Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
coyft said:
I'm talking about payments for fractions of a penny.
I don't get the benefit. Other poster was lauding the awesomeness of 10^-8 of a dollar transaction.Not only will the transaction fees be larger than the value, but what is the point? Oh, mr artist. A million people have listened to your song. Have a cent. Game changing? lol.
coyft said:
How about a penny to read an article.
Take the FT, you can subscribe like I do and get all of the content.
Or you could be an infrequent visitor and just want to read the odd article.
Articles could be priced from a penny upwards.
For it to work, the process would need to be seamless, no registering, just a check box to agree to payment and money is instantly debited.
We already have that. Hell, we had 1/2 pennies before and decided that they held no utility.Take the FT, you can subscribe like I do and get all of the content.
Or you could be an infrequent visitor and just want to read the odd article.
Articles could be priced from a penny upwards.
For it to work, the process would need to be seamless, no registering, just a check box to agree to payment and money is instantly debited.
My world runs on SAP. We run to 4dp of a penny.
What does Crypto bring to the table?
tumble dryer said:
Badda said:
Behemoth said:
rockin said:
Brilliant.
I was correct on price, wrong on timing. Big deal 
Volatility will be around for a long time.Some Gump said:
i think that the assumption is that getting / registering a crypto wallet then using some sort of payment system is completely different to registering with a bank then using some sort of payment system. Almost as if the barrier to "pay per view" for newspapers was the currency rather than a simple secure and reliable way to manage users and associated charges.
Of course, crypto fixes this because it in anonymous. Oh s
t, hold on....
Still waiting for a crypto use that's not total fantasy...
Yes it’s completely different. You obviously have no btc but you should get some and then try a bitcoin dice site or something.Of course, crypto fixes this because it in anonymous. Oh s
t, hold on....Still waiting for a crypto use that's not total fantasy...
coyft said:
That's because you lack imagination. For imaginative entrepreneurs it opens up a myriad of possibilities.
As I said, a pre-requisite would need to be efficient, cost effective transaction costs.
Yes, I get it, Crypto is going to have a meaningful impact because people can pay and recieve an amount of 0.0000001p. As I said, a pre-requisite would need to be efficient, cost effective transaction costs.
This time next year Rodney....
coyft said:
That's because you lack imagination. For imaginative entrepreneurs it opens up a myriad of possibilities.
As I said, a pre-requisite would need to be efficient, cost effective transaction costs.
That’s the potential but it is worth stepping back and looking at the preexisting mechanism for sending an electronic payment. We can already send money electronically, quickly and securely. Now let’s put aside the slight matter which is just how many times in our lives we have needed to transfer 0.000000004p to someone or the fact that there is a cost point at which personal time defines a worth of zero, that tends to define why all forms of payment have the minimum that they do and why over the history of commerce these minimums have only risen but we should put that aspect to one side and look at the costs. As I said, a pre-requisite would need to be efficient, cost effective transaction costs.
The costs of moving money electronically. This seems to be a positive argument for switching from using a stable first world currency to some form of token system for payment of goods and services with the advantage that you can make nano payments.
But what is it that costs to send money electronically? Does anyone know? And why would a FATEF compliant country suddenly not have to remain compliant just because the medium of payment has changed? Why do people think either FATEF Compliance or AML will be suspended and the costs of transfer magically removed?
If I’m honest, I do suspect that those who believe that one form of digital payment can replace another due to cost haven’t appreciated what this cost is, why it is in place and that a token system is not a work around.
More succinctly, to believe that these costs will be removed is to effectively believe in all nations and governments being removed and a centralised rule of law be enacted which does rather get us into loony territory, even if the proponent does not quite appreciate this. However, there are clearly the most devout followers for whom this is the true belief I suspect.
DonkeyApple said:
That’s the potential but it is worth stepping back and looking at the preexisting mechanism for sending an electronic payment. We can already send money electronically, quickly and securely. Now let’s put aside the slight matter which is just how many times in our lives we have needed to transfer 0.000000004p to someone or the fact that there is a cost point at which personal time defines a worth of zero, that tends to define why all forms of payment have the minimum that they do and why over the history of commerce these minimums have only risen but we should put that aspect to one side and look at the costs.
The costs of moving money electronically. This seems to be a positive argument for switching from using a stable first world currency to some form of token system for payment of goods and services with the advantage that you can make nano payments.
But what is it that costs to send money electronically? Does anyone know? And why would a FATEF compliant country suddenly not have to remain compliant just because the medium of payment has changed? Why do people think either FATEF Compliance or AML will be suspended and the costs of transfer magically removed?
If I’m honest, I do suspect that those who believe that one form of digital payment can replace another due to cost haven’t appreciated what this cost is, why it is in place and that a token system is not a work around.
More succinctly, to believe that these costs will be removed is to effectively believe in all nations and governments being removed and a centralised rule of law be enacted which does rather get us into loony territory, even if the proponent does not quite appreciate this. However, there are clearly the most devout followers for whom this is the true belief I suspect.
Spot on as usual, DA. The costs of moving money electronically. This seems to be a positive argument for switching from using a stable first world currency to some form of token system for payment of goods and services with the advantage that you can make nano payments.
But what is it that costs to send money electronically? Does anyone know? And why would a FATEF compliant country suddenly not have to remain compliant just because the medium of payment has changed? Why do people think either FATEF Compliance or AML will be suspended and the costs of transfer magically removed?
If I’m honest, I do suspect that those who believe that one form of digital payment can replace another due to cost haven’t appreciated what this cost is, why it is in place and that a token system is not a work around.
More succinctly, to believe that these costs will be removed is to effectively believe in all nations and governments being removed and a centralised rule of law be enacted which does rather get us into loony territory, even if the proponent does not quite appreciate this. However, there are clearly the most devout followers for whom this is the true belief I suspect.
Interesting article on Sky Today... https://news.sky.com/story/behind-the-collapse-the...
In addition to DA's points surely there is also the question on the changes in worth of a currency for international transactions? If you set the price as say 0.00001, but the currency moves by 0.01 a few seconds later etc how will that work? And in most countries having a value of say 0.00001 is pointless, as with say 5 million people then even if everyone did it then it'd be pointless.
dimots said:
Biggest barrier to sales is registration/platform. Non registration payments with no third party would be revolutionary.
Although it would also open up a new world of security hurt.So, as an example, if you *like* an article and click Like, you pay 0.000001 BTC to show you appreciate it, presumably there is some sort of authentication by you ? That then makes people think, ah I can't be bothered clicking 'authenticate' for my payment so I won't bother liking the article.
Or, if there is no authentication then that opens up countless opportunities for bots/hackers to take over peoples forums accounts (for example) and pay themselves thousands of times over for a random article.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff