If confirmation takes 10 minutes, how will I buy coffee at Starbucks?

[hilariousandco]

This.  I don't care much for Charbucks, but if they have the Occutards pissed off at them, more power to 'em.

Pissing off occutards should be applauded indeed.

I don't care for the occupy movement either, but I think you've got to be a capitalist pig to think it's ok for multi billion dollar companies to get away with paying zero tax whilst the ordinary citizen foots the bill.

Why are you starting from the assumption that the government needs massive taxation in order to operate?

Why are you assuming that I do? What level of taxation do you suggest they should be operating at?

[proton]

Thanks DeathandTaxes.

Based on what I read on this thread, I think it is safe to say that:
 
A bitcoin transaction could be immediate...However, for it to be considered 100% legitimate, it needs to be confirmed on blockchain and this would take ~10 min.

This makes bitcoin direct transactions impractical for small transactions such as buying coffee or more importantly for micropayments.  Even if one is willing to take the risk of double spend and does not mind the fees, it may still be not enough. This is because bitcoin protocol cannot handle thousands of transactions per second.

A solution to this could be a third-party clearinghouse.  Clearinghouse can accumulate all the small transactions, net them up and reconcile everything with blockchain on a lower frequency.  However, resorting to a third party seems to be a step back from bitcoin's inherent advantages.

[CoinDiver]

Taxation is theft. I don't think we should tax Starbucks more, I think we should tax everyone else less. Not at all would be prefered.

Don't misconstrue this to mean I don't think people should pool part of their income together for projects the benefit the "greater good"... just that it is immoral for it to be forced. Theft is theft, no matter how legitimate the state finds itself.

At what percent is slavery moral?

[allthingsluxury]

If credit cards take 180 days to be confirmed how will you buy coffee at Starbucks?

well, there's a 3rd party ensuring that you won't be scammed (when using a credit card). with bitcoin, there's only you and the provider.

Credit cards don't protect the merchant from getting scammed.  If you make a purchase and then report the card stolen, they'll steal the money back from the merchant so they can repay the cardholder.

In short, credit cards are safer for consumers, but Bitcoin is safer for merchants.

Agreed, the current system is incredibly unfair for merchants, who always get left holding the bag. Even if they do all the proper steps. Bitcoin is a monstrously huge improvement.

[cr1776]

...I don't care for the occupy movement either, but I think you've got to be a capitalist pig to think it's ok for multi billion dollar companies to get away with paying zero tax whilst the ordinary citizen foots the bill.

Companies do not pay taxes.  People do.  All taxes are passed back on to people through higher prices.  Companies serve as tax collectors for the government, in order to help hide the full level of taxation from the people who don't think about it.  Nothing more.

Just like the "company share" of Social Security taxes (in the US) aren't paid by the company, they are paid by you through foregone wages.

For transparency, withholding taxes should be eliminated and so should corporate taxes.  Otherwise, people are fooled into thinking that some person is not paying taxes and they are getting something for nothing.

Cut taxes so that individuals can choose what causes they want to support with their own money.  It isn't charity at the point of a gun and it isn't charity if it is someone else's money.

[hilariousandco]

Taxation is theft. I don't think we should tax Starbucks more, I think we should tax everyone else less. Not at all would be prefered.

Don't misconstrue this to mean I don't think people should pool part of their income together for projects the benefit the "greater good"... just that it is immoral for it to be forced. Theft is theft, no matter how legitimate the state finds itself.

At what percent is slavery moral?

You can argue that property is theft. I think taxes are great, as long as they are fair and just and spent on the right things. If we didn't have taxes how would we pool money to build schools, hospitals and roads etc? Corporations would likely just take over, then we would have to pay extortionate fees and tolls on roads etc. I'm a big believer in that everybody chips in a little and everybody benefits a lot, but only if the system is fair, but of course you have to find the balance.

[bluemeanie1]

For small purchases, you don't really have to wait for a confirmation.  You just need to make sure the transaction appears on the network.  If there are any losses, they can be written off as a cost of doing business or treated as theft.  The chances of double-spending for a cup of coffee are less than the chance of someone walking out on a restaurant bill.

are there any services out there that offer insurance for this?

