[ANN] Bit-Pay Mobile Checkout - this changes everything!

[cypherdoc]

OK, that's a quick start. We now know that "bit-pay" is operating out of an house, who's behind it, and some other things they're doing. So if they "lose" any funds, it's clear where to send lawyers and cops.

They do not hold your earnings, you receive those into your wallet every day. So worst case scenario is they steal one transaction and the company packs up and moves to Singapore. All for your 5 BTC.

I expect to see contractual statements like "all payments made after NNN will be transmitted to ACH by NNN". 

They have all of those covered on their website.

https://bit-pay.com/legal.html

No, they do not.  They have an "acceptable use policy", plagiarized from PayPal's acceptable use policy, and a "privacy policy", plagiarized from PayPal's privacy policy). They do not have any terms which contractually bind "bit-pay" with regard to financial transactions.

This is important. Potential merchants need to know about transaction reversals, chargebacks, payout limitations, delays in payment, separation of customer funds from company funds, and dispute resolution procedures. All of those areas have created major problems for users of other Bitcoin-related services.

This is two guys with no financial experience operating out of a house in Florida. The odds are that they will screw up. Merchants need legal protection for when they do.

you know, you should just STFU.  we all know you're a paid shill basher of bitcoin.   otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time here and you would've taken my bet of 100 BTC to you.  when bitcoin skyrockedts again, you're gonna lose your job.

[1714016275]

1714016275

[1714016275]

1714016275

[Elwar]

"all payments made after NNN will be transmitted to ACH by NNN".

That is stated clearly on their website for all merchants:
https://bit-pay.com/accountingHelp.html

[Steve]

No, they do not.  They have an "acceptable use policy", plagiarized from PayPal's acceptable use policy, and a "privacy policy", plagiarized from PayPal's privacy policy). They do not have any terms which contractually bind "bit-pay" with regard to financial transactions.

You'll find these same clauses in the terms of virtually every payment service on the internet because they all face similar risks.

This is important. Potential merchants need to know about transaction reversals, chargebacks, payout limitations, delays in payment, separation of customer funds from company funds, and dispute resolution procedures. All of those areas have created major problems for users of other Bitcoin-related services.

To the extent the policies leave any questions that our merchants might have, we answer them.  Some of the details of how we process payments are not visible unless you've opened an account.

This is two guys with no financial experience operating out of a house in Florida. The odds are that they will screw up. Merchants need legal protection for when they do.

That's not true, we operate out of two houses, one in Florida and another in Georgia.  Tony has experience as a merchant for over 10 years and I have experience in building and managing the development of financial software.  We both have prior experience in owning and operating small businesses.

[TTBit]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

[Steve]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

It's actually more of an issue for the customer to have internet than the restaurant.  There are lots of possible ways to make it work.  This is just a small step in the right direction and something easy for us to do.  Ultimately, it would be nice to do away with the use of paper altogether...either restaurant checks or FRNs .  We'll be piloting this with a few restaurants to see how well it works in practice and go from there.

[evoorhees]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

Putting a QR code on the paper receipt at the customer's table is a great idea. Waitress drops it at the table, customer scans it, sends the coins needed plus tip, and then the waitress should be able to verify the transaction back on that fancy little touchscreen they use in the back to manage bills.

[nmat]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

Putting a QR code on the paper receipt at the customer's table is a great idea. Waitress drops it at the table, customer scans it, sends the coins needed plus tip, and then the waitress should be able to verify the transaction back on that fancy little touchscreen they use in the back to manage bills.

+1 to that. Integration with current hardware is probably difficult though...

[Steve]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

Putting a QR code on the paper receipt at the customer's table is a great idea. Waitress drops it at the table, customer scans it, sends the coins needed plus tip, and then the waitress should be able to verify the transaction back on that fancy little touchscreen they use in the back to manage bills.

