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

Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#81

Post by codeulike »

jellicle wrote: post #74
codeulike wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the divisibility of bitcoin make any difference? If they changed the protocol now and then so that the number of decimal places (currently 8) increased to 9, then 10, etc, would that be viewed as increasing the supply of bitcoins?

If Zimbabwe adding extra zeros before the decimal point to its money doesn't cure inflation, then Bitcoin adding extra zeros after the decimal point won't cure deflation.

Zimbabwe was very different: the amount of money people had was devalued by new notes being printed that had extra zeroes before the decimal point.

Adding extra zeroes after the decimal point for money already in circulation leaves the total supply the 'same' but could also be viewed as increasing supply 10-fold, without disadvantaging anyone currently holding the currency.

Its never happened before, so I'm not sure many economists have thought about it

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#82

Post by celticninja »

blake8086 wrote: post #77
Drakim wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real win is that if it becomes the underlying infrastructure, it is still possible for the common man to have a "manual wallet". You won't end up in walled garden situations where a single vendor controls with massive fees and restrictions, but you have no choice but to use them, because hey, that's all everybody accepts and uses. If an online wallet service/paypal/visa is gonna keep your business, they have to m…

What if you have large vendors like PayPal only offering transfer to other institutionally-controlled wallets? for example: "Since your funds are transferred only between other PayPal users, PayPal can always reverse a fraudulent transaction." Then you would have a veritable roach motel of bitcoins.

you could easily send BTC out of paypal to any bitcoin address, they could nto sue it and disable those coins from accessing the blockchain. However they could say that if you do a BTC transfer from paypal account to paypal account they could offer protection then by freezing the funds or having a 5 day period before the user could withdraw them. Once they are withdrawn there is nothing paypal could do, of course this removes the immediacy of payment aspect of bitcoin so merchants may not want it.

Really because bitcoinoffers low fees this sort of service would be of benefit to the buyer only.

Alternatively PayPal could use bitcoin as their backend for transferring money internationally. If i want to pay someone in USD but only have EUR then they could exchange EUR for BTC then BTC for USD and pay the USD to whoever I was paying.

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#83

Post by Domenic_S »

vlasta2 wrote: post #75
clueless123 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You write: "Would you use a credit card if you had to pay 4% more than if you paid in cash? " That is exactly what happens today on the real world. If you make it convinient for me to use your "credit card", I will use it, and because of that, vendors pay the 4% fee. All paypal needs to do is to make it easy (at non bitcoin vendors for example) for me to spend my bitcoins and I will use it. Vendors will fall in line…

Today, the buyer does not experience the fee. Sellers accept it, because the middle man gives them no other choice. With bitcoins, the middle man has no leverage anymore as the buyer and the seller can interact directly. That was my point.

The buyer does experience the fee in the form of increased price. They just don't notice it because it's baked in. Anyone who buys stuff at the grocery store in cash is financing other people's rewards points.

Ever wonder why Arco is the cheapest gas?

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#87

Post by psionski »

knodi wrote: post #51

Please don't. Bitcoin is a ticking time bomb. When it goes off you don't want to be the one holding the coins.

Dude, don't mention bombs and bitcoins on the Internet. CISPA passed and if they kick your door down, you'll most probably have to pay for the repairs out of your own pocket.

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#88

Post by pradocchia »

baddox wrote: post #71
rsofaer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of gold in circulation has never stopped increasing.

The amount of effort required to find gold has more or less increased over time, and barring an unpredictable discovery of a huge amount of gold somewhere, the mechanics of increasing the gold supply aren't all that different than bitcoin. Or, to put it another way, I don't think the steady but slow increase in the gold supply is a substantial contributor to the current gold market.

No. Gold production has definitely become more energy intensive, and in this regard it is somewhat similar to bitcoin. HOWEVER, with bitcoin, marginal mining cost is a function of cumulative supply. As supply reaches 21M, marginal cost goes to infinity, and it doesn't matter what technology you bring to bear. Whereas with gold, technological advances have moved the equivalent of bitcoin's 21M to 42M, 84M, etc. The maximum possible supply increases. Yes, of course at some point the technological maximum will reach the physical maximum, but we aren't there yet.

The result of all this is that gold supply has grown with the economy over the past 500 years. It may be deflationary relative to fiat currency, but it is nothing like the deflationary profile of bitcoin, not at all.

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#89

Post by jjs »

blake8086 wrote: post #77
Drakim wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real win is that if it becomes the underlying infrastructure, it is still possible for the common man to have a "manual wallet". You won't end up in walled garden situations where a single vendor controls with massive fees and restrictions, but you have no choice but to use them, because hey, that's all everybody accepts and uses. If an online wallet service/paypal/visa is gonna keep your business, they have to m…

What if you have large vendors like PayPal only offering transfer to other institutionally-controlled wallets? for example: "Since your funds are transferred only between other PayPal users, PayPal can always reverse a fraudulent transaction." Then you would have a veritable roach motel of bitcoins.

There's the value: a trusted* escrow service.

(* Well, within the known limits of how far Paypal can be trusted. )

Re: Paypal President: We're thinking about adding Bitcoin (2:50) [video]

#90

Post by chipsy »

codeulike wrote: post #81
jellicle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Zimbabwe adding extra zeros before the decimal point to its money doesn't cure inflation, then Bitcoin adding extra zeros after the decimal point won't cure deflation.

Zimbabwe was very different: the amount of money people had was devalued by new notes being printed that had extra zeroes before the decimal point. Adding extra zeroes after the decimal point for money already in circulation leaves the total supply the 'same' but could also be viewed as increasing supply 10-fold, without disadvantaging anyone currently holding the currency. Its never happened before, so I'm not sure…

Changing denominators has an effect on the liquidity of small transactions, but it's not going to change inflation.

What inflation does in an economic sense is much bigger - it changes who has relatively more or less wealth or debt over time. If you take out a loan for $10,000 and inflation makes both your prices and wages go up 2x, then you now have half as much debt.

Deflation does the opposite and makes debt more and more expensive. This is why most economists are against it - debts that grow more expensive will trap people. Historically, debts were forgiven by decree (a jubilee) because the system kept breaking.

Post reply on HN