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

Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

rockpapershotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

#21

Post by jws »

singular wrote: post #7
pilif wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? While I agree that there is probably a market for a payment processor that doesn't punish TOS violations, I really doubt that's a market anybody would want to play in. Google's TOS disallow the use of the word "donation" unless you are a non-profit organization. And "donation" is precisely the…

It's the 'frozen without explanation' aspect I don't like. I didn't realise that this was a legitimate ToS violation, but agreed, they should have at least warned them first. I suspect that evil people ruin it for everyone, money is just too tempting for people with 'flexible morality'. EDIT: But still, these providers should do better, regardless.

When google puts robots in charge of enforcing policy without a mechansims for the affected humans to request human oversight, that is the very definition of dehumanizing.

I wonder if you could sell hand crafted, polished oak, donation boxes with google checkout and not be attacked by their robots.

Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

#22

Post by HelloBeautiful »

cube13 wrote: post #16
HelloBeautiful wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Bitcoin doesn't remove banks Yes, it does in this case. One can receive money electronically through Bitcoin, without account with a bank, PayPal or Google.

Which is the same as mailing cash. It's possible to do that without a bank as well. Since the Bitcoin protocol allows third-parties to hold user's wallets, it's entirely possible to create a bank. In fact, the protocol seems to encourage the aggregation of wallets.

Mailing cash is obviously very different from a Bitcoin transfer (speed, security, legal issues).

Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

#23

Post by cube13 »

HelloBeautiful wrote: post #22
cube13 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the same as mailing cash. It's possible to do that without a bank as well. Since the Bitcoin protocol allows third-parties to hold user's wallets, it's entirely possible to create a bank. In fact, the protocol seems to encourage the aggregation of wallets.

Mailing cash is obviously very different from a Bitcoin transfer (speed, security, legal issues).

A better example would be paying for something with cash. You're taking money, and giving it to someone else(presumably in exchange for a good or service).

The point is that you're moving your currency(BTC, USD) from you to another party without any intermediary interfering with the transaction. If you mail $1 to someone, that's effectively the same thing as paying them with 1 BTC.

EDIT: I think the people who are saying that Bitcoin cannot have banks are conflating payment processors with banks. A bank is a place where you go to put your money, and they use that money to make loans, which gets them more money through payments on loan interest. They incentivize this behavior(giving them money) by giving out interest on the amount in the accounts.

Payment processors are companies(i.e. Visa, MasterCard, etc.) that let you take your money from an account, and give it to someone else. Banks may offer these in the form of checking accounts, but that is not their intended purpose. These, I agree, are definitely not needed with the Bitcoin system, because that's what the entire protocol handles.

Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

#24

Post by chc »

dexen wrote: post #2

Can Google Checkout (or any payment processor, really) be forced not to profit from transactions they refused to complete? Pass all the money either to the seller or the buyer, no fees, as they (rightly) refused to serve the transaction. Without delay, to ensure no revenue from interest either. If there was no incentives in leaving transaction in such `limbo', the payment processors would be less hasty to lock up acc…

Seems to me it's nothing but an assumption on your part that they do profit from these transactions. The comments on the OP suggest otherwise.

You'll see two opposite complaints about payment processors:

1. They let fraud run rampant.

2. They're too hasty to lock accounts.

In order to have less of one, you have to have more of the other.

As for why customer service is so sketchy: Google's customer service is infamously bad across the board. It's not specific to Checkout.

Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?

#25

Post by [deleted] »

singular wrote: post #3

This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN