BitClout already does this although there's a lot of speculation that BitClout will fail where as Twitter has lasted for a decent amount of time.
Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
61–70 of 172 posts
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bits of the old financial system which duplicate bitcoin (doing simply electronic transactions) are very efficient. I see no reason all the other stuff wouldn't still be around in a world where bitcoin replaced the dollar. Also, there is no way bitcoin can come close to scaling to even a tiny fraction of the transactions which happen every day.
Bitcoin does not only do transactions. It has a smart contract language which allows more and more types of smart contracts all the time. (Yes, Bitcoin is not static as many people think). The old system is not at all efficient for transactions. Vendors hate credit cards for a reason. Visa alone made 20 Billion Dollars in revenue last year for a reason. Bitcoin can scale infinitely via the Lightning Network.
Visa is "inefficient" because they supply many many more services than simply transacting. Dispute resolution, fraud detection, customer service, card issuing, and on and on. You know, all of this stuff we'll have to build from scratch for Bitcoin to become even remotely viable as a currency. There's no reason to believe that Bitcoin can make these services any more efficient.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#63This (this specific news as well as crypto in general) still feels like externalizing a fairly important cost - the energy usage required to keep this world-wide distributed ledger going. Change my mind?
Honestly, the main argument is "I don't care about following your priorities for 'legitimate' energy usage and you can't stop me."
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that HN actually does understand crypto and blockchain. The layperson might believe the myth that NFTs, for example, are "amazing tools with huge potential for monetization of all sorts of digital goods", but most of HN will know the reality - you are "buying" nothing more than a URL in a JSON file (i.e. no legal ownership of anything), almost all artists will lose money (there are over 20M listings on…
> you are "buying" nothing more than a URL in a JSON file (i.e. no legal ownership of anything), This is wrong. I can see why you think it, but it is wrong. The URL in the JSON file is free, as is the artwork that it points to. It's very hard to restrict the copying of digital artworks anyway, so why bother trying to? The person buying the NFT is not "buying a URL". This phrase doesn't even mean anything! What they a…
> You do legally own the blockchain record!
No you don't. In fact, I don't think NFT ownership has been litigated in any court of law (yet). The deed/title analogy is pretty good. But what makes a deed a deed is that it has the force of the law behind it. NFTs do not.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#65This (this specific news as well as crypto in general) still feels like externalizing a fairly important cost - the energy usage required to keep this world-wide distributed ledger going. Change my mind?
This uses the lightning network. The energy cost of a lightning payment is orders of magnitude lower than bitcoin.
This kind of usage actually demonstrates bitcoin's valuable use case (a base layer for final settlement) whereas in recent years a lot of energy was being burned effectively just for speculation.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#66I'm having a very hard time imagining a scenario in which I would feel the need to tip someone for a Tweet.
I understand why I might want to pay someone for, say, a Youtube video, or a substack article. But is there really enough value packed into a tweet that I'd want to send someone money for it?
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough. Or maybe the answer is porn.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's my question - NYT could charge me $5 and then deduct from my balance on a per-article basis. Do we need crypto to enable those transactions? If micropayments made sense, why haven't they caught on already with the payment infrastructure 99% of people already have? Micropayments via crypto are just payment with extra steps. I'm not for/against either one. I'd just like to see a coherent argument against the ide…
Most of the world does not have access to cheap and easy dollar-denominated payments. Using Bitcoin for this simplifies the implementation for Twitter, and reduces fees.
Most of the world has credit and debit cards. Or, at least, most of the world where people have enough disposable income to shell out for NYT articles. I don't live in a country that deals in USD but I have a debit card and very often buy services denominated in USD.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's my question - NYT could charge me $5 and then deduct from my balance on a per-article basis. Do we need crypto to enable those transactions? If micropayments made sense, why haven't they caught on already with the payment infrastructure 99% of people already have? Micropayments via crypto are just payment with extra steps. I'm not for/against either one. I'd just like to see a coherent argument against the ide…
Imagine a world where not everyone used the dollar. Then imagine having to support different currencies and ensuring that your price per article stayed in line with currency fluctuations.
Why would you have to support different currencies?
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are "buying" nothing more than a URL in a JSON file (i.e. no legal ownership of anything), This is wrong. I can see why you think it, but it is wrong. The URL in the JSON file is free, as is the artwork that it points to. It's very hard to restrict the copying of digital artworks anyway, so why bother trying to? The person buying the NFT is not "buying a URL". This phrase doesn't even mean anything! What they a…
> You do legally own the blockchain record! No you don't. In fact, I don't think NFT ownership has been litigated in any court of law (yet). The deed/title analogy is pretty good. But what makes a deed a deed is that it has the force of the law behind it. NFTs do not.
This might depend on your jurisdiction, but in general legal systems are quite lazy: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it's something that I have exclusive control over, and I paid someone else money for that exclusive control, then it's my property. There doesn't need to be a written contract or a deed, any more than there needs to be a written contract or a deed for me to sell you, say, my bicycle. If I agree to accept payment, and you provide payment and I provide you with the bicycle, there is no sense in which you are not now the owner of the bicycle.
The crypto space does have an unfortunate history with a kind of legal mysticism, in which people ignore legal practice in favour of attempts to re-derive everything from half-remembered Locke, or something from Nick Szabo's blog, or some weird way of doing things that turns out to be an elaborate attempt to evade securities law rather than any actual legal requirement for sale of property. The term "smart contract" takes this tendency and multiplies it. Ignore this stuff and focus on simple principles: party A paid party B for something that party A was indeed able to transfer to party B in return for the agreed payment. Unless there was an agreement specifying otherwise, B has just acquired some property from A.
Re: Twitter enables tipping with Bitcoin, plans to let users authenticate NFTs
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin does not only do transactions. It has a smart contract language which allows more and more types of smart contracts all the time. (Yes, Bitcoin is not static as many people think). The old system is not at all efficient for transactions. Vendors hate credit cards for a reason. Visa alone made 20 Billion Dollars in revenue last year for a reason. Bitcoin can scale infinitely via the Lightning Network.
Visa is "inefficient" because they supply many many more services than simply transacting. Dispute resolution, fraud detection, customer service, card issuing, and on and on. You know, all of this stuff we'll have to build from scratch for Bitcoin to become even remotely viable as a currency. There's no reason to believe that Bitcoin can make these services any more efficient.
Dispute resolution:
This "service" has pros and cons. It is one reason why vendors hate credit cards. You never know when you can be sure that the payment really was done. Or if it will suddenly disappear again.
Fraud detection:
One reason why fraud detection is needed is that the whole system of "whoever has the number can pull money" is insane.
Customer service:
What do you mean?
Card issuing:
Who wants cards? Those will go away anyhow.