121–130 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh cool so a centralized payment system except stupid complicated. Sounds like another winning crypto invention to me.
Not sure about the others but Solana is not centralized.
Strictu sensu, it is "decentralized". In practice, it has all the disadvantages of blockchains and none of the advantages of the traditional banking networks.
Unfortunately no details were given about what makes 50% of all bitcoin transactions “fraudulent” ? What does that even mean? * did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address? * did a client claim he payed and did the payment seem to fail on his end? * did a client not realise that you as payee also pay for the network fee? Nowadays these kind of problems would be easily prevented by using bitcoi…
In the case of crypto, there is no actual bank or payment provider through which to make a claim or facilitate a reimbursement.
In the case of the EU, the law imposes guaranteed minimal protection for online purchases. For example, any online purchase is fully reversible (including network fees) within the first 14 days following the transaction.
I don't think there are reasonable ways to meet this level of consumer service with crypto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say you're a Ukrainian fleeing refuge and you want store your life's savings somewhere safe. Pretty damn useful there. If you don't want to deal with the price fluctuations of BTC or ETH, buy stablecoins instead.
there's also banks.
Unfortunately no details were given about what makes 50% of all bitcoin transactions “fraudulent” ? What does that even mean? * did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address? * did a client claim he payed and did the payment seem to fail on his end? * did a client not realise that you as payee also pay for the network fee? Nowadays these kind of problems would be easily prevented by using bitcoi…
Steam marked me as a "fraud" because I used my European Revolut card to try and make a purchase when I lived in Indonesia. I get that they don't want European people to pay Indonesian prices through a VPN or whatnot, but I was living in Indonesia and living off a local salary; I thought marking me as a "fraud" was rather harsh; with the increased ease of international banking there are loads of cases where this is pe…
Completely incoherent article. What does “fraudulent” even mean? Fraudulent credit card transactions for gift cards are common, because the gift card provides a way to cash out a stolen credit card number. But if a criminal has access to someone else’s Bitcoin, it’s already “cashed out”.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding on the part of the pro-btc ppl here all saying "how is that fraud?" or "how is that steams problem?" If you run a business that can be used in a money laundering scheme, even if you are not a victim, you have a legal responsibility to try to limit/prevent that actually. The crypto crowd may not like that, but it's not up to them.
The basic misunderstanding is on your part. “Money laundering” wasn’t mentioned by anyone but you. Stop inventing things. This is about valve getting fucked because they were accepting bitcoin payments with zero confirmations.
You brought up the point about zero confirmations. Zero-conf itself is fairly reliable, it certainly doesn't account for 50% transactions being fraudulent. Bitcoin introduced replace by fee in 2016. In 2017, bitcoin transition fees were high, and there was large increase in the bitcoin mempool, which led to a backlog of stuck low-fee transactions.
Replace by fee adds a major loophole to zeroconf, low-fee, stuck transactions could be rebroadcast with a higher fee and sent somewhere else even after they were "received" but not yet "confirmed" by Steam. Users could sign up, pay with Bitcoin, steam sees the payment but doesn't want the user to wait 3 days for confirmation, so steam completes the signup. After that the user rebroadcasts the transaction back to themselves with a higher fee and quicker confirmation. The original transaction doesn't go through.
Here's and discussion on how reliable zero-conf is when RBF is not part of the protocol and instead bigger blocks are mined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your bank will probably be the first one to ask, lying is a felony. (As is money laundering, of course) Also Valve will be looking for this too, as required by their bank. This is an incredibly unrealistic money laundering scheme, entirely fabricated by mr_cyborg. The truth is that the “fraudulent transactions” here are double-spends, because Steam was accepting 0-conf payments in an unsafe way.
> This is an incredibly unrealistic money laundering scheme, entirely fabricated by mr_cyborg. Using stolen money to buy gift cards, using those gift cards to buy real things and then selling those real objects or licenses or accounts after the fact is a well known process. Substituting "bitcoin" or any cryptocurrency for "gift card" is neither unreasonable nor unrealistic.
This does not make any sense in the context of bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If people are using it as an easy way to store money in USD and then convert back to BTC when the rate goes up, that can get expensive in a hurry. Why would anyone do this? In what universe is buying games and then requesting refunds easier than clicking buy/sell on coinbase/kraken/etc.
Did steam charge a transaction fee for refunds? If not, there's your answer.
How can a Bitcoin transaction be fraudulent? They are irreversible and if the Bitcoin is stolen that's not the merchant's problem. The whole point of Bitcoin is to eliminate the possibility of chargebacks and thus the need for merchant to care about whether the buyer is in good faith and whether the money is stolen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic misunderstanding is on your part. “Money laundering” wasn’t mentioned by anyone but you. Stop inventing things. This is about valve getting fucked because they were accepting bitcoin payments with zero confirmations.
I'd like to know what Gabe meant by fraudulent too. The whole idea of crypto is that if you send it and it's confirmed you can't get it back, which makes fraud (on the payers side) nearly impossible. You brought up the point about zero confirmations. Zero-conf itself is fairly reliable, it certainly doesn't account for 50% transactions being fraudulent. Bitcoin introduced replace by fee in 2016. In 2017, bitcoin tran…
> Zero-conf itself is fairly reliable, it certainly doesn't account for 50% transactions being fraudulent
Of course it does. Someone using this to spend the same bitcoin multiple times will generate many times more transactions than a regular user.