11–20 of 36 posts
People have long been worked up over net neutrality. But what about payment neutrality? It seems like it's just as important, if not more. Why don't we hear enough from people demanding laws that prevent payment processors above a certain size from discriminating based on categories of goods and services? Why can't we make it illegal for MasterCard and Visa to stop processing payments destined for Wikileaks, or PayPa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely it would be backwards to dictate who payment processors can and cannot do business with. There are risks involved with banking, a bank will not give a mortgage to a minimum wage worker and we don't expect them to due to the risks associated with such a mortgage, why should a payment processor be expected to take the risks that banks are not?
Uh, so it's okay for the US to wink wink at Amazon, Paypal and numerous other financial payment providers when Wikileaks comes to play? You sound like a true apologist. This stuff matters, it affects people's lives, and it it has NOTHING to do with ROI. That's a bunch of BS. This has to do with favors and stancing and has absolutely nothing to do with profitability or providing a service. I'll show myself the door wh…
People have long been worked up over net neutrality. But what about payment neutrality? It seems like it's just as important, if not more. Why don't we hear enough from people demanding laws that prevent payment processors above a certain size from discriminating based on categories of goods and services? Why can't we make it illegal for MasterCard and Visa to stop processing payments destined for Wikileaks, or PayPa…
Surely it would be backwards to dictate who payment processors can and cannot do business with. There are risks involved with banking, a bank will not give a mortgage to a minimum wage worker and we don't expect them to due to the risks associated with such a mortgage, why should a payment processor be expected to take the risks that banks are not?
People have long been worked up over net neutrality. But what about payment neutrality? It seems like it's just as important, if not more. Why don't we hear enough from people demanding laws that prevent payment processors above a certain size from discriminating based on categories of goods and services? Why can't we make it illegal for MasterCard and Visa to stop processing payments destined for Wikileaks, or PayPa…
Surely it would be backwards to dictate who payment processors can and cannot do business with. There are risks involved with banking, a bank will not give a mortgage to a minimum wage worker and we don't expect them to due to the risks associated with such a mortgage, why should a payment processor be expected to take the risks that banks are not?
The funny thing is that PayPal was originally intended to provide safe, transnational money exchange beyond the control of governments. (Somewhat like Bitcoin today.) So they wanted to be a solution to a problem. Now PayPal is part of the problem.
If anybody finally does manage to create a transnational money beyond governments, it's going to need to be highly decentralized.
People have long been worked up over net neutrality. But what about payment neutrality? It seems like it's just as important, if not more. Why don't we hear enough from people demanding laws that prevent payment processors above a certain size from discriminating based on categories of goods and services? Why can't we make it illegal for MasterCard and Visa to stop processing payments destined for Wikileaks, or PayPa…
However, its usefulness is limited by poor infrastructure and limited marketshare. Bitcoin is getting more useful, though. There's Bitcoin ATM, smartcards for bitcoin wallets, mobile app that utilize QR code, etc.
People have long been worked up over net neutrality. But what about payment neutrality? It seems like it's just as important, if not more. Why don't we hear enough from people demanding laws that prevent payment processors above a certain size from discriminating based on categories of goods and services? Why can't we make it illegal for MasterCard and Visa to stop processing payments destined for Wikileaks, or PayPa…
It's called "Bitcoin", simply because it can serve as an independent non-political payment network. However, its usefulness is limited by poor infrastructure and limited marketshare. Bitcoin is getting more useful, though. There's Bitcoin ATM, smartcards for bitcoin wallets, mobile app that utilize QR code, etc.
For TorGuard that is probably acceptable, but in situations where you want to give your customers immediate access to your service, it's far from ideal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "Bitcoin", simply because it can serve as an independent non-political payment network. However, its usefulness is limited by poor infrastructure and limited marketshare. Bitcoin is getting more useful, though. There's Bitcoin ATM, smartcards for bitcoin wallets, mobile app that utilize QR code, etc.
It's also impossible to charge recurring fees, and unlike Paypal etc, transactions take at least 10 minutes on average to clear (and around an hour if you want a decent amount of security). For TorGuard that is probably acceptable, but in situations where you want to give your customers immediate access to your service, it's far from ideal.
If you're shipping something physical you're not going to be working on a timescale less than an hour anyways.
Really the only time that I see Bitcoin's transaction processing speed being an issue is when you're doing a moderate to large transaction where waiting around would be inconvenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "Bitcoin", simply because it can serve as an independent non-political payment network. However, its usefulness is limited by poor infrastructure and limited marketshare. Bitcoin is getting more useful, though. There's Bitcoin ATM, smartcards for bitcoin wallets, mobile app that utilize QR code, etc.
It's also impossible to charge recurring fees, and unlike Paypal etc, transactions take at least 10 minutes on average to clear (and around an hour if you want a decent amount of security). For TorGuard that is probably acceptable, but in situations where you want to give your customers immediate access to your service, it's far from ideal.
I learnt to respect someone accepting bitCoint online, especially after dealing with PayPal for last 6 years. If I have to chose, I use bitcoins, and 10 minutes is not a big deal to wait; no worries!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also impossible to charge recurring fees, and unlike Paypal etc, transactions take at least 10 minutes on average to clear (and around an hour if you want a decent amount of security). For TorGuard that is probably acceptable, but in situations where you want to give your customers immediate access to your service, it's far from ideal.
If you're giving someone access to a service that you can revoke (e.g. web hosting, VPN, etc), it doesn't seem like there's any practical risk in optimistically giving someone access once you see the spend hit the bitcoin network. It's not infeasible to do that in a matter of seconds. If you're shipping something physical you're not going to be working on a timescale less than an hour anyways. Really the only time th…