enforcement as a paywall model; the | only provenance question is the initial one of whether you | actually minted your own work. And naturally, among the | first people to have jumped on this are charlatans who have | tested that exact question of initial provenance. | | But I can say, having closely observed and participated a | little, that NFT art on the whole is not uniquely bad or | good, it's still "just" an art market, just one geared | towards the artist who is interested in making their brand | a speculative investment. And that is another way to get | art made. | fivre wrote: | Assuming blockchain (and OpenSea atop that) count as "no | middleman, no overhead" and not a new middleman (but it's | a good one, because Andreessen Horowitz will make bank if | it succeeds) atop technology that requires more energy | consumption than small countries, it still isn't some | magical wand that creates more people that spend | disposable income on art. | | Commissioning art is one of _many_ ways you can do this. | Non-commissioned works are readily available too! I also | purchase those! Some of these are one of a limited set | (common for photo prints), some of these aren't (Bandcamp | albums). Point being, if you were someone who wanted to | buy art before NFTs, you could do so. I'm skeptical of | there being some large market segment that desperately | wanted to buy art but only realized they could with the | advent of NFTs. | | The royalty business model also already existed, where it | made sense. There's no contract governing me reselling | the painting I bought from someone at the local farmer's | market because there wasn't any expectation on either my | or the artist's part that it'd be resold at all, much | less for a sum vastly greater than its purchase price. | It's going to hang on my wall until I die, at which point | it'll likely get tossed in a bin. | | That's in contrast to say, a film score, where the | expectation is that it will be resold (as part of your | theater ticket price, but whatever) many times over: | ASCAP exists, and handles paying the IP lawyers on behalf | of its members, because that's a business model that | works for them. They've been managing this just fine for | over a century. | mkr-hn wrote: | >> _" I'd be curious to know what fraction of NFT | enthusiasts had previously commissioned a piece of art, and | of those how many were truly aghast at the dire state of | payment systems without NFTs or at their inability to | assert ownership via a blockchain. I suspect both are quite | small."_ | | The main complaint I hear from actual commission-taking | artists is that even something fun and innocuous but | potentially readable as suggesting banned uses, like "fuck | yeah," in the comment field on the paying side will make | PayPal suspend your account. The artists I know are | universally opposed to NFTs with more artists I know _of_ | coming out against every time a new NFT site launches with | stolen art. | reaperducer wrote: | _My interest in web3 + art is from finding new livable income | sources for artists generally_ | | You should track down the New York Times article from this | past weekend. From memory, it says that despite all the hype, | almost no artists are making any money from NFTs. The average | sale price is less than $400, which doesn't even cover | materials. | unreal37 wrote: | What exactly are the "materials" to create an NFT? | | Photoshop? | FridgeSeal wrote: | Time and expertise to develop skills, rent, food and | bills while they work. | QuikAccount wrote: | NFTs are a shit way of supporting artist and a lot of high | profile artist are just having people make NFTs with links to | their work without permission so they aren't really making | anything off this situation. | almostkorean wrote: | What makes it a shit way of supporting artists? I have seen | some fraud like you describe, but I think it makes a lot of | sense for digital only artists. | QuikAccount wrote: | The fraud I describe makes it a shit way of supporting | artist. As for digital only artist, there are plenty of | non-NFT ways to support them. Commissions, Patreon, and | merch to name a few. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Have fun living and getting ahead off some $30 tshirt | sales / supporting the artists you like that way | Nextgrid wrote: | The only reason NFTs sell for more is because of the hype | and the likelihood of there being some bigger sucker to | resell it to at an inflated price. This won't last | forever and then you'll end up with the same same 30$ | t-shirt-like prices but in NFT land. The "art" and | "artist" involved is irrelevant here - what matters is | that you have something that the current market has a lot | of demand for. | goosedragons wrote: | I think Patreon and similar is probably a better avenue for | digital. More consistent support than selling peices as NFTs | or in meat space and with digital I think you're more likely | to find 100 people willing to spend $10 for a new wallpaper | each month than 1 willing to spend $1000 on an NFT. | wahnfrieden wrote: | NFTs don't need to be as expensive as that, that's only | because currently all attention is on high-priced eth | ecosystem | | Patreon is also a huge rent seeker, we can do better for | artist direct payment | | Patreon is not passive income - people expect regular | updates and special work/insight for private audience | | In terms of consistency, meat space has big issues with | accessibility and reach | | Lastly you can look at the results. Patreon is not that | widely transformative for giving artists livable income | goosedragons wrote: | I never said Patreon is passive income but it's | consistent. The artist gets money for their output every | month. People are only going to pay so long as they feel | they get value. Unlike a subscription for rarely updated | software you can still use that Wallpaper you got from | being a patreon even if you're not subbed anymore. | | NFTs aren't passive either nor are they consistent. | | The whole point of NFTs is the scarcity aspect. Sure, you | could maybe do 100 $10 NFT "prints" instead but now they | need to manage that aspect and predict demand. | | NFTs mimic the meat space art world with all the same | problems like infrequent unpredictable sales with few | benefits like convenience. | jakelazaroff wrote: | What is the pitch for how web3 will help artists find income | without purely commercial art pursuits? Every single web3 art | project I've seen has been entirely commercial. | bmelton wrote: | Maybe I don't understand the question enough because I'm | wondering if DeFi is excluded as a viable answer, but | possibly you're just not aware of it? But it seems like | it's making lots of people money and that seems inclusive | of artists. | almostkorean wrote: | Not sure what you mean exactly by commercial art pursuits? | I'd say about 99% of NFT projects are garbage but I'm a fan | of artblocks (https://www.artblocks.io/). | | I can talk more about how the system works if you are | interested, but some established generative artists have | created projects on their platform and have made more than | they could before web3. | wahnfrieden wrote: | When I say commercial art I don't mean it's not sold, I | mean it in distinction with fine art. Commercial art means | for example product photography or designing a book cover | | That said there are also public goods approaches, either | where you have ownership without exclusive access | (interesting but not obvious to most people how to | productize) or grant models | cuteboy19 wrote: | Unfortunately most new NFT projects are computer generated | (no humans need apply). They have basically figured out that | paying an actual human for the art is not needed when people | will just buy cg art for the same price. There is one that | just minted RGB colors. Its reddit AMA was pretty hilarious | actually. | | Those that do include human art have a strong tendency to | just lift uncredited art from Pinterest or deviantart. | Supposedly the purpose of NFTs was to provide the provenance | for art. But it seems that most NFT art is stolen from actual | artists. