Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 910 posts

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#221

Post by koonsolo »

systemvoltage wrote: post #84
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

These stories usually spur more enthusiasm for buying cryptocurrency, but ironically those buyers aren’t interested in spending cryptocurrency using their MasterCard. They’re hoping other people will buy cryptocurrency from these announcements, driving the price up. Or, more likely, they’re just hoping other people will buy cryptocurrency and not use it in these spending systems. Spending cryptocurrency would result…

What's the point of an unstable, volatile, frantically manipulated currency that is susceptible to social media pump and dump schemes (Elon + Doge)? Currency and its exchange rate needs to be relatively stable for the world to put trust into it. Saying that BTC is stable, but the rest of the world's fiat currency is fluctuating makes no sense. US dollar provides stability and security, I feel confident that a cappucc…

With any fiat currency, you are indeed aware that it devalues at a steady pace.

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#222

Post by ardy42 »

centimeter wrote: post #204
ardy42 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But did you ever wonder where the stability of USD comes from? It all comes down to how big the transaction volume of your currency is. I don't think it's that simple. Transaction volume doesn't just appear from nowhere. IMHO, the stability of the US dollar mainly comes from the geopolitical & economic position of the US coupled with trust that its government won't totally mismanage it. Bitcoin has neither of those…

> Transaction volume doesn't just appear from nowhere. Indeed, it takes time to bootstrap a currency. That’s why it’s absurd to expect Bitcoin to be stable when it’s less than 10% the market cap of any other significant reserve asset, and may plausibly keep increasing its dominance in the reserve asset market. > Bitcoin has neither of those things and never will. I disagree - I trust much more strongly that Bitcoin w…

> I disagree - I trust much more strongly that Bitcoin will not be mismanaged than the USD, because bitcoin is governed by very simple and utile rules that are practically impossible to change, whereas the USD can be and has been inflated substantially.

Following fixed, unchanging rules is kind of the opposite of being managed, let alone well-managed.

> ...especially as Bitcoin comes to be the reserve asset of a larger and larger set of productive economic actors.

"If" not "as": that hasn't happened yet and it's quite likely that it won't happen.

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#224

Post by 3np »

the_local_host wrote: post #133
PretzelPirate wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original idea of Bitcoin was to have a currency that wasn’t in government control - not to keep the government and big banks away from it. The current world of cryptocurrency gives you a choice of trusting big banks or not, and having the same economic opportunities regardless of the level of trust you are comfortable with.

> The original idea of Bitcoin was to have a currency that wasn’t in government control I've never understood this. With an immutable ledger of all transactions, governments simply have to make it illegal to transact anonymously (or pseudonymously), watch the blockchain, and investigate any un-attributed transactions. It would actually enhance governments' surveillance capabilities against anyone not willing to run t…

You're absolutely right - it's a very double-edged sword. Pure on-chain bitcoin in its current form is the perfect tool for totalitarian control - guess why the CCP is hyped about their CBDC?

I think that the question of if we end up being caught without an exit or not comes down to if privacy-preserving technology (on-chain like Monero and/or off-chain like Lightning) gets adopted by businesses and individuals enough for it to be too late to pull back once powers that be have the understanding, capabilities and intention to do so.

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#225

Post by 35fbe7d3d5b9 »

maxkwallace wrote: post #75

To everyone saying "my credit card pays me 2% to use it", no, your credit card charges the merchant 2.3%+ to use it, that gets bundled into the price, and they give you 2% of that as a kickback.

So the merchant sets the price of a bag of chips at $2.00. I want to buy it. I could:

* Pay $2.00 with my credit card and get $.04 back = $1.96

* Pay $2.00 with cash and get $0 back = $2.00

* Pay $2.00 with btc and get $-x satoshis back because I have to pay transaction fees + fees to convert to fiat = $2.00 + some amount of fees that change daily

Hm.

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#226

Post by vmception »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

These stories usually spur more enthusiasm for buying cryptocurrency, but ironically those buyers aren’t interested in spending cryptocurrency using their MasterCard. They’re hoping other people will buy cryptocurrency from these announcements, driving the price up. Or, more likely, they’re just hoping other people will buy cryptocurrency and not use it in these spending systems. Spending cryptocurrency would result…

> Spending cryptocurrency would result in selling that cryptocurrency, which would drive the price down. That’s not what cryptocurrency investors actually want

that’s really assuming a lot

a closed loop cryptocurrency transaction does not result in selling

mastercard may or may not be offering that capability

mastercard offering that capability makes the cryptocurrency proponents vision a reality

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#227

Post by 3np »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #149
the_local_host wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original idea of Bitcoin was to have a currency that wasn’t in government control I've never understood this. With an immutable ledger of all transactions, governments simply have to make it illegal to transact anonymously (or pseudonymously), watch the blockchain, and investigate any un-attributed transactions. It would actually enhance governments' surveillance capabilities against anyone not willing to run t…

1. It would be prohibitively expensive for the government to track down every blockchain transaction IRL to find the identity behind the wallet (if even possible). This cost rises with adoption. 2. Different crypto currencies have different roles. If you want to avoid traceability altogether, use zCash.

Some countries have explicitly put restrictions on dealing with privacy-preserving currencies like Monero and ZCash.

Japanese exchanges and service providers, for example, are not allowed to touch them.

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#228

Post by koonsolo »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #4

The game Paypal currently plays with Crypto is the closest thing to printing money I have ever seen: Their users can "buy and sell Bitcoin" and pay "no fees". How does Paypal make money? "From the spread". The difference between bid and ask. And who sets the spread? Drumroll ... Paypal! Since you cannot transfer your bitcoins out, when you sell your bitcoins, Paypal pays you whatever they like. So far, Paypal only of…

Quote from Elon Musk: "If PayPal had executed the plan that I wanted to execute on, I think it would probably be the most valuable company in the world".

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#229

Post by arcticbull »

danhak wrote: post #212
arcticbull wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you and everyone else are unable to produce any meaningful sources or analysis that justify your beliefs. [citation needed] and we can talk about it. Healthcare is a social policy matter, not monetary policy, and nothing to do with increase in the money supply. You take that up with your representatives not the Fed. Housing is a function of city council zoning policy. You take that up with your city council n…

> Housing is a function of city council zoning policy... This is the laughably reductionist take that predictably appears on HN when folks think the dynamics of San Francisco apply everywhere. Housing costs have nothing to do with the Fed? Really? You don’t believe record low mortgage rates are driving demand at all? Nah, it must be city council zoning policy that is sending home prices soaring all over the country—-…

I'm sorry you're just wrong about that though.

On average, the price per square foot of housing in the US is exactly the same now as it was in the 1970s, on an inflation adjusted basis. [1] In major metros, that number is higher, because of city policy, but on average, the number is flat. That means on an inflation adjusted basis in rural areas houses are cheaper per square foot.

Once you take into account that interest rates are about 1/5th of what they were back then, it's clear, housing is actually more affordable now than it ever was (per square foot).

Yes, zoning matters in rural areas. Minimum size rules, minimum setback rules -- all sorts of code changes -- have conspired alongside the 20% decrease in average family size and the changing tastes for more space, to make houses twice as big. Same price per square foot -- or lower! -- Twice as big. Twice as expensive.

I was wrong to say it has "nothing" to do with it, but it is by far not the dominant force as evidenced by the numbers.

If you're unhappy about poor folks not being able to afford the houses that's again social policy not monetary policy. I am too. But inflation isn't why.

By all means have at those windmills though, and please, cite your sources so we can have a debate on facts.

[edit] You're missing my point. Pricing in metros is more expensive because of council policy. Pricing outside the city is higher because they're twice as big. End of story. Please CITE YOUR SOURCES. This. Is. Not. Inflation.

You having a worse quality of life is not inflation.

Yes, white flight may or may not contribute to it. That's not Fed policy. That's social policy. And that's my point.

[1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa...

Re: MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

#230

Post by centimeter »

ardy42 wrote: post #222
centimeter wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Transaction volume doesn't just appear from nowhere. Indeed, it takes time to bootstrap a currency. That’s why it’s absurd to expect Bitcoin to be stable when it’s less than 10% the market cap of any other significant reserve asset, and may plausibly keep increasing its dominance in the reserve asset market. > Bitcoin has neither of those things and never will. I disagree - I trust much more strongly that Bitcoin w…

> I disagree - I trust much more strongly that Bitcoin will not be mismanaged than the USD, because bitcoin is governed by very simple and utile rules that are practically impossible to change, whereas the USD can be and has been inflated substantially. Following fixed, unchanging rules is kind of the opposite of being managed, let alone well-managed. > ...especially as Bitcoin comes to be the reserve asset of a larg…

For a monetary asset, being “managed” is a liability.
Post reply on HN