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

Online card payments still suck

fynbos.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Online card payments still suck

#101

Post by ahopebailie »

clintonb wrote: post #91

I’m still not sure what the author thinks sucks about wallets like ApplePay or GooglePay. They are the most convenient options both online and in-person. Unless I missed a paragraph, the author never describes and ideal alternative.

On the contrary I think both products are excellent.

The issue I have is that we've taken 20 years to find a better alternative than raw card data in Web forms and as a result we're gonna be stuck with a choice of only those 2 wallets when we could have a had wallets as diverse as websites if we'd been able to work together on a solution that was appropriate to the Web platform.

Re: Online card payments still suck

#102

Post by djschnei »

zeroclip wrote: post #97
tombert wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're referring to cryptocurrency, isn't the average cost-per-transaction for something like Ethereum on the order of $40-$50?

Parent is a Bitcoin maximalist, just to be mindful. Currently it's about $0.85 USD to send ETH or $2.50 USD to send ERC20[1]. Most people will suggest not using a L1 as a payment system, but instead something application-specific like a rollup or state channel. In Ethereum those will be in the range of 5 - 20 cents per transaction[2], and may be much lower after EIP-4844[3]. Other non-Ethereum blockchains and L2s hav…

I made characteristic claims about a solution I see fit for the OP problem statement.

When he asked if I was talking about ETH, I told them I wasn't.

You're hijacking a thread to push your form of maximalism.

Would you like to discuss the differences between ETH/Altcoins and Bitcoin/Lightning? Or would you rather just label me a maximalist to dismiss the claim?

Re: Online card payments still suck

#103

Post by zeroclip »

djschnei wrote: post #102
zeroclip wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent is a Bitcoin maximalist, just to be mindful. Currently it's about $0.85 USD to send ETH or $2.50 USD to send ERC20[1]. Most people will suggest not using a L1 as a payment system, but instead something application-specific like a rollup or state channel. In Ethereum those will be in the range of 5 - 20 cents per transaction[2], and may be much lower after EIP-4844[3]. Other non-Ethereum blockchains and L2s hav…

I made characteristic claims about a solution I see fit for the OP problem statement. When he asked if I was talking about ETH, I told them I wasn't. You're hijacking a thread to push your form of maximalism. Would you like to discuss the differences between ETH/Altcoins and Bitcoin/Lightning? Or would you rather just label me a maximalist to dismiss the claim?

Sorry but the statement "Not 'crypto' which is by and large a scam" is a common statement from Bitcoin maximalists who refuse to engage with the rest of the crypto currency system. "Crypto" is a broad umbrella and Bitcoin exists underneath it.

Re: Online card payments still suck

#104

Post by Tijdreiziger »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #28
mcv wrote: post #11

I'm still disappointed every time I try to order something at a webshop and they don't support iDeal[0]. That's how online payment should work. Of course it's only a Dutch system, so it's not going to be supported by all international webshops (although Steam does), but if anyone has the scope to introduce a more secure form of online payment, surely it's Visa and MasterCard? Why don't they introduce an iDeal-like pa…

I love iDeal! It is one reason why the Amazon Monopoly has less hold in countries like the Netherlands. Online payment is such a breeze!

Amazon.nl does support iDEAL

Re: Online card payments still suck

#106

Post by djschnei »

zeroclip wrote: post #103
djschnei wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made characteristic claims about a solution I see fit for the OP problem statement. When he asked if I was talking about ETH, I told them I wasn't. You're hijacking a thread to push your form of maximalism. Would you like to discuss the differences between ETH/Altcoins and Bitcoin/Lightning? Or would you rather just label me a maximalist to dismiss the claim?

Sorry but the statement "Not 'crypto' which is by and large a scam" is a common statement from Bitcoin maximalists who refuse to engage with the rest of the crypto currency system. "Crypto" is a broad umbrella and Bitcoin exists underneath it.