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Please find another thread to talk about concern for the | quality of the work or the current amount of scamming | quadrifoliate wrote: | Yeah, this is kind of what I meant by it being hard to | project the combination of artisanship and rarity. I | suppose that I _personally_ would pay some money for | beautiful programmatically generated art too, but that 's | probably a very niche market. | wmf wrote: | _Stripe is largely selling well-made shovels for the gold rush | here. ... This time around, they ... don 't have any exposure | to the volatile world of ETH or other coins._ | | Which is... even more evil? They're encouraging an externality | which harms normal people but not them. | MathCodeLove wrote: | They're not encouraging crypto anymore than a liquor store | encourages alcoholism. The liquor store may lower the barrier | to entry for obtaining a bottle of alcohol, but it's | ultimately the alcoholics choice to enter the store and | purchase it. | | Offering a product is not evil or immoral. It may be _amoral_ | but that 's not the same as immoral. Ultimately the market | decides what stays and goes except in extraordinary | circumstances. | joosters wrote: | Oh yes, the "If I didn't sell them X, someone else would | have done" excuse. | ALittleLight wrote: | "Offering a product is not evil or immoral" - this is the | motto of my "Heroin for kids" brand. Selling a ponzi scheme | may not be illegal, but it seems plausibly immoral. | quadrifoliate wrote: | Yeah, but in this case Stripe is one step removed morally | as well. I don't see this as materially different from | them being a payment processor for an online liquor store | or a pyramid seller like LuLaRoe. | | You could say that a payment processor should morally | screen their clients in general, but that seems like a | stronger and not-so-reasonable statement. They do | prohibit certain kinds of businesses, but I think the bar | for that is very high and likely related to chargeback | concerns and such. | mkr-hn wrote: | Both would fall under Stripe's list of prohibited | businesses. | dmead wrote: | It was also safer to sell shovels in san francisco than it | was to go to the Klondike and dig for gold. the analogy is | correct. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Ugh - not a fan of declaring everything you disagree with as | "evil". | | I think NFTs, along with the vast majority (but not all) | crypto, are total bullshit, but I also accept (a) I could be | totally wrong in this, in which case, my loss, and (b) | offering rails to sell these items doesn't strike me as | "evil" in the slightest. | csomar wrote: | I have a friend of a friend who has a really low salary (think | less than $500/month - third-world country) who spends 1/3 of | his income on LoL digital items. Knowing that really changed my | perspective on the viability of NFT. It's more addictive than | digital stuff that you buy but can't sell. | | Now you can buy to maybe sell for a higher price in the future. | That should increase engagement and the user base. It is still | a very particular behavior that only a small fraction of | society engages in. | | But there is 6.6Bn smartphone users in this world. If a tiny | 0.1% of the population buys/sells NFT for fun and addition, | that's still 6.6 million user. That's billions of $$ pumped | into the NFT economy and dozens of billions of "value" for | these digital items. | | The world is crazy once you go from the local scale to the | global scale. | Gwypaas wrote: | It's really attempt 2.0 and some sprinkles of "you may get | rich" on the steam market with a hugely more inefficient | system, which you can't even show case in game to your | friends. All the while the gas fees causing a constant drain | on any transaction. | | Try looking how many pages you need click through before you | emerge from the minimum $0.03, the market for digital "art" | is a hard one, because scarcity can only centrally be | enforced. | | https://steamcommunity.com/market/search?appid=730#p1_price_. | .. | [deleted] | hemantv wrote: | It's high spread market. Any financial firms are salivating at | how to take advantage and profit from it. | | Coinbase whole business is spreads. | TacticalCoder wrote: | > Coinbase whole business is spreads. | | Coinbase collects fees. Even if the spread is minimal (I | think Bitcoin goes to something silly like 8 decimals but | even for a book in USD, the bid/ask spread may be 39 842.54 | vs 39 482.55, so a spread of one cent), Coinbase still takes | a fee on every trade. And they take a fee from both the buyer | and the seller. | | I'm not sure their business is related to spreads. | [deleted] | vincentmarle wrote: | > Updated March 10, 2022 | | Did they just update this after you pointed this out? | [deleted] | EE84M3i wrote: | For me, Google's cache of the page[1] does not contain that | and says a timestamp of 10 Mar 2022 01:35:20 GMT. | | [1]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cK | DBTS... | quadrifoliate wrote: | Hm, I thought I saw the update as while when I was looking | at the pages; but thinking through it I remember that I was | adding links _after_ I posted some of the text. | | Also, it's quite possible others pointed this out (the | Stripe team in general has great attention to detail!) and | updated the page. | drdrey wrote: | Why do you limit your scope to digital art? There are plenty of | other potential applications, from tickets, music and gaming to | gumroad-like marketplaces | VHRanger wrote: | This had been discussed a lot of times. All of those proposed | uses are better served by regular databases | | When crypto proposes something that *is*, rather than | something that *could be* people will stop considering it as | a big casino. | z3c0 wrote: | > All those proposed uses are better served by databases | | I've often wondered how NFT's would fare in a situation | like Diablo 3's colossal failure of a marketplace, where | people could sell their rare items to other players. The | whole concept broke, because "rare" doesn't mean anything | when players can just flood the market with weapons created | via modding. This seems to be exactly the use case NFT's | are made for. | | For the record - as a digital photographer - I find NFT's | for art to be a laughable concept. Keeping possession of my | raw files has always been a sufficient means of copy | protection for me. | [deleted] | [deleted] | StewardMcOy wrote: | It's very strange seeing the option near the bottom of the page | to donate a fraction of your revenue from Stripe Crypto to carbon | recapture efforts. I agree with Stripe that, at this point, the | solution to our climate problems must include carbon recapture, | but it's not an ideal situation to be in. | | Businesses entering the crypto space always seem to tout carbon | offsets and sidechains that use less energy, but offsets are | insufficient, and NFTs minted on sidechains inevitably migrate to | Mainnet, where they're just as environmentally destructive as any | other NFT, or they fail. | | Stripe's carbon recapture efforts seem to be in the same | category. Recapture is good, but not nearly as good as not | emitting the carbon in the first place. If Stripe's support of | crypto increases the use of blockchains, the overall impact of | extra carbon emissions could very easily outpace all the carbon | recapture they'll ever achieve. | | It's a shame. When Stripe announced their carbon recapture | efforts, I was impressed by how sincere they seemed in finding | solutions to climate problems. Next to Stripe Crypto, however, it | appears to just be greenwashing. | | (And to head off the replies, I know all about proof-of-stake, | but it's not relevant here. I'm unconvinced it will work, and | even if it does, the ecological damage done and being done in the | meantime is massive. If Stripe really cared about carbon | emissions, they'd wait to launch Stripe Crpyto only on proof-of- | stake blockchains, and only after they proved that the energy | usage at scale was similar to the energy use for transferring | fiat currency.) | elefanten wrote: | The "ecological damage" is a rounding error and being mitigated | in several ways. This is not a serious concern for | cryptocurrency, despite how often and blindly its repeated. | Daishiman wrote: | Which ways? | root_axis wrote: | It's hardly a rounding error, but I'm sympathetic to the fact | that there are a lot more important concerns with respect to | climate change than PoW, however, there is still a valid | ecological critique of PoW due to it's inherent wastefulness | relative to every other technology. | | The amount of waste necessary to support the network must | always grow since any new efficiencies are immediately | obviated by the incentive to bring on more miners, the total | utility provided by the network (i.e. the rate of | transactions it securely processes) has no relationship to | the amount of energy that the network burns. With every other | technology, new effeincies make the technology able to do | more useful work while burning less energy, in this way | anything based on PoW is fundamentally flawed. You could hook | up a fusion reactor of the future to the bitcoin network and | it would not provide any more utility, yet the network would | eventually consume all the energy produced by the reactor | given enough time to increase mining capacity. | | I know the typical response to this is PoS, and I think a | switch to PoS would be great since its impact on the | environment is within the realm of normal software. Whether | or not PoS can actually work for a large network is a | different discussion. | dannyw wrote: | There's a full featured testnet for the merge (Ethereum | PoS) you can run right now. Yes, the developers were too | optimistic with timeframes before, but it's close and I'd | expect it by EOY. | StewardMcOy wrote: | I'm following the progress. I don't like estimating | release dates for other peoples' work, but I wouldn't be | surprised if your EOY estimate is correct. | | The biggest concern I have though, is that you can run as | many testsnets as you want, but that doesn't mean the | rollout is going to survive contact with the enemy. I'm | very pessimistic that PoS can replace PoW in real-world | usage. Once everyone is on the PoS ETH, I suspect that | problems will eventually manifest, and either ETH will be | forced to roll back to PoW, or there will be splits, and | one of the PoW chains that splits off will supplant ETH | in popularity. | | I don't think this will happen immediately, but I think | it's very likely to happen within a few years of ETH | switching over to PoS. | michaelsbradley wrote: | The Ethereum PoS Beacon Chain mainnet (it's not a | testnet) has been running since December 2020: currently | over 300k validator are active, with nearly 10 million | "real money" ETH staked. | | https://beaconcha.in/ | | https://beaconscan.com/ | StewardMcOy wrote: | Yes, and it's definitely impressive, and I know this | might seem like moving the goalposts, but the market cap | of Beacon is very small compared to ETH Mainnet. More | importantly, it's not _the_ ETH blockchain. Beacon may be | working so well because PoS is optional. The people | participating in Beacon have bought into PoS on a | conceptual level and are working to make it work. When | you're incentivized to, you can ignore the pretty | fundamental design problems of PoS. | | Once ETH tries to get everyone into PoS, that's where I | think problems start. | | If ETH weren't so established right now through the NFT | marketplace, I might suspect you'd see a jump to other | blockchains, like Bitcoin, that are still on PoW. Since | it is established, I worry that people will try to make | it work for a few years, but it ultimately won't work, | and ETH Mainnet will either be forced to revert to PoW or | lose popularity to another fork. | michaelsbradley wrote: | There's roughly USD $26 billion equivalent staked on | Beacon, which puts it squarely in top-10 territory of | crypto market caps, so I'm not sure why you consider it | "very small", even compared to the ETH1 mainnet, but I | guess "very/small" might be subjective. | | While NFTs are a non-negligible component of trade volume | on the Ethereum blockchain, numbers I've seen recently | put _monthly_ volumes of e.g. OpenSea in the single-digit | USD billions equivalent. The _daily_ volume of ETH is | currently about USD $14 billion equivalent. I don 't | think the NFT marketplace is what's greasing the wheels. | StewardMcOy wrote: | This is not a convincing argument, but even if it were, | carbon recapture is currently even more of a "rounding error" | in the grand scheme of carbon emissions. Current carbon | emissions are somewhere around 50 billion metric tons a year. | I've seen varying estimates of crypto emissions, so I'm going | to cite one [1] on the low end here, since it's more | favorable to your argument, but the highest I've seen is less | than double this number, so they're all in the same ballpark. | | ETH currently emits 7.4 million metric tons of CO2 a year. | Bitcoin is much higher. I've seen estimates as low as 16 | million and as high as 55. There are other chains as well. To | keep the math simple, let's round it to 50 million, so crypto | is contributing 0.1% of total carbon emissions. Like you | said, a rounding error. | | I think we're just going to have to disagree on mitigations. | I don't think they're working very well. | | Crucially, at the beginning of 2019, according to the source | I linked, ETH was only at 2 million tons a year. It's more | than tripled since then. In 2021, Carbon recapture removed an | estimated 9 thousand tons of CO2. [2] The CO2 from the growth | of ETH eclipses anything that carbon recapture is currently | capable of. The technology will get better. The most | optimistic estimate I've seen is that carbon recapture will | hit 30 million tons a year in 2070. But this year, Stripe | Crypto only has to increase crypto transactions, across all | blockchains it supports, by 9,000 tons to completely offset | all of the money it's putting into recapture efforts. Even if | you remove all the other chains, Stripe only has to increase | ETH transactions by 1.3% to achieve this own-goal. | | Long term, Stripe alone could end up causing more CO2 | emissions on the blockchains to grow faster than all of | carbon recapture. | | 1: https://kylemcdonald.github.io/ethereum-emissions/ 2: | https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds- | largest-... | PretzelPirate wrote: | On the bright side, Ethereum devs have just launched the | final testnet before the switch to Proof-of-Stake. | | It would be great for Stripe to continue investing the same | amount of money into carbon recapture even after Ethereum's | carbon emissions drop over 99%. | StewardMcOy wrote: | As I said in my original post, it would be great if that | happened. I'm skeptical proof-of-stake will work at | scale. If it does, great, but Stripe should have waited | until then to support ETH, and not support Bitcoin or | other chains currently on proof-of-work. | | They damage they're doing in the meantime is more | detrimental than their recapture efforts are beneficial. | mattdesl wrote: | Perhaps worth clarifying: emissions are tied to hash rate | (and price action), not transaction count which is | effectively capped by limited block space. Your post makes | it seem that Stripe's service getting used will quickly | increase emissions, but if ETH price and hash rate drops | significantly in the coming months, the emissions would | also follow suit regardless of transaction count. | | I agree though, the tech is currently immature and energy | inefficient, and Stripe could have committed to PoS chains | (eg: Tezos) if they really wanted to avoid bearing any | additional emissions responsibility. | | Personally I am happy to see this service, as I currently | have to rather painfully roll my own crypto-commerce stack | to support ERC20/ETH as a payment option in my business | operations, and I would rather a well-engineered product to | remove some of this overhead. | [deleted] | pjscott wrote: | > Recapture is good, but not nearly as good as not emitting the | carbon in the first place. | | That's not necessarily true -- it depends on the marginal costs | of each. Right now carbon capture is pretty expensive, but I | can see that potentially changing with more investment put into | it, which is what Stripe is trying to do. | StewardMcOy wrote: | I'm mainly talking about the present and the near future. But | there's more to the equation than carbon in, carbon out. | Recapture isn't going to fix the non-warming issues with | emissions, like ocean acidification. | | In a world without renewables, we'd never get to a place | where the marginal costs of carbon capture would be lower | than the marginal costs of burning fossil fuels for energy. | The best hope for recapture is to be powered by cheap | renewables. This requires having a lot more renewable | capacity than we do now, which is absolutely something that's | happening and should continue to happen, but it's not | environmentally free. Mining and battery | production/recycling/disposal have economic consequences. | | In its best form carbon recapture is trading emissions today | for the promise that they'll be mostly recaptured in the | future using renewables. But renewables also have to serve | our other needs. So all the carbon we burn in the meantime | creates more demands for solar panels, wind farms, dams, wave | farms, and batteries in the future. | | Thus, it is better to not emit than to recapture. We | recapture because we have ti. | shafyy wrote: | Stripe doesn't give two shits about the environment. It's just | good PR. If they did, they would know that investing money in | carbon recapture is not an effective way to combat climate | change. I've had it up to here with people trying to find a | technofix to all our problems. It's much more simple than that. | therealdrag0 wrote: | You think "carbon captures" is better PR than alternatives | that do work such that they picked this instead? Or you think | they just pulled it out of a hat? Or is your explanation just | not that good? | joshmarlow wrote: | While the energy usage of Proof-of-Stake systems like Bitcoin | does seem embarrassingly excessive at first glance, I think | there's more nuance here than it first may appear. | | One of the problems with renewables is that they are spike-y | and there's a limit to how much you can control the spike. When | renewable sources peak, they can put more energy into the grid | than the grid can safely handle (too much power can cause | damage). Battery storage tech is currently lacking for dealing | with this (though https://www.energyvault.com/ has an | interesting take on this) and power degrades quickly when sent | over power-lines, so that limits distribution over long | distances. | | In some scenarios, when energy becomes too plentiful, power | companies may actually start charging _negative costs_ - ie, | they pay people to take more power out of the grid. When you | combine these two factors, power producers have an economic | incentive _not to use renewables_. | | Enter Bitcoin - paying for power consumption is a huge | component of operating costs. Mining rigs that are positioned | near renewable power sources have an advantage in that they can | just stop mining when energy prices get too high and start | mining when energy prices are low enough. This provides a | profitable way for miners and renewable power suppliers to | operate together. | | Deployed properly, Bitcoin mining actually improves the | economics of renewables. Because doing so improves the | profitability of mining, there is an economic incentive for | miners to move toward renewables and build infrastructure that | only mines when it is most profitable - ie, the times when | _not_ mining actually hurts renewable efforts. | | NOTE: in theory non-cryptocurrency applications could serve | this same role to make renewables more economical, but many | applications have an always-on requirement; you can't run a | data center only when the sun shines, but you can mine crypto | only then. | StewardMcOy wrote: | If that were the only energy used for blockchains, then that | would definitely eliminate the environmental arguments | against cryptocurrencies, but I doubt you could run large | blockchains on only renewable spikes. | | Even then, if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a | compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better | sent there than to mining rigs. | joshmarlow wrote: | > if battery tech improves enough, I think there's a | compelling case to be made that the spike energy is better | sent there than to mining rigs. | | I don't exactly disagree - with better storage tech, we | could put the energy to more immediate uses. But why | postpone improving the economics of renewables until we | have better battery tech (which has an unknown timeline)? | ksec wrote: | As expected, lots of people unhappy. RailsConf had to cancel a | talk on web3. I wonder if Stripe will face the same pressure. | Liron wrote: | Important to note that Stripe has NOT announced any | crypto/blockchain/NFT products or tech of its own. | | The only news here is that Stripe is letting crypto companies use | their various fiat processing services, now that they feel | comfortable that they can legally do so. Confirmed by pc's | comment [1] | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30629169 | edwinwee wrote: | Yes, the Stripe Crypto team started six months ago and the | first step was to tune our fiat payment APIs to work with | exchanges, on-ramps, and NFT marketplaces. Working on lots | more, so stay tuned for more