On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:25:17 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:18:51 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:12:50 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any effort underway to take Bitcoin Cash, Ether, or Ripple as donations? The current payment options seem fairly antiquated: credit cards, wire transfers, and the like.
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. I'd hardly call credit cards antiquated, though :-)
>
> 60-year old tech seems pretty old to me:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#BankAmericard_and_Master_Charge
>

And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:35:40PM +0000, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:25:17 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:18:51 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:12:50 UTC, Joakim wrote:
[...]
> > > > Any effort underway to take Bitcoin Cash, Ether, or Ripple as donations? The current payment options seem fairly antiquated: credit cards, wire transfers, and the like.
> > > 
> > > Not that I'm aware of. I'd hardly call credit cards antiquated, though :-)
> > 
> > 60-year old tech seems pretty old to me:
> > 
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#BankAmericard_and_Master_Charge
> > 
> 
> And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.

Common fallacy:	new == better.


T

-- 
He who laughs last thinks slowest.

On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 22:35:40 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:25:17 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:18:51 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:12:50 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any effort underway to take Bitcoin Cash, Ether, or Ripple as donations? The current payment options seem fairly antiquated: credit cards, wire transfers, and the like.
>>>
>>> Not that I'm aware of. I'd hardly call credit cards antiquated, though :-)
>>
>> 60-year old tech seems pretty old to me:
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#BankAmericard_and_Master_Charge
>>
>
> And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.

In the US maybe, not in most of the world, where they're still using cash. ;) I almost never use my cards, and like that crypto-currencies have more in similar to cash.

On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 23:10:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:35:40PM +0000, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:25:17 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:18:51 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 10:12:50 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> [...]
>> > > > [...]
>> > > 
>> > > Not that I'm aware of. I'd hardly call credit cards antiquated, though :-)
>> > 
>> > 60-year old tech seems pretty old to me:
>> > 
>> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#BankAmericard_and_Master_Charge
>> > 
>> 
>> And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.
>
> Common fallacy:	new == better.

As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:38:08 +0000, Joakim wrote:
> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.

There's no assuming going on. Cryptocurrencies are worse than credit cards for everything that normal people care about, and they're better than credit cards for illegal transactions. This might eventually change, and we can re-evaluate then.

If for some reason cryptocurrencies become popular and sufficiently stable to be used as currency, I have no doubt that existing credit card companies will start offering automatic currency exchange, so you can have an account in USD and pay a vendor who accepts only Ethereum, or vice versa. As such, accepting credit card payments is good enough.

On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 05:47:05 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:38:08 +0000, Joakim wrote:
>> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.
>
> There's no assuming going on. Cryptocurrencies are worse than credit cards for everything that normal people care about,

Such as? I already noted that they're easier and cheaper, you simply flatly state that "normal people" find them worse.

> and they're better than credit cards for illegal transactions.

Yes, just like cash, and have other benefits that come with cash too.

> This might eventually change, and we can re-evaluate then.
>
> If for some reason cryptocurrencies become popular and sufficiently stable to be used as currency, I have no doubt that existing credit card companies will start offering automatic currency exchange, so you can have an account in USD and pay a vendor who accepts only Ethereum, or vice versa. As such, accepting credit card payments is good enough.

I don't know what we'd be waiting for, the tokens I mentioned are all worth billions and widely used, particularly by techies:

https://coinmarketcap.com

Why would I wait for antiquated credit-card companies to accept these tokens? The whole point of these new tokens is to obsolete the credit card companies.

On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 02:38:08 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> In the US maybe

Well yeah, online commerce is USA-centric because anything else doesn't generate revenue.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:38:08AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 23:10:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > Common fallacy:	new == better.
> 
> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.

Another common fallacy: negation of "new == better" implies "old == better".

:-D


T

-- 
No! I'm not in denial!

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:19:29 +0000, Joakim wrote:

> On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 05:47:05 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:38:08 +0000, Joakim wrote:
>>> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.
>>
>> There's no assuming going on. Cryptocurrencies are worse than credit cards for everything that normal people care about,
> 
> Such as? I already noted that they're easier and cheaper, you simply flatly state that "normal people" find them worse.

In most countries where people are going to donate to D, the vast majority of people have access to a credit card.

>> If for some reason cryptocurrencies become popular and sufficiently stable to be used as currency, I have no doubt that existing credit card companies will start offering automatic currency exchange, so you can have an account in USD and pay a vendor who accepts only Ethereum, or vice versa. As such, accepting credit card payments is good enough.
> 
> I don't know what we'd be waiting for, the tokens I mentioned are all worth billions and widely used, particularly by techies:

Very few merchants accept any sort of cryptocurrency. I think I've found three. One was through a cryptocurrency forum, and one was Valve announcing that they would stop accepting it.

> Why would I wait for antiquated credit-card companies to accept these tokens? The whole point of these new tokens is to obsolete the credit card companies.

You wouldn't wait. You haven't waited. For you, the benefits are large enough and the downsides small enough that it doesn't make sense to wait. But I'm not you.

I would wait because I've lost access to important credentials before and had to send a copy of my government-issued ID to a company to get them to deactivate two-factor authentication. I've had to use password reset mechanisms frequently. I don't trust myself not to lose access to a cryptocurrency private key. And that would destroy currency and lose me my life savings.

I would wait because I want a mechanism to dispute transactions. Maybe I authorized that transaction, but the merchant didn't deliver.

I would wait because I want an environmentally-friendly system instead of one that uses as much electricity as Afghanistan to process fifteen transactions per second.

I would wait because cryptocurrencies have extremely volatile exchange rates, which makes it difficult to set prices or store value in them.

I would wait because I can't use cryptocurrency to do anything useful, so I would incur a fee to transfer money into it and another to transfer money out of it.

I would wait because I don't trust any cryptocurrency exchanges to stick around like I expect Visa or even a community bank to remain in business, or even not to commit fraud against me. While I might not trust my local bank much, I do trust my government to regulate them and to bail me out should the worst happen.

I think my concerns are rather normal. Judging by adoption, there's some set of concerns that's normal.

On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 02:38:08 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 22:35:40 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.
>
> In the US maybe, not in most of the world, where they're still using cash. ;) I almost never use my cards, and like that crypto-currencies have more in similar to cash.

I was referring to internet payments, as that was the conversation's context.

And you're right that cash is extremely common outside the net. Note that cash is considerably older than even credit/debit cards.

> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 23:10:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> Common fallacy:	new == better.
>
> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 17:20:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:19:29 +0000, Joakim wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 05:47:05 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:38:08 +0000, Joakim wrote:
>>>> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.
>>>
>>> There's no assuming going on. Cryptocurrencies are worse than credit cards for everything that normal people care about,
>> 
>> Such as? I already noted that they're easier and cheaper, you simply flatly state that "normal people" find them worse.
>
> In most countries where people are going to donate to D, the vast majority of people have access to a credit card.

That's not really true, and that's not actually something "worse" about cryptocurrencies. If you really mean have some lying around, it is true that more are using credit cards. If you actually mean access, crypto-currencies are pretty easy to buy these days.

>>> If for some reason cryptocurrencies become popular and sufficiently stable to be used as currency, I have no doubt that existing credit card companies will start offering automatic currency exchange, so you can have an account in USD and pay a vendor who accepts only Ethereum, or vice versa. As such, accepting credit card payments is good enough.
>> 
>> I don't know what we'd be waiting for, the tokens I mentioned are all worth billions and widely used, particularly by techies:
>
> Very few merchants accept any sort of cryptocurrency. I think I've found three. One was through a cryptocurrency forum, and one was Valve announcing that they would stop accepting it.

You must not have looked very hard, there are online retailers accepting crypto-tokens and websites that will make payments for you on Amazon or other sites through Bitcoin:

https://www.overstock.com/blockchain
https://purse.io/shop

>> Why would I wait for antiquated credit-card companies to accept these tokens? The whole point of these new tokens is to obsolete the credit card companies.
>
> You wouldn't wait. You haven't waited. For you, the benefits are large enough and the downsides small enough that it doesn't make sense to wait. But I'm not you.

No, I'm not much of a cryptocurrency user or online shopper even. I mostly buy locally with cash.

> I would wait because I've lost access to important credentials before and had to send a copy of my government-issued ID to a company to get them to deactivate two-factor authentication. I've had to use password reset mechanisms frequently. I don't trust myself not to lose access to a cryptocurrency private key. And that would destroy currency and lose me my life savings.

I don't blame you for being careful if you've had these problems, most of which I've never had, but you wildly exaggerate with your last sentence. Crypto-tokens are a replacement for cash and credit cards, which you should never be carrying around more than a couple hundred or thousand dollars worth of. If you're carrying around your life savings in cash or credit cards and are worried about moving them to bitcoin, you have much bigger problems. ;)

> I would wait because I want a mechanism to dispute transactions. Maybe I authorized that transaction, but the merchant didn't deliver.

I don't think the payment provider is the right mechanism for that. The seller wants to protect their reputation and your payment is publicly verifiable through the blockchain. There are much better ways to build trust through those building blocks than the currently broken credit card chargeback process:

https://www.shopify.com/retail/what-is-a-chargeback

> I would wait because I want an environmentally-friendly system instead of one that uses as much electricity as Afghanistan to process fifteen transactions per second.

Yes, I noted the Bitcoin "Proof of work" problem in this forum almost five years ago, so I'm well aware:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/xzuzvykrqouqlsjmkvug@forum.dlang.org

There are "Proof of stake" crypto-tokens out there that purport to avoid that issue:

https://blockgeeks.com/guides/proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake/

Ether, one of the tokens I mentioned originally, is moving to this scheme.

> I would wait because cryptocurrencies have extremely volatile exchange rates, which makes it difficult to set prices or store value in them.

If you're buying online, which is what we're talking about, it's trivially simple to track the exchange rates and instantaneously set store prices accordingly. It may be a bit different for consumers, but by the time they're all using some payments tech like this, the exchange rates will likely have settled down.

> I would wait because I can't use cryptocurrency to do anything useful, so I would incur a fee to transfer money into it and another to transfer money out of it.

Not necessarily- it depends on who you're buying your tokens from- and crypto-tokens usually work out cheaper once you include other transaction costs.

> I would wait because I don't trust any cryptocurrency exchanges to stick around like I expect Visa or even a community bank to remain in business, or even not to commit fraud against me.

You trust credit card companies and banks not to commit fraud against you, how quaint. ;)

> While I might not trust my local bank much, I do trust my government to regulate them and to bail me out should the worst happen.

I see, so you want other taxpayers to bail you out for your mistakes, interesting.

> I think my concerns are rather normal. Judging by adoption, there's some set of concerns that's normal.

Some of them are popularly held, but most are fairly irrational.

In any case, whether crypto-currencies ever go mainstream is irrelevant to this thread. They're already fairly popular among techies, from whom the D foundation is soliciting donations. As such, providing a way to accept such donations is literally a no-brainer: the work put into taking them will likely pay for itself many times over.

I've made two Bitcoin donations in the last year, and zero through cash or credit cards, and I hardly use crypto-tokens. That is the tech audience in question here, not your random peregrinations about irrelevant issues, such as mainstream adoption.

On Saturday, 27 October 2018 at 00:10:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 02:38:08 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 22:35:40 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> And yet it's still by far the most common payment method. So what if it isn't trendy. Deal with it.
>>
>> In the US maybe, not in most of the world, where they're still using cash. ;) I almost never use my cards, and like that crypto-currencies have more in similar to cash.
>
> I was referring to internet payments, as that was the conversation's context.
>
> And you're right that cash is extremely common outside the net. Note that cash is considerably older than even credit/debit cards.

Which is why cash is being replaced by crypto-tokens that maintain its benefits while being online. :)

>> On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 23:10:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>
>>> Common fallacy:	new == better.
>>
>> As with D, sometimes the new _is_ better, so perhaps you shouldn't assume old is better either.
>
> Nobody claimed otherwise.

Nor did anyone claim what Teoh wrote, so I was just showing I can put words in his mouth too. ;)