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

Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

steamcommunity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 412 posts

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#251

Post by colordrops »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #246
colordrops wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is what will ultimately bring Bitcoin down People have been saying that for years. It serves purposes other than buying and selling goods, and in fact almost no one uses it to buy things.

That’s an entirely different narrative about Bitcoin, though, then what was presented to us when it was seeking adoption. The messaging was literally: use this to buy things. Maybe we all got it wrong, but a lot of people did, then; we must never forget the infamous Bitcoin pizzas. https://twitter.com/bitcoin_pizza I’ve noticed this trend lately of rewriting what Bitcoin is for because I assure you, it was presented…

I don't think most reputable proponents have been saying that for years though.

In any case, the internet was designed as a communication medium that could survive nuclear war. That's how it was sold by its proponents. So what.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#252

Post by jsmthrowaway »

colordrops wrote: post #251
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an entirely different narrative about Bitcoin, though, then what was presented to us when it was seeking adoption. The messaging was literally: use this to buy things. Maybe we all got it wrong, but a lot of people did, then; we must never forget the infamous Bitcoin pizzas. https://twitter.com/bitcoin_pizza I’ve noticed this trend lately of rewriting what Bitcoin is for because I assure you, it was presented…

I don't think most reputable proponents have been saying that for years though. In any case, the internet was designed as a communication medium that could survive nuclear war. That's how it was sold by its proponents. So what.

> I don't think most reputable proponents have been saying that for years though.

Define reputable.

> Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system

http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org...

> Instant transactions for points-of-sale

http://web.archive.org/web/20130805223235/http://bitcoin.org...

(That verbiage lasted most of 2013, but was removed a couple days after this capture, presumably because payments were starting to become less "instant.")

> Bitcoin is a new payment system, independent from the traditional financial sector, and this could provide resilience to the economy in case of a crisis, as it creates a parallel payment system.

Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering, and Economics by Pedro Franco, 2010, pp. 26.

> You can purchase video games, gifts, books, servers, and alpaca socks. [...] Bitcoins are a great way for small businesses and freelancers to get noticed. It doesn't cost anything to start accepting them [...] and you'll get additional business from the Bitcoin economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo

Bitcoin has literally been presented as a replacement for cash payments since day 1. I could go on, and on. That history is now being rewritten, and I think it’s important to understand why. Bitcoin set out to do one thing, is failing at that one thing, and I’m discouraged to see people rewrite the narrative rather than own it and say it didn’t work for that.

And you've mixed up your history: the research grants into the Internet were funded for that purpose, but it quickly morphed into an alternative usage once the new abilities were seen. Nobody went out and pulled out full page newspaper ads with that intent for its design, or otherwise heralded the Internet as such.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#253

Post by AgentME »

eterm wrote: post #247
AgentME wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or a second transaction layer, like a bank or VISA? * They don't transact bitcoin. * They don't transact your (non)bitcoin in a decentralized way. They alone run the software and are in control of changes and restrictions, including who you're allowed to send to. * You don't hold the private keys to your (non)bitcoin when it's a bank or VISA or Paypal. They own it for you. They can lock your account and maybe give y…

Second layers over bitcoin won't have those properties you've mentioned either.

Is this word play over "second layer" or something? The Lightning Network is an example of one that's decentralized and keeps users in control of their own funds. All lightning network transactions are settled within normal bitcoin transactions, and any funds locked up within a payment channel can be unlocked by either party without needing cooperation of the other.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#254

Post by cgmg »

sliverstorm wrote: post #150
cgmg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What value? $13K of value, and counting.

Well, that's what it is today. But if BTC has no fundamental value, you might argue the price fluctuations are the price-discovery function of markets screaming "there is no correct price because there is no actual value", or something like that. All other fiat currencies have some fundamental value. In the past they were backed by gold. Most common today, you have to pay your taxes using them, which means for exampl…

> You might argue the price fluctuations are the price-discovery function of markets screaming "there is no correct price because there is no actual value"

That makes no sense. If the market were really 'screaming there is no actual value', the price would be around $0, not $14K.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#256

Post by vel0city »

Klathmon wrote: post #59
Kelbit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, Visa is about 1.5-2% plus $0.10 flat interchange. To break even with BTC against Visa, we're talking an average transaction of over $200. That's not feasible for the vast majority of merchants. Not to mention that the currency's extreme volatility means that when you sell it to convert it to greenbacks (the currency your investors actually care about) it probably won't be the same amount you were paid for.

Yes, but at the same time Visa requires you to hand over your payment information to each and every merchant you transact with, and they are able to pull as much money from your card as they want, and they are able to charge you multiple times at any point in the future. But there are some really cool solutions being worked on right now for this problem in bitcoin that can make it scale to a similar way to Visa. But…

With newer payment systems such as EMV, your entire payment information is not handed to the merchant. You're just signing the single transaction.

That said, I can't currently put my EMV card into a card reader on my computer and purchase things online. However, many credit card networks have created tokenized payment systems, where the merchant redirects you to your bank, the bank authorizes you and validates the single transaction, and then redirects you back to the merchant with the signed transaction information. Not many merchants use these systems yet though.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#258

Post by zodiac »

vertex-four wrote: post #197
runeks wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed there are clearing protocols on top of Bitcoin, which can reduce fee-paying to only occur upon depositing and redemption. But the Bitcoin blockchain is still limited to ~20 million of such transactions per month[1]. Only if we remove the withdrawal transactions from the equation, and start trading unconfirmed transactions as regular bitcoins (confirmed transactions), can we get around this limitation (such tha…

A Lightning Network transaction results in one of two things - a proof that a certain amount of bitcoins can be withdrawn at any time (minus some delay), or a proof of cheating. Surely a proof that you can withdraw a certain amount of bitcoins is more-or-less equivalent to that many bitcoins, and therefore any rational actor - including your suppliers - should accept it as such? This isn't equivalent to unconfirmed t…

I think it is worth pointing out that it is not exactly equivalent, in the sense that if you pay Steam via a payment channel (for simplicity, a one-directional payment channel, so they don't need to lock up any cryptocurrency themselves), they don't need to settle on-chain, but if they don't do so they cannot use the "money" the received from you to pay someone else (eg their lawyer).

In the very long term, if we get to a point where most people's and organization's income is roughly equal to their expenditure, then this won't be a problem, but until then there is still pressure to settle on-chain because of this.

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#259

Post by dorgo »

sliverstorm wrote: post #140
jordigh wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having used bitcoins as money, I really want the confirmation times and transaction fees to go back to what they were a year or two ago. I keep hearing that this mythical lightning will fix things, and I sure hope it does. I want internet money. I want to be able to send money to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the drop of a hat, as easy as email. I don't care about speculation or getting rich or avoiding taxes or…

We've mostly had this for years, in the form of PayPal. Your ID even is your email. The issues with PayPal have mostly been interfacing with fiat currency, which any system will have to deal with, and transaction fees, which any system will have. The real problem IMO is the lack of a de-facto service that everyone all around the world has, and we're kind of in this position: https://xkcd.com/927/

PayPal? Is it this strange service based in USA (of all countries) which requires me to send them a utility bill? Seriously?

Re: Steam is no longer supporting Bitcoin

#260

Post by vel0city »

retromario wrote: post #233
Klathmon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fees are set as a "flat rate" per transaction, but normally expressed as a fraction of "price over size" So if a fee is 150 "sat/byte" or satoshi's per byte. A satoshi is 0.00000001 of a bitcoin. So if your transaction is 250 bytes (which is average for a single transaction to a single person), then you will pay (250 * 150) satoshis (37500 sat), which is about $5. If your transaction is larger, you'll pay more, if it…

Thanks for the explanation. Why do transactions vary so much in relative size?

A transaction can have many inputs and many outputs. These are all Bitcoin addresses.

Sally and Bob each have 1 Bitcoin. Sally received her bitcoin to a single address. If Sally wants to send that 1 Bitcoin to Charlie, that transaction would have 1 input (the address she received it on) and one output (the address Charlie wants to receive it to). Bob has 1 Bitcoin total, but his 1 Bitcoin came from 4 x 0.25 transactions. Bob didn't want to reuse addresses, so for him to send 1 Bitcoin to Charlie he has a transaction with 4 inputs (each address which contains 0.25 BTC) and 1 output. Thus, Bob's transaction is much bigger than Alice's, despite the same amount of Bitcoin being sent.

Post reply on HN