announcements very soon! | biztos wrote: | I would love to know how often real-world money is referred | to as "fiat" inside Stripe. | chockchocschoir wrote: | "Fiat" does not mean "real-world money" as any money you | consider "real" is "real". "Fiat" refers to money not | backed by something physical, and it is not a new term that | appeared from the cryptocurrency space (as many believe). | | The search trend, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore? | date=all&q=Fiat%20M..., seems to be relative stable since | start of collecting trend data (2004), with slightly | increasing volume as we get closer to today, but generally | stable. | | More information: | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp | [deleted] | [deleted] | vishnugupta wrote: | I skimmed the landing page. It looks like a collection of | existing products and they are saying here's how you could build | on ramp and off ramp products. They are basically saying use our | product to handle fiat currency and the customers. And once fiat | leg of transaction is complete it's upto you to manage the crypto | part. I don't see anything Crypto specific product here. For | example, custodial Wallet as a solution. Am I missing something | super obvious? | [deleted] | djrobstep wrote: | hemantv wrote: | Who is on the hook if credit card fraud happens? If i just want | to accept crypto payment what's my incentive? | [deleted] | harel wrote: | Just last year Stripe wouldn't even allow any crypto business to | be their customers. You could not use Stripe if you business was | crypto related. A client of mine had to switch implementation to | checkout.com because of that. I wonder what changed... | jhatemyjob wrote: | What changed is, someone very powerful said this: "One of my | incredibly big misses over the last decade was not buying | enough Bitcoin. At $60k per Bitcoin, I'm still not sure if one | should aggressively buy it, but surely it is telling us that we | are at a crisis moment for the Fed." | JaimeThompson wrote: | I'm not sure he actually is all that good at picking such | things given his history | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Clarium_Capital | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | I searched for who said this but came up empty. Where is this | quote from? | cshenoy wrote: | Pretty sure it was Peter Thiel. | | https://sports.yahoo.com/tech-billionaire-peter-thiel- | says-1... | clpm4j wrote: | And pretty sure by "not enough" he means only bought | single digit 1000s of bitcoins rather than hundreds of | thousands or millions of bitcoins. | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | Thanks for the link. I didn't find that quote in the | article, but maybe it was in there. If it's not in there | then it's crazy that you linked that article saying | "Peter Thiel" - another commenter said the same thing. If | it's in there then it's weird that my quoted Google | Search didn't yield at least that article. | [deleted] | eruleman wrote: | a recent Peter Thiel talk: | https://youtu.be/Bw1ByVhJt7A?t=740 | [deleted] | pc wrote: | Yep. Until very recently, we weren't able to support businesses | selling crypto. (The regulatory details are complex.) We're now | rolling out support and this page is basically about that | change. | dogman144 wrote: | Well, regulatory details have been complex for years and | capable companies with smaller compliance/legal teams found a | way to do it. | | My sense is it's more about the window shifting enough that | it's palatable enough for a Stripe product team to stake | their professional rep on now. "If Twitter and Square are | doing it..." | | To an extent, I wonder what the impact of the SEC ruling for | BlockFi (crypto exchange) did to clarify the regs for larger | companies like Stripe. | squidlogic wrote: | Can you be more specific than "Regulatory details are | complex"? I think we would enjoy hearing about the | complexity! :) | unfocussed_mike wrote: | How will a bank that has restrictive policies around crypto | know that a Stripe payout made into a customer's account was | _not_ related to an NFT sale? | | Essentially, how are existing Stripe users protected from | Stripe's reputational self-harm here? | ipaddr wrote: | How would this bank even know stripe is accepting a new | currency? Why would it matter. Money will flow into your | account from stripe. Stripe is not a cryto service provider | defined by banking regulations. | | That's like saying a bank won't accept a transfer from | another bank because that bank allows you to pay them in | cryto. | biztos wrote: | > That's like saying a bank won't accept a transfer from | another bank because that bank allows you to pay them in | cryto. | | Or a bank won't accept a transfer from your bank because | your bank might be taking deposits from entities subject | to strict sanctions, and the plausible deniability is | very thin. | | I think banks are working on that as we speak. Cold days | in Cypress soon, etc. The reputation risk of "doing | crypto" might be decreasing, but the legal risk of | violating sanctions seems to be increasing. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > Stripe is not a cryto service provider defined by | banking regulations. | | But it's now a payment provider that allows businesses in | the UK to engage in what surely must be considered high- | risk crypto business by the bank (NFT marketplaces). | | This is the sort of thing that gets businesses denied | banking service. | muttantt wrote: | So now you can sell NFTs using Stripe, but still VOIP | business startups competing with RingCentral, 8x8, etc. get | their Stripe accounts cancelled... | TechBro8615 wrote: | Maybe Stripe is using the adapter pattern -- once fiat is | deprecated, they can remove the technical debt around | business restrictions. ;) | harel wrote: | To be honest, I thought your refusal was probably well | justified considering the disproportionate levels of credit | card fraud involved in anything to do with crypto. I'd love | to see your end of year statistics now... | mcintyre1994 wrote: | > disproportionate levels of credit card fraud involved in | anything to do with crypto | | I'm really curious what your source is for this. Anyone | legit in crypto who's taking fiat is doing way more KYC | than your average ecommerce store. | harel wrote: | My personal observation. A large proportion of credit | card payment were fraud, or flagged as such. It was such | a huge number (% wise) that I (thought I) understood why | stripe pulled the rug out. And in another project I | observed a very large and sudden increase at attempted | fraud right after elements of crypto were introduced | (including attempts at impersonating me, and someone else | involved). | | But honestly, when it comes to the crypto world, I'm that | guy who laughed at that other guy for buying bitcoin at | 20 cents. There was a lesson there somewhere. | FridgeSeal wrote: | That's way a huge amount of NFT's don't end up as rug | pulls and scams right? | stu2b50 wrote: | I mean that's different from the kind of fraud the parent | post was talking about. If a user used their credit card | to buy an NFT that quickly went to zero, that's not a | fraudulent credit card transaction still - the user | authorized that transaction. CC fraud would be if someone | stole your credentials and bought something before the | card was revoked. | trulyme wrote: | Besides, why commit credit card fraud when there are so | many scam options available in the crypto world. :) | harel wrote: | There are always scams of different flavours around - | that doesn't stop anyone from picking one or another. The | appearance of easy money attracts those who seek easy | money. | rmbyrro wrote: | > disproportionate levels of credit card fraud involved in | anything to do with crypto | | Source? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Did anything necessarily change? I imagine there can be a | different answer between the two questions "are crypto | businesses bad risks as a payment provider?" and "is | cryptocurrency a bad risk as a payment mechanism?" | rewtraw wrote: | while the crypto community wants to avoid as much regulation as | possible, it's important to realize that _sensible_ regulation | is a boon to the industry as it clears a path to allow | institutions and traditional FinTech companies to hop onboard. | | So, the timing of this Stripe announcement could be related to | the Biden EO: https://apnews.com/article/biden-cryptocurrency- | executive-or... | otikik wrote: | Noooo Stripe not you. | candiddevmike wrote: | Just recently moved from Stripe to Paddle after realizing their | new tax collection stuff locked out a bunch of my customers--it | only supports credit card transactions, not Apple Pay or Google | or any of the EU payment options, and Stripe has no ETA on fixing | this. With the tax bits, I still have to file and worry about | thresholds too, so I switched to Paddle. On top of completely | eliminating the tax remittance crap, I also have PayPal support | now (highly requested by customers, especially international). | ksec wrote: | Is Paddle still Only open to SaaS only ? | | Last time I check they won't even accept any other business. | candiddevmike wrote: | I am a SaaS but I sell a lifetime subscription as a | standalone product, works fine with Paddle. | mherrmann wrote: | If by SaaS you mean subscription, then no. I sell one-time | software purchases through them. | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | I'm trying to run a marketplace, would that be possible through | paddle? | ttoinou wrote: | > their new tax collection stuff | | Couldn't you turn that off ? | candiddevmike wrote: | Well, yeah, but I need it so I'm not sure what you're getting | at? I didn't just turn it on for funsies, tax remittance | sucks. There are APIs you can use, but they're more | expensive/complicated than stripe's tax solution that they | acquired. Paddle (or some other merchant of record) makes it | even easier. | hutzlibu wrote: | I know, that for setting up my stripe account, I HAD to | provide a credit card number, which I did not had, as they | are not needed in EU. | rosndo wrote: | My European debit card number worked just fine (as it | basically always does when someone asks for a "credit | card") | hutzlibu wrote: | I only had a EC card, but now have a credit card as well. | | (all those different standards are a bit annoying) | rosndo wrote: | By choosing to only have an EC card you're making a | deliberate choice to make your life difficult by using an | incredibly obscure method of payment, no? | | You can hardly expect those to work even in other EU | countries, much less with an US based online business. | | Almost everybody else in the world has a visa or a | mastercard (or unionpay) | hutzlibu wrote: | "By choosing to only have an EC card" | | That was the standard card, I had ever since with that | account - but it does work all across europe. | atlantas wrote: | I find the sheer volume of anger and hatred surrounding this and | other related announcements completely unhinged. Why are so many | people threatened by services that give their users options? | root_axis wrote: | Is your honest interpretation of cryptocurrency critics that | they feel "threatened by services that give their users | options"? | [deleted] | izzydata wrote: | Groupthink has decided that crypto is evil and killing the | planet and any opinion to the contrary is wrongthink. This is | the world we live in now. | eclipxe wrote: | HN hates everything. | knownjorbist wrote: | It's wild, considering the cryptopunk thing is happening | _now_, not in the 90s. | o_____________o wrote: | The tech world is full of dreamers and know-it-alls. Proto- | HN Slashdot is a great historical document of our malignant | naysaying. | stimpson_j_cat wrote: | It would be great to have a place to have engaging discussion | regarding Y-Combinator-backed startups that good hackers | would find interesting. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I feel like I am engaging with a bad faith critique for the | purposes of good faith discussion, which is a mistake, but OK, | here goes: | | Some businesses in the UK have banks that say they will close | their accounts if they accept cryptocurrency payments. Mine | does! I would without hesitation lose my business bank account | if I did, because I am a trifling small customer. | | Stripe was safe and reputable, but now it is a place where you | can accept cryptocurrencies. | | _Edit: see note below._ | | I'm not currently clearing payments via Stripe for my own | business, but the way I understand it, it's now likely to mean | increased scrutiny from my bank about those payments when I do. | | I'm not sure if it has rolled out in the UK yet. But if it has, | will my bank be clearly informed when a payout was _*not*_ the | result of a cryptocurrency transaction? I 've not read that far | yet. | | Either way it's reputational damage hassle people do not need. | | And before you ask: I am of course comfortable with that bank | policy. Because cryptocurrency is consistently crime-adjacent | and fraud-adjacent. And it's not like banks are that well- | equipped at dealing with old-fashioned frauds that have been | around a century, let alone new frauds that have been around | mere days. | | -- | | Edit to add: apparently this document is not meant to | communicate that cryptocurrency payments can be accepted. Which | is not what the screenshots in the page do, IMO. | | Though the fact that Stripe will allow NFT exchanges is more | than enough to create reputational risk. | | I still expect to have more difficulty when I add Stripe | payments. | dbmikus wrote: | Just want to say that I had the POV of the grandparent | comment, but your answer was a very useful and real | description of a particular problem of accepting crypto- | currency. So thanks for sharing! | danuker wrote: | > Because cryptocurrency is consistently crime-adjacent and | fraud-adjacent. | | So are banks. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#Notable_cases | unfocussed_mike wrote: | That's as may be. | | But I have to deal with my bank, don't I? And there is | regulation to protect my business. | rosndo wrote: | Actually not really, I've switched banks used by my UK | based business a couple of times. It has never been | difficult. | | I would certainly want to switch banks if I started | hearing complaints about me using _Stripe_. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Perhaps I am overcautious. | | But today _Stripe changed its Twitter icon to an NFT_ , | which is like a Belisha Beacon for idiocy, isn't it? | | Why any business that is serious would -- in March 2022 | -- produce publicity or support materials that mention | being able to sell NFTs, I do not know. | | It's very stupid. | rosndo wrote: | While I largely share your feelings about NFTs, I think | the general population outside of HN sphere does not. | | I'd hedge my bets on this one, I've interacted | extensively with the massive art market and NFTs really | seem like a natural fit. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > While I largely share your feelings about NFTs, I think | the general population outside of HN sphere does not. | | I don't know. I know a fair number of | artists/musicians/photographers and I can tell you that | among those artists, the impression of NFTs is almost | universally negative. | | I would bet that more people think NFT is close to a | "giant, planet-killing scam", which is hyperbole but on | the side of caution. | rosndo wrote: | I think the "planet-killing scam" is very HN-sphere | thinking. Most people have no idea. Most non-technical | artists I interact with seem very excited about NFTs, | often asking me to help them create their own | (unfortunately I'm not interested). | | And what about when ETH2 goes live in some months and the | main NFT chain moves to proof-of-stake? The "planet- | killing" problem is already solved, that tech is going | live this year. Seems like a fairly fragile criticism. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > I think the "planet-killing scam" is very HN-sphere | thinking | | It's not, at all. I've heard that phrasing or similar | (that it's a pyramid scheme, that cryptocurrencies are | wasteful) from people who don't even know how to find HN. | | In the photography world in particular, mentioning your | NFT is likely to get you laughed out of any forum in | which you bring it up. | | IMO if you encounter any non-technical artist "excited" | about NFTs, tell them to stay the hell away, or risk | being seen a bad friend. I tell people I will not help | them, that I am very happily uninterested, and urge them | not to do it at all. | | It would be irresponsible _not_ to. | rosndo wrote: | >IMO if you encounter any non-technical artist "excited" | about NFTs, tell them to stay the hell away, or risk | being seen a bad friend. | | Fuck that, despite me being incredibly skeptical of NFTs | I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the fact that some | of my non-technical artist friends have earned 6-7 figure | amounts selling NFTs. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | 6-7 figure amounts selling something of no worth to | people who on average do not have any comprehension of it | and which opens them up to fraud and scams. Great. | | If an artist friend of mine sells an NFT I am going to | struggle with continuing to see them as a friend, because | it's morally bankrupt. | | If a non-technical artist comes to you and asks for help | selling an entirely phantom product to their presumably | only-averagely-technically-aware fans, why would you get | involved? | | Anything that introduces non-technical users to crypto -- | which is really the main function of NFT exchanges at | this point -- is a moral hazard. | | This is why I am so shocked to see Stripe involved with | it. | makeee wrote: | Would you consider an artist who sells a series of | limited edition prints to be morally bankrupt? How is | doing this via the blockchain any different (besides | catering to a customer base who prefers a digital | format)? | rosndo wrote: | I don't get it. How are my friends morally bankrupt for | selling NFTs to people like Will Smith or Dubai royalty? | Same people who are buying their art to hang on their | walls. | | It's not like NFTs brought them a whole new audience, | it's just that their existing audience wanted NFTs. | | You might think NFTs are worthless, but the exact same | argument goes for easily reproduced physical works of | art. | infamouscow wrote: | Because if Bitcoin specifically takes off it will force | governments to balanced budgets, exposing a lot of hidden | corruption. Detractors cherry-pick concerns about energy usage, | but never show the energy usage of the existing system for | comparison. | tehnub wrote: | You're suggesting that these HN readers are criticizing | crypto because they're trying to keep government corruption | under the rug? | unfocussed_mike wrote: | I really never know how to read comments like this anymore. | | Are you serious? Are you joking? | quaunaut wrote: | Are you for real? | | Crypto right now, while being used by under 1% of population | use, uses 40% of the energy of the global banking system[1]. | | In other words, if it were to increase to even 10% of the | population using it, it would use over 4x the energy of the | global banking system. If that increased to 50%, it would be | 20x. | | This would be somewhat mitigated in the case of Proof of | Stake, but would simultaneously give major players in the | market complete control of said market. Y'know, like a | government. | | 1. Research report from Galaxy Digital, a decidedly pro- | crypto source, page 8: | https://docsend.com/view/adwmdeeyfvqwecj2 | infamouscow wrote: | That report says the data used for the banking system is | derived from a computer model because they lack sufficient | empirical evidence. | [deleted] | rank0 wrote: | Things like this where companies reinvent traditional payment | processing "but with crypto" is the antithesis of what crypto | used to stand for. | | As a former believer in the original goal of private p2p digital | cash, I am saddened by what crypto has become in practice. | | Crypto is just centralized as the traditional financial system. | | Oh and nobody actually uses it as a currency. I feel like I'm one | of few who's actually purchased goods/services. | jazzkingrt wrote: | There are still crypto projects whose primary focus is privacy | (eg monero). But unsurprisingly, it's difficult to spend that | money without going through a KYC process. | | I think the "dream" of truly private transactions was always | unrealistic. Governments have many tools at their disposal to | get what they want. | | Even cash is only so private. In the USA cash purchases over | $10,000 require a report to the IRS. | rank0 wrote: | Monero is my favorite crypto project and the only token I | still use today. Their randomX pow protocol is brilliant and | the anonymity is opaque as you can get! Requiring those huge | memory pages for efficient mining is a great solution for | deterring mining botnets. | | > I think the "dream" of truly private transactions was | always unrealistic. Governments have many tools at their | disposal to get what they want. | | Unfortunately you may be right. I sure hope not. | nprateem wrote: | Particl.io has built a marketplace for this. It hasn't taken | off yet but the 'dream' seems to be their dream too | erulabs wrote: | Am very glad to see this - was considering adding Coinbase's | Commerce product due to quite a few requests to accept BTC | payments for our hardware at https://kubesail.com - I suppose we | have an extremely privacy focused user-base currently. Since we | already use Stripe, I would be very glad to simply "enable | bitcoin" as a payment method and leave it at that. | | Somewhat sadly, I was quite involved in web3 several years ago | when the web3.js project was very young - so I have mixed | feelings about being glad "someone else is gonna handle it for | me". I suppose in the last 5 years I've gone from "Not your keys, | not your coins!" to "I just don't want to spend a ton of time on | this". Does that mean crypto has failed to live up to the dream | or does that mean it's finally boring enough for old-business- | owner-me to make use of it? I can't quite decide! | | I am a former Stripe employee, so I am _quite_ biased, but I 'll | just say: In my experience, if the Collison brothers do anything | - you'd be a fool to think it's not extremely well thought out. | If I hear a rhyme I assume there is a damn good reason. | ludamad wrote: | For businesses in times of gold-based commerce, reliable bank | notes were greatly welcome. Gold was heavy and hard to | validate, whereas crypto is easy to validate but also so light | that without proper key management it will float away :). I | don't blame you for not also wanting to perform high stakes | private key keeping on top of a business | pastor_bob wrote: | I don't think this allows for crypto payments nor for | 'discreet' transactions | | See: https://support.stripe.com/questions/crypto- | supportability-a... | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Really? The OP link does not make this at all clear. | | If the text says one thing, the opposite is suggested by the | screenshots in the page. | | I do not expect it to be clear to the people reviewing | transactions at crypto-phobic banks. | | I would prefer a payments provider that will have absolutely | nothing to do with these businesses, but either way, the way | this is being communicated looks like an attempt to split a | hair too finely. | traveler01 wrote: | If you want to accept cryptocurrency payments and want a | privacy focused service you can try Cryptapi... | rsstack wrote: | Not to be negative, but when evaluating financial services | CryptAPI are failing most checks: | | - Three employees on LinkedIn, none with a background in | finance, security, accounting, etc. - No audited security | certifications (PCI DSS doesn't directly apply, but there | should be _something_ that shows that _someone_ checked their | processes/code/infrastructure for reasonable best practices) | - No fraud protection or anything like that. | | This could be nice for a crypto-only side-business that | someone is running, but it can't be used by a serious company | that needs to supplement their non-crypto payments with a | crypto payments option. | lawn wrote: | > I suppose we have an extremely privacy focused user-base | currently. | | If you're serious about this, you should _strongly_ consider | Monero. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | > Am very glad to see this | | Am very _sad_ to see this. | | I suppose it is inevitable but it could even present problems | for businesses in the UK where their banks are allergic to | payment platforms that accept cryptocurrency. | | _It is bonkers to be downvoted for this, but I explained my | reasoning in more detail in another comment if credulous people | care to reflexively downvote me there too:_ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30629808 | henning wrote: | kyletns wrote: | This is an obvious but very powerful move by Stripe. Stripe is | attempting to allow any business to become a place you can buy | crypto, which will be really important to remove Coinbase and | other CEXs as the only consumer-facing platforms where you can | get into the ecosystem. | | Of course, that just means replacing those CEXs with Stripe as | the fully centralized service on the backend, and you can bet | they'll be taking their cut! But anything that moves more money | into crypto is good for the Web3 ecosystem. Which would, of | course, only be a good thing if you considered growth of the Web3 | ecosystem a good thing :) | samch wrote: | Slight tangent: Maybe it's just me, but I'm somewhat | uncomfortable with the label "crypto" being co-opted as official | shorthand for cryptocurrencies. I see how it's a natural | truncation of a long term, but to many of us the word crypto can | mean many other things. When I saw the headline, I wondered if | they had released their own cryptographic library or something | else to that effect. | [deleted] | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | It's really unfortunate. But I guess it's better than | shortening it to "currency" because that would imply it has | actual value. | danuker wrote: | What is actual value to you personally? | EamonnMR wrote: | Can be exchanged for goods and services. | knownjorbist wrote: | So crypto qualifies. | dybber wrote: | Why isn't this new Stripe thing then about being able to | use Bitcoin when buying things? | | Or how do I use Coinbase for buying things? Try go to the | coinbase website and look for how to buy things with your | Bitcoin. What I read from the site is that it's all about | investing in the value going up, not about making | payments to other people or businesses for services or | purchases. | danuker wrote: | My question also. | colinmhayes wrote: | > how do I use Coinbase for buying things | | Download TOR, go to dark.fail, go to one of the onion | sites, send them crypto from coinbase, purchase products. | EamonnMR wrote: | I would have some difficulty paying my mortgage, my | mechanic, and my grocery bill with crypto. | dorianmariefr wrote: | It has value on the tor market places | buu700 wrote: | Here's how I rationalize it: | | * "Crypto" means "cryptography" | | * "Cryptocurrency" is a subset of "cryptography" | | * Using "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency" is valid as a | synecdoche | | So basically I use it both ways. That also makes more sense to | me because "currency" feels like an overly narrow description | of the current crypto ecosystem. | divbzero wrote: | It is not just you. 'Crypto' is an odd shorthand for digital | currencies. | | Looking back at the initial whitepaper, Satoshi actually uses | the word just once: "What is needed is an electronic payment | system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing | any two willing parties to transact directly with each other | without the need for a trusted third party." [1] The remainder | of the paper uses terms like 'hash' and 'digital signature'. | | [1]: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf | fossuser wrote: | This battle has been fought and lost and the language has | changed. | | I've learned to just accept the new meaning and imo it's better | that way (otherwise you'll end up being the person correcting | everyone who writes linux to write gnu/linux for the rest of | your life). | | Crypto implies cryptocurrency now (especially in public facing | writing), cryptography is the less common usage. | skrebbel wrote: | The problem is, words mean what most people think they mean. | This means that sometimes, meanings change. I'm totally with | you but you gotta admit that the people who think "crypto" | means "cryptography" are a tiny, tiny minority right now. | | Crypto means internet money. Cryptography is how it's built. | EamonnMR wrote: | Kinda like Hacker. Ship's probably sailed though... | rewtraw wrote: | that ship sailed a long time ago. | | but tbh, some of the most exciting cryptographic problems are | being worked on in the cryptocurrency industry (zk tech, for | example). | [deleted] | atlantas wrote: | It's unfortunate, but what would be a good alternative? | wjdp wrote: | Yes it does, but that ship has sadly sailed. Though, on | reflection, if I was on the other side of the argument I'd | probably be for it. | rvz wrote: | This doesn't come as surprising since they have timed this with | Biden's executive order on regulating cryptocurrencies, so this | is probably why you are seeing Stripe pushing Crypto right now. | | Also, all smaller cryptocurrency on ramp businesses are doomed. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-10 23:01 UTC)