Ways of transacting with bitcoin must be unified.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

There is a general tendency: the easier it is for you to spend money; the more money you spend. If you try to make a transaction, and you encounter difficulties, you may not do the transaction after all. That’s why Amazon is so successful (among other reasons): once you have done your first purchase, you only need to click to make the following ones. You don’t need to take out you card, you don’t need to write the number, you don’t need to write the CCV.

Banks and companies know this, and make it easier for you to pay: if you can pay while you are texting a message using your phone, you are going to spend more money on average than if you have to take out your wallet, pay with cash, get the change and put it in your wallet.

Back in January, I was going to buy an OTC product in an online pharmacy using bitcoin and I couldn’t. What happened was that I ended up not buying the product there.

Yesterday, I solved a riddle that forum member seoincorporation published on the Spanish section. The riddle had a 1.5$ price and I was going to claim it. But I found out that I couldn’t claim it using my Ledger Nano S. I could have claimed it creating a blockchain account, and then could have transferred the funds to my Ledger Nano S. But I didn’t. Obviously, if the price had been 1.5$ million, I would have claimed it, but this shows again that there is a tendency when you try to make a transaction: if you encounter difficulties, you'll probably not do the transaction.

I think if bitcoin is going to get mass adopted, it will be because ways of transacting will be unified, otherwise it won’t get mass adopted. This poses a further problem: centralization and freedom. If a system is centralized, it is easily unified; and the other way around. If a system is not centralized, someone can use segwit and other people may not accept segwit payments.

But I think ways of transacting with bitcoin must be unified and made very easy for everyone, even for dumb people, even for those who know nothing about bitcoin and how it works, otherwise it will never be mass adopted.

[1713557971]

1713557971

[1713557971]

1713557971

[1713557971]

1713557971

[ABCbits]

While i agree with your opinion, most of the hurdle comes from :
1. Wallet developer who don't bother upgrade their wallet to support newer Bitcoin features (Bech32 SegWit, Payment protocol, RBF, etc.)
2. No automatic update or message to upgrade wallet to latest version
3. User choose bad/centralized wallet (freewallet, coinbase, etc.)
4. There's no implementation guide/standard yet, such as signing message with Bech32 address (no idea if there's standard now)

The only way to unify bitcoin's transaction standard (without hard-fork which force user and developer update their wallet) that i could think are :
1. Constantly ask wallet's company/developer to support newer features
2. Encourage user only to use wallet which support newer features (and decentralized obviously)
3. Boycott all wallet/services which don't support newer features (Last resort)

[ABCbits]

--snip--

Stop promoting your centralized & closed-source wallet service. Your wallet service is the opposite of what Bitcoin trying to reach, which is decentralization and full control over your money.

Wallet such as Electrum might be harder to use, but it's better than lose pseudonymity & full control over your coins.There's no difference between bank and your service, expect different currency choice.

I didn't self-moderate this thread because I thought I didn't need to in this section.

I reported Freewallet reply for being off-topic spam.

Usually you don't need to as almost all spam/off-topic are deleted in this section, even if it's made by reputable member.
Most of the times, spam are done by newbie / newly created account and all of them are deleted.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I didn't self-moderate this thread because I thought I didn't need to in this section.

I reported Freewallet reply for being off-topic spam.

[Pmalek]

But I think ways of transacting with bitcoin must be unified and made very easy for everyone, even for dumb people, even for those who know nothing about bitcoin and how it works, otherwise it will never be mass adopted.

This last part is the most important thing. Lets be honest. Using bitcoin, wallets, blockchains, exchanges isn't easy if you dont have sufficient knowledge about the technology. If Bitcoin is to become mass adopted two things need to change:

1. Paying with Bitcoin needs to be easy, hassle free and understandable for a 75 year old pensioner as well as a 12 year old kid looking to buy a candy bar.
At the moment that is not the case. I would be interested in seeing a study done on senior citizens and how many of them know of and/or have used Bitcoin in their life.

2. The fees for Bitcoin transactions need to be close to 0 for micro-transactions as well as bigger transactions. Although they are low now they need to be even lower if Bitcoin is to win the fight against fiat currencies. If you purchase something for $5 that is it - you hand over the bill, take the item and leave.
When you purchase with BTC you dont just pay $5. You also pay the minning/wallet fees + end up waiting for the transaction to confirm. 

Bitcoin is still in early development even though it has been here for years but I hope the above things can change. I hope that one day we can wake up in a world where our parents and children use Bitcoin but at the moment that is still a dream as it is too complicated for them.   

[LeGaulois]

We currently have many ways to pay using Bitcoin. From Android applications and web-based wallets to softwares and hardware. Not even talking about debit cards and the next "crypto-neobanks" generation. I am not sure what more is needed, it's not like if the only way to send a Tx is to enter a command line on a terminal.

I know you can say: "using a web wallet like Coinbase hasn't anything decentralized"
Over the last decade, Bitcoin did very well, and I still believe we can create this "unified" system in a decentralized environment. It's not something happening within 5 years. Not sure if decentralization is the main motivation for the average bitcoiner but a company like Coinbase is exactly what is needed so 10 years old kid can use it. Will we see Centralized folks & Decentralized folks? Probably, but it has to come from people themselves to use it for the sake of the decentralization. SegWit VS Non SegWit? It's rather people need to choose their tribe. But the Pro Segwit have to understand that Bitcoin was first without SW and should at least make the effort to also accept payments without it

Perhaps the problem comes from another side: Bitcoin will spin the system in a cashless society and some countries are quite resistant to such a system. You can find statistics on the web, there are great disparities between some countries. The very nature of Bitcoin is already a barrier for some countries, due to their culture.

[Wind_FURY]

OP, the Core developers are building a platform for hard money on the internet, plus more.

Bitcoin is not a mere consumer payments product like Paypal.

Bitcoin will be a separate financial system with no centralized point of failure. Give yourself a little time, and internalize the power of that idea.

[d5000]

I like Bitpay's Payment Protocol (BIP70) - it is - in theory - very easy to use because the merchant you want to pay generates something like a "pre-transaction" you simply import to your client and it will transact the Bitcoins to the correct address. As you only see the correct payment receiver in the wallet if you imported it correctly, there is practically zero risk to do it wrong. So it's just the method non-experts need ...

I really don't understand why this method isn't supported by all merchants, exchanges and other services, even the implementation in some wallets (@OP, you mentioned your hardware wallet wasn't supporting it at all) is not very straightforward or it isn't even supported. BIP70 would really solve lots of hassles and also reduce fears to mistype an address, for example. So I can imagine it as an attractive "standard payment method". I don't know if it's possible to extend the protocol for LN, however, but a similar protocol possibilitating LN transactions should be possible.

PS: Bitpay itself isn't acting in the best way if it still requires non-Segwit transactions as payments, but as far as I know BIP70 isn't limited to non-Segwit payments.

[HeRetiK]

I like Bitpay's Payment Protocol (BIP70) - it is - in theory - very easy to use because the merchant you want to pay generates something like a "pre-transaction" you simply import to your client and it will transact the Bitcoins to the correct address. As you only see the correct payment receiver in the wallet if you imported it correctly, there is practically zero risk to do it wrong. So it's just the method non-experts need ... [...]

Counter-argument: BIP70 deanonymizes users and should not become the de-facto standard for Bitcoin payments. As such I dislike BitPay having made BIP70 their obligatory means of payment without any fallback method (apart from using external scripts such as the one by achow101 [1]).

I fully agree though that it absolutely does improve user experience, I just wish it wouldn't be the only option offered by BitPay.


[1] https://github.com/achow101/payment-proto-interface

[d5000]

Counter-argument: BIP70 deanonymizes users and should not become the de-facto standard for Bitcoin payments.

I guess it de-anonymizes the payee/merchant only, right? Anyway, I would like it to become supported by all major platforms and wallets. In cases where the payee is already known, like in the case of exchange deposits and merchant payments, this "de-anonymization" should be no issue.

Of course, the most simple way of transacting (manually entering amounts and addresses) should always be allowed, too. Here I agree that BitPay - and all merchants - should offer it as a fallback method, also for people with hardware wallets. But the Payment Protocol could be highlighted as the "recommended" way.

[HeRetiK]

Counter-argument: BIP70 deanonymizes users and should not become the de-facto standard for Bitcoin payments.

I guess it de-anonymizes the payee/merchant only, right? Anyway, I would like it to become supported by all major platforms and wallets. In cases where the payee is already known, like in the case of exchange deposits and merchant payments, this "de-anonymization" should be no issue.

No, I'm indeed referring to the paying party. Problem being that while the invoice pages themselves are usable via Tor, BIP70 is not [1]. Therefore unless you get out of your way to protect your privacy they can unnecessarily track your IP address.

[1] https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitpay-is-using-the-payment-protocol-to-take-your-privacy-8093bf91eda7

Of course, the most simple way of transacting (manually entering amounts and addresses) should always be allowed, too. Here I agree that BitPay - and all merchants - should offer it as a fallback method, also for people with hardware wallets. But the Payment Protocol could be highlighted as the "recommended" way.

That's exactly what BitPay did for a while... IIRC they offered BIP70 and the "old way" in parallel for quite some time. By default you would get an easy to use QR code / invoice link but then also a small hidden link to an advanced payment mode with a big fat warning that you should absolutely know what you are doing. In my opinion this was the best of both worlds, easy payments by default but also a non-obstrusive fallback method for more experienced users. Alas they decided to get rid of the advanced payment link, a move which at least to me seems rather arbitrary.

[d5000]

OK, thanks for the explanation. That's indeed a valid counter-argument. According to the blog post (as I understand it) the Payment Protocol can be used via Tor/VPN, but the merchant in this case can refuse payment if he detects this. Is this correct?