[uranian]

No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent is robbery," or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman. ~ Spooner

personally I'd be happy to pay for healthcare, but I'm not happy to do it at the point of a gun (/court/prison).

[Probably]

I think everything that needs to be said has already been said about the OP's question.  I just wanted to comment concerning Starbucks and tax.

We shouldn't be celebrating crony capitalism.  Regulations and taxes that are selectively enforced against smaller competitors to the mega-corps are not better than regulations and taxes that apply to everyone.

Looking at it from their point of view, when the government slaps them with a 60% tax rate can you really blame them for trying to worm their way out of it? Taxes are at the point where they're just ridiculous, and everyone tries to cheat on them as a result.

circular logic - taxes are that bad because of the companies that worm their way out.


its like saying "people stealing shit at stores is OK because things are too expensive (due to people stealing shit at stores)"
Yes, you can blame the price markups from wholesale to retail... but you can equally blame the theft driving the prices up.


When the company blames the thefts, the people can blame the companys markups for the initial thefts. That doesn't mean there aren't thieves.

[Probably]

Taxation is theft. I don't think we should tax Starbucks more, I think we should tax everyone else less. Not at all would be prefered.

Don't misconstrue this to mean I don't think people should pool part of their income together for projects the benefit the "greater good"... just that it is immoral for it to be forced. Theft is theft, no matter how legitimate the state finds itself.

At what percent is slavery moral?

You can argue that property is theft. I think taxes are great, as long as they are fair and just and spent on the right things. If we didn't have taxes how would we pool money to build schools, hospitals and roads etc? Corporations would likely just take over, then we would have to pay extortionate fees and tolls on roads etc. I'm a big believer in that everybody chips in a little and everybody benefits a lot, but only if the system is fair, but of course you have to find the balance.

One bit that would help is an individual being able to allot taxes granularly instead of assuming a 'democratically appointed, either directly or by the residue of democracy' representative assessing what that tax allocation should be.

Once cash is done away with and everything is digital and integrated, the idea of 'paying tax yearly' should be eradicated and replaced by the concept of 'assigning your tax payouts yearly.'

Our billionaire friends have no problems deciding where their taxes go, via writeoff donations. someone making a living at a fast food restaurant doesn't get to choose.

50% of my taxes could be assigned by the government, the other 50% should go wherever I want. There are very little philanthropic / writeoff driven charitable giving opportunities for those in the middle/lower classes because our taxes are taken up front.

Why does the government get to decide what those unable to steer their tax dollars use it on? Even if 'stupid selfish people' decide 100% of their taxes go towards making roads better, they should end up with some damn good roads and that would naturally make them not do that in the future, or perhaps the government could limit the choices, etc.


bitcoin has proven a lot about using intermediaries as "trusted decisionmakers" ... it sucks, and they're all on the chopping block. Unfortunately, those intermediaries are the ones deciding policy so they can dig their heels in easily if they're too dumb to see the benefits and how they fit in in the future.

[Eri]

Thanks DeathandTaxes.

Based on what I read on this thread, I think it is safe to say that:
 
A bitcoin transaction could be immediate...However, for it to be considered 100% legitimate, it needs to be confirmed on blockchain and this would take ~10 min.

This makes bitcoin direct transactions impractical for small transactions such as buying coffee or more importantly for micropayments.  Even if one is willing to take the risk of double spend and does not mind the fees, it may still be not enough. This is because bitcoin protocol cannot handle thousands of transactions per second.

A solution to this could be a third-party clearinghouse.  Clearinghouse can accumulate all the small transactions, net them up and reconcile everything with blockchain on a lower frequency.  However, resorting to a third party seems to be a step back from bitcoin's inherent advantages.

More like its a non issue. transactions propagate so fast there really isnt a way to double spend in a store and get away with what you bought.
 *buys coffee*
*double spends*
*clerk turns to give me coffee and sees "Double spend" on the screen.* they could then send a picture of your face to the police for 'attempted theft'. but nobody would even waste their time doing that.

or

*buys coffee*
*doesnt double spend yet*
*clerk gives me coffee*
*runs out of the store as fast as possible and trys to double spend but the transaction is ignored since the first has already propagated through the network*


People are already using this method of 0 confirmations at stores. ive yet to hear of anyone pulling off a double spend.