It's also great from a marketing perspective...if every bill has a QR code and a caption below that says "Pay with Bitcoin", then every patron will see that on the their bill, regardless of whether they actually pay with bitcoin or not.

[evoorhees]

Stupid, serious question: Is it too high tech? Why not just print up a QR code included on person's bill? He can leave cash or pay with bitcoins or any mix of that. This way, you only need the customer to have internet. Waitress can check the terminal in back to verify payment came through. Or print up 100 qrcodes before and hand them to customer. Waitress would write total due on the sheet of paper.

Putting a QR code on the paper receipt at the customer's table is a great idea. Waitress drops it at the table, customer scans it, sends the coins needed plus tip, and then the waitress should be able to verify the transaction back on that fancy little touchscreen they use in the back to manage bills.

It's also great from a marketing perspective...if every bill has a QR code and a caption below that says "Pay with Bitcoin", then every patron will see that on the their bill, regardless of whether they actually pay with bitcoin or not.

Wow I didn't even consider that... that would be killer.

[btcbaby]

OK, that's a quick start. We now know that "bit-pay" is operating out of an house, who's behind it, and some other things they're doing. So if they "lose" any funds, it's clear where to send lawyers and cops.

They do not hold your earnings, you receive those into your wallet every day. So worst case scenario is they steal one transaction and the company packs up and moves to Singapore. All for your 5 BTC.

I expect to see contractual statements like "all payments made after NNN will be transmitted to ACH by NNN".  

They have all of those covered on their website.

https://bit-pay.com/legal.html

No, they do not.  They have an "acceptable use policy", plagiarized from PayPal's acceptable use policy, and a "privacy policy", plagiarized from PayPal's privacy policy. They do not have any terms which contractually bind "bit-pay" with regard to financial transactions.

This is important. Potential merchants need to know about transaction reversals, chargebacks, payout limitations, delays in payment, separation of customer funds from company funds, and dispute resolution procedures. All of those areas have created major problems for users of other Bitcoin-related services.

This is two guys with no financial experience operating out of a house in Florida. The odds are that they will screw up. Merchants need legal protection for when they do.

A little harsh, but they should have hired a lawyer to do their legal.  They are nice enough guys in person.

[payb.tc]

i think it would also help a lot if every place that employs this also has some free wi-fi to piggy-back off.

i wonder if it would be possible for the merchant to configure a specialised wi-fi hotspot that only allows bitcoin transactions, and no other internet traffic?

[Nagle]

This is two guys with no financial experience operating out of a house in Florida. The odds are that they will screw up. Merchants need legal protection for when they do.

A little harsh, but they should have hired a lawyer to do their legal.  They are nice enough guys in person.

You really want to know what their terms are before even talking to them.

This matters a lot. PayPal is noted for one-sided terms of service.  WePay, which was supposed to be a better alternative to PayPal, originally had terms of service like "we can cancel your account and keep the money". They've since fixed that. Dwolla started with no written terms of service and then started reversing transactions. Mt. Gox still doesn't have terms of service, and has reversed transactions.

The online money transfer industry has a bad record, and the Bitcoin-related operators have an even worse one.

[MemoryDealers]

OK, that's a quick start. We now know that "bit-pay" is operating out of an house, who's behind it, and some other things they're doing. So if they "lose" any funds, it's clear where to send lawyers and cops.

They do not hold your earnings, you receive those into your wallet every day. So worst case scenario is they steal one transaction and the company packs up and moves to Singapore. All for your 5 BTC.

I expect to see contractual statements like "all payments made after NNN will be transmitted to ACH by NNN". 

They have all of those covered on their website.

https://bit-pay.com/legal.html

No, they do not.  They have an "acceptable use policy", plagiarized from PayPal's acceptable use policy, and a "privacy policy", plagiarized from PayPal's privacy policy). They do not have any terms which contractually bind "bit-pay" with regard to financial transactions.

This is important. Potential merchants need to know about transaction reversals, chargebacks, payout limitations, delays in payment, separation of customer funds from company funds, and dispute resolution procedures. All of those areas have created major problems for users of other Bitcoin-related services.

This is two guys with no financial experience operating out of a house in Florida. The odds are that they will screw up. Merchants need legal protection for when they do.

you know, you should just STFU.  we all know you're a paid shill basher of bitcoin.   otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time here and you would've taken my bet of 100 BTC to you.  when bitcoin skyrockedts again, you're gonna lose your job.

Nagle,  I would love to hear your reply to cypherdoc's accusations.  From the posts I have read from both of you,  it would seem that cypherdoc's assessment is correct.

[Nagle]

you know, you should just STFU.  we all know you're a paid shill basher of bitcoin.   otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time here and you would've taken my bet of 100 BTC to you.  when bitcoin skyrockedts again, you're gonna lose your job.

Nagle,  I would love to hear your reply to cypherdoc's accusations.  From the posts I have read from both of you,  it would seem that cypherdoc's assessment is correct.

No one is paying me.  Nor do I need a job. I'm not anonymous. I'm on here under my real name, John Nagle. I'm reasonably well known in the early history of the Internet; look in any TCP/IP textbook. I've run "downside.com" for the last 10 years, and have a good track record in publicly predicting what's going to collapse well before it does. I called the dot-com crash company by company with a automated simple cash flow analysis, the mortgage crisis (in 2004, 2006, and 2007), the oil spike (in 2005), and the auto industry bankruptcies, back when the conventional wisdom was that the world economy had reached a "great moderation".  I was right, and many others were wrong.

So who is this "cypherdoc" person, anyway?

[defxor]

I'm reasonably well known in the early history of the Internet

(Trusting you to not just claim you are that John Nagle of course)

Indeed you are, thanks for the clarification. I read your posts differently knowing that.

[istar]

How easy would this be to hack? Since everything with Bitcoins get hacked these days...

[Technomage]

How easy would this be to hack? Since everything with Bitcoins get hacked these days...

This is a good question, btw. I hope the Bit-Pay crew take this aspect very seriously.

[cypherdoc]

you know, you should just STFU.  we all know you're a paid shill basher of bitcoin.   otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time here and you would've taken my bet of 100 BTC to you.  when bitcoin skyrockedts again, you're gonna lose your job.

Nagle,  I would love to hear your reply to cypherdoc's accusations.  From the posts I have read from both of you,  it would seem that cypherdoc's assessment is correct.

No one is paying me.  Nor do I need a job. I'm not anonymous. I'm on here under my real name, John Nagle. I'm reasonably well known in the early history of the Internet; look in any TCP/IP textbook. I've run "downside.com" for the last 10 years, and have a good track record in publicly predicting what's going to collapse well before it does. I called the dot-com crash company by company with a automated simple cash flow analysis, the mortgage crisis (in 2004, 2006, and 2007), the oil spike (in 2005), and the auto industry bankruptcies, back when the conventional wisdom was that the world economy had reached a "great moderation".  I was right, and many others were wrong.

So who is this "cypherdoc" person, anyway?

someone who believes in Bitcoin unlike yourself.  and my apologies if you are who you say you are and truly believe in what you say.

my problem with someone like you who spends enough time on this forum to be considered a Senior Member is that your negativity is way out of proportion to your participation here.  why would you put up so many posts on this site if it was indeed a ponzi scheme?  saying that you're here to warn people doesn't cut it for me.  clearly you've contributed greatly to the negativity surrounding Bitcoin and have i'm sure scared off plenty of investors. are you destructive by nature?

i looked at your site and the first thing that strikes me is that your short blurb on Bitcoin is basically a couple of short paragraphs based on a price chart and an opinion.  there are plenty of price charts that have done that and exploded back to the upside.  and there are plenty of Cassandra's such as yourself that have called "ponzi" to various schemes throughout history that have gone bankrupt doing so.  you've spent more time, effort, and words posting here than on your own website.  one post a year for the last 3 yrs?  that makes no proportional sense and makes me reasonably think you have an agenda and yeah, that usually means being paid.  "Deathwatch", "Misery Row" across the top of your page? and i love this:



i'll bet you totally missed the Nasdaq run up of the 1990's and started calling for a top around 1996.

you're clearly an extremely negative person as your website suggests.  claiming to have called the tops of many bubbles is highly questionable  and certainly doesn't mean you've profited from it along the way.  as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.  i'll bet you've called many other investments "ponzi's" and been deadly wrong as well.  as a long time active investor in many markets i have learned to expect the unexpected.

its too early to make any definitive statements on Bitcoin as you have.  perhaps its too early for me to be as positive as i have.  we've only been at this for a few months.  internet speed in this new digital age for the last 12 yrs for the masses easily could have been the sole cause of the ramp to 31 and subsequent fall.  this ramp and fall has nothing to do with the underlying technology and merits of Bitcoin.  in fact, i think the ramp to 31 so quickly indicates an incredibly bright future ahead as people were quick to see the underlying prospects of Bitcoin as a digital analogy to gold. does gold have an economy built around it?  no.  

i've studied the technology in depth and talked to the devs and i think Bitcoin has a bright future.  i personally think it has all the attributes of gold and doesn't even need an economy surrounding it to succeed but i could be wrong. but its possible that it best function could be as a store of wealth. we'll just have to see.  it has all the properties that can solve the many problems we're seeing in the financial industry today and gives us a financial tool we've never experienced yet in history.  clearly no one knows the future but i remain positive.

which is why i spend much of my time and effort here contributing to something i believe in.  so why aren't you?  and if its negativity and ponzi's you believe in, why isn't your website more developed?

edit:  you've called Bitcoin a Ponzi.  clearly either you don't understand the definition of a Ponzi or you don't understand Bitcoin.

[Nagle]

edit:  you've called Bitcoin a Ponzi.  clearly either you don't understand the definition of a Ponzi or you don't understand Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has aspects of a Ponzi scheme, in that, during the runup phase, those getting money out were getting it from people who put it in earlier, and much of the gain accrued to the people who set the thing up. Some early proponents wrote about Bitcoin as if it generated revenue, which is why I used the term "Ponzi scheme".  The important point is that Bitcoin speculation is a zero-sum game. There's no revenue being generated.  It's a variant on a pyramid scheme, or, as someone else wrote, "technically it's a pump and dump".  There are many variations on this theme; check out "High Yield Investment Programs".  The common elements are 1) it's zero-sum, and 2) the early adopters make money at the expense of the later ones.

Bitcoin, as a technology, does solve one problem - irrevocable unidirectional money transfer between remote anonymous parties. The Bitcoin world then shows how a financial system based on irrevocable unidirectional money transfer between remote anonymous parties fails.  That's what interests me.

The Bitcoin ecosystem requires centralized trusted parties to operate - exchanges, "online wallet" services, payment processors, and such. The idea behind Bitcoin was supposed to be that no central services were required. But the Bitcoin technology doesn't solve enough of the problem to allow that.

Because Bitcoin transfers can be anonymous, the community assumed that trusted services could also be anonymous. That has not worked out well. Many of the services have turned out to be run by people who took the money and ran. Even the services that are still around are on the flaky side. That's why I take a hard line on due diligence.

The interesting technical question is whether an anonymous system that doesn't require centralized trusted parties can be developed.  It has to do more than support simple money transfer. It needs a way to guarantee that, before the transaction becomes irrevocable, both sides have received whatever they agreed to receive. That's hard, but may not be impossible.

That's all I'm going to say in response to "cypherdoc", other than Parker Posey's line from "Party Girl": "Get a last name and we'll talk".

[aq]

edit:  you've called Bitcoin a Ponzi.  clearly either you don't understand the definition of a Ponzi or you don't understand Bitcoin.

maybe both?