I took a superficial look at the developers' guide and haven't found a statement that the IP address is necessary to confirm validity of the payment. If my understanding is correct, merchants could use the Payment Protocol "the right way", without forcing users to reveal their IP address. However, the fact that the Payment Protocol requires a direct connection between wallet and merchant server (without routing through the Bitcoin network) isn't ideal. Wallets can offer easy-to-use Tor/VPN assistance but it adds hassle for a non-expert user that wants to stay anonymous.

[HeRetiK]

OK, thanks for the explanation. That's indeed a valid counter-argument. According to the blog post (as I understand it) the Payment Protocol can be used via Tor/VPN, but the merchant in this case can refuse payment if he detects this. Is this correct?

I took a superficial look at the developers' guide and haven't found a statement that the IP address is necessary to confirm validity of the payment. If my understanding is correct, merchants could use the Payment Protocol "the right way", without forcing users to reveal their IP address. However, the fact that the Payment Protocol requires a direct connection between wallet and merchant server (without routing through the Bitcoin network) isn't ideal. Wallets can offer easy-to-use Tor/VPN assistance but it adds hassle for a non-expert user that wants to stay anonymous.

I'm not sure if the merchants have any say in this, but the breakdown is this:

If Bitpay detects you are making a connection through a VPN or Tor, they will not call back and make it impossible for you to pay your invoice until you reveal your IP.

That is, similar to how one may get Cloudflare CAPTCHAs when browsing with Tor, in this case the BIP70 server simply denies your connection. This is unrelated to how you as a developer would implement their API. Working on the application level, you don't know anything about which connections the underlying server decides to block.

The thing is, I understand if credit card providers or banks don't want Tor users to access their pages (if they do block them, never tried it), but a BIP70 server that merely serves payment metadata? Seems kinda unnecessary, especially given the fact that payments could still be easily accepted if they had simply continued providing the advanced payment mode.

[d5000]

I'm not sure if the merchants have any say in this[...]

I meant BIP70 users in general - payment processors like Bitpay and merchantes using the payment protocol in an independent way, but not BitPay-using merchants. Sorry for being not clear enough.

The thing is, I understand if credit card providers or banks don't want Tor users to access their pages (if they do block them, never tried it), but a BIP70 server that merely serves payment metadata? Seems kinda unnecessary, especially given the fact that payments could still be easily accepted if they had simply continued providing the advanced payment mode.

Yep, that's what I meant - so I interpret BIP70 server operators (between them, Bitpay itself) can decide if they wanted to be accessed by Tor or not.

My point is that then not the protocol (BIP70) it at fault, but the operator of the server who handles it - in this case Bitpay. I wonder if it was possible to detect BIP70 servers rejecting Tor/VPN connections, so users could be warned beforehand (this could even be implemented in Bitcoin clients) - but I guess it is not ...

[HeRetiK]

I'm not sure if the merchants have any say in this[...]

I meant BIP70 users in general - payment processors like Bitpay and merchantes using the payment protocol in an independent way, but not BitPay-using merchants. Sorry for being not clear enough.

The thing is, I understand if credit card providers or banks don't want Tor users to access their pages (if they do block them, never tried it), but a BIP70 server that merely serves payment metadata? Seems kinda unnecessary, especially given the fact that payments could still be easily accepted if they had simply continued providing the advanced payment mode.

Yep, that's what I meant - so I interpret BIP70 server operators (between them, Bitpay itself) can decide if they wanted to be accessed by Tor or not.

My point is that then not the protocol (BIP70) it at fault, but the operator of the server who handles it - in this case Bitpay. I wonder if it was possible to detect BIP70 servers rejecting Tor/VPN connections, so users could be warned beforehand (this could even be implemented in Bitcoin clients) - but I guess it is not ...

Ah, sorry. You are right of course. That is indeed not a problem with BIP70 itself but rather with how BitPay implemented it.

[cellard]

I like Bitpay's Payment Protocol (BIP70) - it is - in theory - very easy to use because the merchant you want to pay generates something like a "pre-transaction" you simply import to your client and it will transact the Bitcoins to the correct address. As you only see the correct payment receiver in the wallet if you imported it correctly, there is practically zero risk to do it wrong. So it's just the method non-experts need ... [...]

Counter-argument: BIP70 deanonymizes users and should not become the de-facto standard for Bitcoin payments. As such I dislike BitPay having made BIP70 their obligatory means of payment without any fallback method (apart from using external scripts such as the one by achow101 [1]).

I fully agree though that it absolutely does improve user experience, I just wish it wouldn't be the only option offered by BitPay.


[1] https://github.com/achow101/payment-proto-interface

We have BTCpay now which is an open source alternatiev to Bitpay's thing:

https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver

You can build it here or download binaries here:

https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver/releases

BTCPay Server is an Open Source payment processor. It enables online merchants to accept bitcoins as a form of payment.

The invoice API conforms to that of the centralized payment processor BitPay. This allows easy migration of a merchant's code base to their own self-hosted payment processor. This enables all the benefits of using a full node wallet; such as censorship-resistance, control over your own funds, trustless validation, uptime and privacy.

BTCPay is easy to deploy via the one-click deploy on Azure.

Every business under Bitpay control must switch to BTCpay.