[Mike Christ]

You can argue that property is theft. I think taxes are great, as long as they are fair and just and spent on the right things.

If they were fair and just and spent on the right things, you wouldn't need to call them taxes

I'm a Libertarian Socialist...

Are you playing devil's advocate here, or are you using taxation as the closest synonym for a voluntary contribution (since taxation is defined only by its compulsory quality, i.e. not having to do with libertarianism)?

[BTCisthefuture]

the two largest 3rd party merchant vendors calculate things like this into their operations.  same way credit card companies will pay a customer back if a fraudulent charge happens. companies like bitpay and coinbase allow transactions with merchants to clear instantly even though theres a slight change they might end up footing the bill, they can do this because of the 1% flat fee they charge on all transactions just like credit card companies can pay you back if someone spent your credit card because of all the fees they get on every transaction from merchants.

of course other people in this thread already explained this more clearly than i can or just did

[crazy_rabbit]

If credit cards take 180 days to be confirmed how will you buy coffee at Starbucks?

well, there's a 3rd party ensuring that you won't be scammed (when using a credit card). with bitcoin, there's only you and the provider.

Have you ever heard of Bitpay or Coinbase?

[BTCisthefuture]

For small purchases, you don't really have to wait for a confirmation.  You just need to make sure the transaction appears on the network.  If there are any losses, they can be written off as a cost of doing business or treated as theft.  The chances of double-spending for a cup of coffee are less than the chance of someone walking out on a restaurant bill.

are there any services out there that offer insurance for this?

cionbase and bitpay are the main ones right now. i've yet to run into a store that accepts bitcoin that doesnt use one of tehse two companies to handle their bitcoin transactions. just like credit card companies are able to cover losses due to the fee's the charge merchants ,  bitpay and coinbase are able to cover losses because of the 1% flat fee they charge merchants for all transactions. 

i think it's one of the biggest advancements in the bitcoin industry recently that not many pepole have talked about. the fact that people are able to and ARE making instant purchases at stores without having to wait for conformations. it's truly a great thing.

[Klestin]

If credit cards take 180 days to be confirmed how will you buy coffee at Starbucks?

This.

[hilariousandco]

For small purchases, you don't really have to wait for a confirmation.  You just need to make sure the transaction appears on the network.  If there are any losses, they can be written off as a cost of doing business or treated as theft.  The chances of double-spending for a cup of coffee are less than the chance of someone walking out on a restaurant bill.

are there any services out there that offer insurance for this?

cionbase and bitpay are the main ones right now. i've yet to run into a store that accepts bitcoin that doesnt use one of tehse two companies to handle their bitcoin transactions. just like credit card companies are able to cover losses due to the fee's the charge merchants ,  bitpay and coinbase are able to cover losses because of the 1% flat fee they charge merchants for all transactions. 

i think it's one of the biggest advancements in the bitcoin industry recently that not many pepole have talked about. the fact that people are able to and ARE making instant purchases at stores without having to wait for conformations. it's truly a great thing.

Yeah, the double spend isn't really a big issue. There will be some way that merchants are covered by whatever Bitcoin Processor they choose to use.

[Klestin]

Double spend is a real problem. 10 minutes is intolerable.

It's fairly easy even for non tech-savy people to install 2 clients on different devices and send money during call at the same time.

The one with larger fees will win.

No, the first one received by whichever pool creates the next block wins.  If you have information otherwise, please provide source.

[kjj]

I'm pretty sure that most retail purchases will be done by VISA, MasterCard, Discover, etc.  Or, if those guys are slow to get on the train, they'll go extinct while startups provide the same services they provide, but for bitcoin.

Those companies exist pretty much for the sole purpose of mediating transactional risks.  They also have the advantage of keeping small transactions off the blockchain (aka out of the ACH system).

Pretty hard to imagine a world where no one is doing what they do.

[jongameson]

coffee is legal, why the hell would you want to use bitcoins for that