By "eat" the fee, I just meant "hide" the fee. Just like merchants currently do with credit cards and paypal. And the main reason it would be appealing to do this is because customers are not used to the idea that they are paying a fee when they use credit cards now.
It's appealing, but it's not how Bitcoin clients work. If the merchant charges you 1.0, you pay 1.0001 out of your wallet. If they charge you 0.9999, you pay 1.0 out of your wallet. If you wanted the merchant to pay the fee and hide it from the customer, there would have to be more communication between the merchant and the Bitcoin client, which seems silly to me. yea - I realized that after I posted it. Maybe this is something that needs to go into the payments protocol discussions. (maybe it's already in there?) |
|
|
|
|
I think that sellers of physical items that will be shipped would not mention the confirmation cycle. They can simply hold shipment until they see the desired number of confirmations. To the every-day honest buyer it will look the same as any CC purchase does now. For downloadable digital purchases, it seems that the merchant would be best served by establishing a download queue. They would show the user something like this: After you click "Confirm" your purchase will be available in your download queue in a few minutes. (click here to see why). Then they move it to the download queue after they see the desired number of confirmations.
I think it all depends on the items being purchased and other circumstances specific to each industry and seller.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. My impression is that the author went to a happy hour somewhere and got a good buzz going. Then he listened in on a conversation about bitcoin while he tried to pick up a date. When he couldn't get laid he went home and wrote an article about what he remembered from the conversation.
|
|
|
|
I don't see the fee as a barrier at all. The payment systems just need to reflect the total to the user so there aren't any surprises. Either the fee shows up in the running total just like tax or shipping would. Or the merchant eats the fee by subtracting it from the transaction amount. My guess is that it will evolve to the merchant eating the fee since that is how other payment systems work now.
but the whole idea of bitcoin is to be different. merchants dont want to fill in paperwork to get merchant accounts with card providors. if the FIAT side of converting bitcoin to fiat requires AMLKYC then thats still paperwork merchants dont want fee's that eat into profits, so i do see fee's as a problem, but as long as they continue to represent pennies, it wont be a massive problem, just an irritating one Like I said, it's just a guess. But some of my reasoning is: Since merchants do not directly charge (i.e. it is not listed as a cost) customers for fees incurred with credit card, paypal, or other systems, then doing so for bitcoin transactions would appear as an additional cost to customers. Additionally, showing the fee would require updates to user interfaces for any web or POS sales. You pay a fee when you use a credit card, albeit you don't see it, it is usually factored in by the merchant. Cheaper prices for Bitcoin (enough to cover the fee), could easily be used, similarly to cheaper prices when paying with cash. Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very well. By "eat" the fee, I just meant "hide" the fee. Just like merchants currently do with credit cards and paypal. And the main reason it would be appealing to do this is because customers are not used to the idea that they are paying a fee when they use credit cards now. Many people probably realize (i.e. a lot of people don't realize) that part of what they pay goes to the credit card companies, but still fail to consciously associate it with the transaction right when they are making a purchase. So showing an added fee for using bitcoin and not showing an added fee for a credit card would be perceived as a reason to not use bitcoin. However, you imply a great point: Show a discount to the customer if they pay with bitcoin vs a credit card. This could be something as simple as "Pay with bitcoin and save another 2%." |
|
|
|
I don't see the fee as a barrier at all. The payment systems just need to reflect the total to the user so there aren't any surprises. Either the fee shows up in the running total just like tax or shipping would. Or the merchant eats the fee by subtracting it from the transaction amount. My guess is that it will evolve to the merchant eating the fee since that is how other payment systems work now.
but the whole idea of bitcoin is to be different. merchants dont want to fill in paperwork to get merchant accounts with card providors. if the FIAT side of converting bitcoin to fiat requires AMLKYC then thats still paperwork merchants dont want fee's that eat into profits, so i do see fee's as a problem, but as long as they continue to represent pennies, it wont be a massive problem, just an irritating one Like I said, it's just a guess. But some of my reasoning is: Since merchants do not directly charge (i.e. it is not listed as a cost) customers for fees incurred with credit card, paypal, or other systems, then doing so for bitcoin transactions would appear as an additional cost to customers. Additionally, showing the fee would require updates to user interfaces for any web or POS sales. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see the fee as a barrier at all. The payment systems just need to reflect the total to the user so there aren't any surprises. Either the fee shows up in the running total just like tax or shipping would. Or the merchant eats the fee by subtracting it from the transaction amount. My guess is that it will evolve to the merchant eating the fee since that is how other payment systems work now.
|
|
|
|
|
Took the survey - Looking forward to seeing the results!
|
|
|
|
SPOILER ALERT!!! a movie about a guy that goes to a cybercafe, logs in checks his private messages and bug reports for a website... well thats 40 minutes of a movie wasted.
the movie then shows him in a chatroom typing away having an arguement and he flips open his tor browser to hire a hitman. thats the 10 minute build up to the action part of the movie.
and the last 40 minutes of a 90 minute movie is him sitting at home and the cops knocking at his door, getting arrested,,,
... definetly not a die hard action movie.. and less of a storyline then that facebook movie...
id think they may make a documentary channel episode about it one day, but not worthy of going to the cinema for
|
|
|
|
This is an evil country.
No more words needed to describe it.
Just out of interest, how do you know? If not, why do they forbid basically anyone of their people to leave the country on his own? But is it done for no other reason that the leadership are evil? I think not. Clearly they're being very controlling, but what's the reason for that? I suspect that "being evil" isn't even one of the reasons why the leadership have very tight controls in all sorts of areas. Cite other North Korean government controls. a) intended to be evil ? If not, what's the real intention? b) even true at all? How do we know it's true, when the place is so strictly controlled? It is the control and other actions that reveal the government as evil. Intentions don't mean squat. |
|
|
|
What is going on here? We have this: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html describing, basically, bitcoin in Dec 2008 according to the page (although the url says 2005?). He says he's been thinking about it for years. Meanwhile, Satoshi published the whitepaper in, what, Nov 2008? Either misleading or mindblowing. Was that really written in 2005? The first comment refers to a 'recent' link, and the link appears to be from 2005... I agree, it's suspicious, but probably scrutinized somewhere on the forum. So basically either Nick Szabo is Satoshi, or Satoshi was inspired by this guy, but changed it from Bit Gold to Bitcoin? There is a comment on that post from "Patrick." I found that interesting as he was apparently in the process of developing an electronic currency at that time. Following his profile info gets you to these links: Patrick's profile http://www.blogger.com/profile/08715549273489573543Blog - Information Currency and Information Engineering - Information currency ( http://infoeng.sourceforge.net) and its applications. http://infoeng.blogspot.com/Blog - Rothbardix - Technology for liberty and justice. http://rothbardix.blogspot.com/The sourceforge project page ( http://infoeng.sourceforge.net) doesn't work too well. The very first time I went there I was able to get to the code download page. I was going to go back and download it but now only get an HTTP 500 error when I try to go to any of the project links on the project home page. [EDIT]I was able to download the code. The files I have looked at so far are Java source files. I can't put any more time into it until much later today.[/EDIT] |
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a "one-time tax."
|
|
|
|
Armed private security guards are on the job to keep the public away from Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, and one even threatened to arrest a political activist if he stepped on the sidewalk beside the iconic building where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were debated and adopted.
The jolting irony brings tears to my eyes. /not sarcasm |
|
|
|
So, it's similar to RetroShare?
I've never used RetroShare or anything similar, but from a quick look at Wikipedia, the difference seems to be that with WebRTC you don't have to install and manage any software. Having latest Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox would be enough. So simplicity and usability must be a big plus for adoption, not so sure about security though, but that can probably be worked upon. Running on windows. Using browser plug-ins or javascript. What could go wrong? |
|
|
|
The report said that White House officials "strongly objected" to accusations that they did not favour disclosure, and cited statistics showing that Obama gave more interviews in news, entertainment and digital media in the first four plus years iin office than President George W Bush and Bill Clinton did in their respective first terms, combined. Nice. I'm sure they did object to this report. He likes to show up for Oprah, Letterman, and others not inclined to actually ask him questions about WTF he was doing. How about talking about how many press conferences he had? I know he went for a stretch of about 1 year without having any press conferences where reporters were free to ask him questions. |
|
|
|
|
crypto-trade.com is up now.
Any update on the share transfer?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is an excellent idea! American Restoration also benefits as this will draw viewers from outside their normal audience. I'm not talking bitcoin addicts. Techies and makers of many stripes would get a kick out of seeing it done.
|
|
|
|
don't panic, the site works right now ;-) Okay, now the crypto-trade website appears to be down. https://crypto-trade.com/What's going on with - the website?? - the shares?? Why do you think I am panicking? The site is not working. Maybe it's just blocked for my hemisphere. Neotrix nor anyone else from crypto-trade has said anything on this thread (listed as their official support thread on the BTCT website) for a week. They owe us an update. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