I do believe 99% of crypto projects vastly misrepresent their risks, their control/influence structures, and their intent. I do believe 99% of crypto projects are clever ways to hop on a hype train to farm dollars from retail. I do believe Bitcoin is different. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency -- 'crypto' is colloquial term to specify an industry.

Re: Online card payments still suck

#107

Post by piva00 »

Brajeshwar wrote: post #25

We Indians take it for granted, but UPI[1] is a brilliant system. We make payments for something as small as ₹1 if needed. Transaction of ₹10[2] for a cup of tea is a very regular and ordinary happening. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface 2. ₹10 is roughly $0.12 (as of today).

Brazil introduced a very similar system with Pix [1] in 2020.

Sweden has Swish [2] since 2012 which is more limited in scope than UPI and very similar to Pix.

It makes life very easy, I do have some reservations on privacy with this kind of centralisation of financial transaction though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pix_(payment_system)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)

Re: Online card payments still suck

#108

Post by clintonb »

ahopebailie wrote: post #101
clintonb wrote: post #91

I’m still not sure what the author thinks sucks about wallets like ApplePay or GooglePay. They are the most convenient options both online and in-person. Unless I missed a paragraph, the author never describes and ideal alternative.

On the contrary I think both products are excellent. The issue I have is that we've taken 20 years to find a better alternative than raw card data in Web forms and as a result we're gonna be stuck with a choice of only those 2 wallets when we could have a had wallets as diverse as websites if we'd been able to work together on a solution that was appropriate to the Web platform.

Can you share more of that vision? As a well-off US consumer, things are fine. It takes me seconds to pay in person. It takes seconds to pay online using either of the wallets or via almost-direct entry with 1Password.

I get that I/we have ceded control of funds flows to card networks like Visa and processors like Stripe. Even if I didn’t work for Stripe, I would be okay with this as a merchant due to the convenience.

What am I missing? What do you envision is better for consumers and/or merchants?

Re: Online card payments still suck

#109

Post by yellowapple »

pavlov wrote: post #37
fragmede wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accounts are the first thing that come to mind. right now, I have an account at my bank, and I need to meet certain requirements to have that account. Web3 wallet accounts have no such requirements, and creating a whole new account is just a click away. To make a payment, because my web wallet is already linked, I just select which wallet I want to make a payment from. No need to type out my credit card number. Apple…

Creating an empty crypto account is just a click away. But, as a new user, how do you move funds into the account? You must go through an exchange which is subject to the same KYC and anti-money-laundering regulations as a bank. So it's not actually any easier. After all, banks can also create any number of additional accounts for you in their internal system once you're a customer.

> You must go through an exchange which is subject to the same KYC and anti-money-laundering regulations as a bank.

Bitcoin ATMs exist. From what I can make out (IANAL), KYC / anti-money-laundering regulations mostly kick in for turning cryptocurrency into fiat rather than the other way around - which is probably why most Bitcoin ATMs are "buy only".

Re: Online card payments still suck

#110

Post by yellowapple »

phphphphp wrote: post #3
eraad wrote: post #2

If card networks, issuers, acquirers, processors and gateways used bitcoin as their settlement layer, most of the current issues would be automatically solved. They could focus engineering resources on creating better user experiences, anti-fraud, etc. Consumers can keep using their tokenized credit cards, debit cards, etc, but their money would be moved using the bitcoin time chain, instead of hundred of CSV files.…

xml via ftp is used across many industries because these systems are decades old: there are many suitable replacements — the problem is not that there isn’t solutions, it’s that changing old systems is very hard. Bitcoin doesn’t solve that.

> Bitcoin doesn’t solve that.

It doesn't necessarily need to. The other solutions are dependent on fixing the existing financial system, while the premise behind cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is to outright replace the existing financial system. Bitcoin, in other words, offers a path to deprecate and phase out the old systems entirely.

Whether that'll actually happen is pretty uncertain, to say the least, but it's a possibility that other solutions generally lack.

Post reply on HN