Visa May Add Cryptocurrencies to Its Payments Network, Says CEO

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 4:12 AM UTC

tal8d wrote: post #149

freeone3000 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, ten years ago was a better time for cryptocurrency as a currency. You could use it to pay for pizzas, there were online casinos, even some businesses selling actual hosting accepted it as a matter of course. Right now, it's this weird speculative asset that lots of people are interested in trading on, because it's a well-traded asset, but there seems to be zero interest in any of the fundamental principles…

> It's closer to digital beanie babies than any sort of serious currency. And then he flushed any possibility for a good faith argument away. What, are keeping your powder dry on the tulip mania line? I'm long past the evangelical phase on bitcoin, but back when I was doing that (when it was trading in the double digits) - I heard the exact same thing. Merchants would adopt and then quickly abandon, money transmitter…

Post by brianobush » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 4:38 AM UTC

daptaq wrote: post #27

doggosphere wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat currencies will probably always exist. Digital crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ethereum will exist alongside them. Bitcoin can be an asset like gold, of which users keep a portion of their networth to protect from economic uncertainty. Its deflationary policy may make it less usable as a currency, but at least crypto gives people choice.

> Digital crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ethereum will exist alongside them. Bitcoin can be an asset like gold, of which users keep a portion of their networth to protect from economic uncertainty. Seems improbable, as it is far less stable than Gold. From what I see, it is almost never used as a currency, and almost always as a speculative asset. The main indicator for me is that Bitcoin is always measured in Dollars…

Post by brianobush » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #45

lovetocode wrote: post #2

Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.

There is no reason that limited supply need be an inherent mechanism to a crypto currency.

Post by hakfoo » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 4:51 AM UTC

Geee wrote: post #82

alextheparrot wrote: post #24

Are there any crypto projects that allow chargebacks? I religiously avoid using my debit card except at bank ATMs to avoid that once every few years when someone skims my credit card. That and rewards are the main value-add of a traditional payment flow at the moment.

It's possible to provide customer protection as a third-party service. Chargebacks shouldn't exist on the base layer of money.

Post by tal8d » Mon, Feb 01, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #151

tal8d wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's closer to digital beanie babies than any sort of serious currency. And then he flushed any possibility for a good faith argument away. What, are keeping your powder dry on the tulip mania line? I'm long past the evangelical phase on bitcoin, but back when I was doing that (when it was trading in the double digits) - I heard the exact same thing. Merchants would adopt and then quickly abandon, money transmitter…

It's absolutely failed as a currency because nobody actually wants to accept it as payment for services. Digital gold? Sure, complete with late-night advertisements -- and nobody actually owning actual gold. The fundamentals of bitcoin are completely orthogonal to its current purpose as a speculation vehicle.