What happened with the Web Monetization API?

Who said anything about p2p? Crypto is poorly-suited for microtransactions due to its inefficiency.

"The regime" has nothing to do with it; "the regime" has already effectively absorbed cryptocurrency. Coinbase is listed on NASDAQ, and all the major cryptocurrencies have zero privacy, allowing the powers that be to see everything that happens on the public ledgers.

I use it because if I used a debit card and it gets compromised then I lose whatever's in my bank account. Maybe I can get it back if I can prove it's fraud?

If I use a credit card and it gets compromised then my cash is still secure. If I have to fight a credit card company for 6 months to get the payments reversed I still have cash to live off of. If I don't win then hell I don't pay. Maybe I go to collections and credit gets dinged but my real assets are still mine.

> However, KYC is there for a reason.

You don't go on to explain that reason though, so let me explain it for anyone reading this.

The definition of KYC from my quick google search is:

"Know Your Customer (KYC) standards are designed to protect financial institutions against fraud, corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing."

Key words: "Protect financial institutions"

In other words, they don't protect the people using the system.

In this case, it is two friends a world apart who want to simply share some funds with each other. There is no institution here other than the use of fiat money on the receiving end (my friends bank account).

I would have preferred to just use crypto the whole way, but my friend doesn't know anything about it and I didn't want to bother them since they were so upset about not being able to be with their family during Tet.

So, I found a middleman that was willing to take my crypto and convert it to local currency, with very little effort or cost. In my eyes, there is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with what I did. Transactions like this do not and should not require government intervention. The fact that we've been so brainwashed to believe that they do, is just wrong.

In this case, I am not interacting with the US financial system. I am sending my perfectly legal beanie babies to Vietnam.

False equivalence. Cars are much older technology than blockchain. In 1908, cars were much slower than they are today. In 1808, horse carriages were much slower. You get the point. The speed at which I expect changes to process differs over time. In some future time, we may all be in self-driving cars that are able to safely exceed 200MPH and we'll think back to our 45MPH street speed limits and laugh. Just like how in 2008, the typical home network had a 5Mbps uplink to the internet, and today it's (depending on the source) at least 135Mbps, with the availability of >1Gbps depending on your ISP and region.

I was using the term "speed" as a concept, and you were using it as a constant. I referred to "speed" as "fast" or "slow." Which is to say, the subjective judgement on what is fast. Which is a decent way to default to judging speed unless the white paper specifies a threshold of transactions per second to be considered "fast." You thought of speed as a constant unit of measurement for speed, which makes no sense unless they have a target for their transactions per second. The problem with that is, the number of transactions per second that a payment solution needs to process is pretty much only going to increase over time, and thus, the goal to be considered "fast" does actually change over time. You're just potentially thinking in too short of a time range to see much drift in that subjective judgement.

I think you're mistaking my intention too. My intention is to say that Bitcoin's perceived speed with handling transactions then, is perhaps slow by today's standards. The goal you gave:

> digital cash with and low fee transactions without the used of a trusted third party.

is at least 2/3rd of the way complete. You have digital cash, with high transaction fees, and no trusted third party. The solution that blockchain designers/engineers seem to have come up with is referred to as "layer 2 rollups" where a bunch of transactions are processed quickly by a trusted third party, bundled together, and then enforced in one big transaction on the actual network in intervals. This promises to be faster, and possibly cost less in transaction fees, but then under-delivers on the third goal of not using a trusted third party. But it is apparently the best way that blockchain engineers have thought up to compete with the transaction processing speed of entities like VISA, at least today. While it's not ideal to trust that third party, presumably you have a choice to opt in or out of the layer 2 network, and enforce your transaction on the slower, more traditional blockchain layer 1. And at least with the layer 2 network, it eventually gets trued up on the blockchain with each of the rollup intervals. It's maybe up for an argument on whether trusting the layer 2 third party is better than, or the same as, trusting VISA. I would potentially argue that it's better, with the caveat of admitting that I am not a blockchain expert. I just potentially know more than the average crypto enthusiast that trades BTC and Doge on institutions like Coinbase.

I will note that the goal you gave said absolutely nothing about speed though.