Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

It really doesn't. Crypto solves anonymity, making it possible for operations to take payments in ways that can't be regulated based on content.

It doesn't solve trust. In fact existing solutions fall way, way, short of what consumers already have. A provider that accepts crypto is 100% unaccountable. You can't do a chargeback on Bitcoin. You get what you get once you make that payment.

Now, it's true that there is an ever growing stable of technologies trying repeatedly to solve the trust problem on top of a crypto base. And none have been remotely successful in any market. Almost all have significant drawbacks. Some have included absolute whoppers of security bugs.

You have to crack that second part before declaring that "crypto solves this". Until then, you aren't going to see any successful small payment markets on this stuff.

View on HN

What does this have to do with trust? Clearly the current users trust OnlyFans, and I doubt very many people are worried they’re going to disappear in the middle of the night and turn off the porn.

“Yeah I’ll throw $50 into this OnlyFans subscription, but only if I can get a chargeback if I’m not happy with the performer” said nobody ever.

It's a stack, though. Sure, no sex work consumer ever said that[1], but their bank sure as hell did. Which is why they had a handy credit card in their pocket with which they were able to easily pay OnlyFans, who were able to easily receive the transaction. It's about TRUST. Banks and consumers and providers work together to come up with a framework where fraud is so difficult as to be largely a vanishing concern for routine transactions.

And that's what you need in the crypto world. It's not enough to have anonymity. It's just not. And that's why this hasn't been solved yet. Keep at it.

[1] Actually some did, who was the starlet that produced a giant chargeback flood a while back by promising nudity she didn't deliver? I'm not the expert but I remember the story.

The lack of charge back is really a small issue. I don't think it applies here. Crypto does solve this problem. Even if there's the lack of charge back, it still overcomes the censorship problem, which traditional systems do not. So do you want censorship + charge back? Or no censorship and no charge back? In this case, I think it's clearly the latter.

You're missing the point. "Chargeback" happens to be a mechanism that exists to promote trust in the market. Trust is the requirement, not mechanism. Right now no one uses crypto to send folks $20 a month for n00dz. Period. No one does this. Why?

Trust. Crypto providers don't trust they won't be hacked. Crypto consumers don't trust they aren't being scammed. There's no trust.

But their Visa card or OnlyFans account? Those they trust. Credit card billing has been around for decades and we all know it works.

Crypto needs to be like that. Address the Trust Problem. Stop fixating on anonymity.

The traditional banking mechanisms are designed to pull money from accounts. That requires a way to correct errors and fraud. If the only way to transact is for a verified account owner to push the money out, a chargeback isn't needed as much.

It's probably more like "I'll throw $50 into this OnlyFans subscription, but only if I can get a chargeback if it's actually just a bunch of cat pictures." There's a lot of scams on the internet, adult industry or no.

> It really doesn't. Crypto solves anonymity.

Depends on the cryptocurrency. If you're talking about Monero then yes.

As for the others, they are far less private than you think and the majority of cryptocurrencies out there can still be traced.

Heh, and intra-crypto wars like this are one of the reasons the Trust Problem hasn't been cracked yet. People are too busy trying to fix the part that's already solved!

I mean, look. Yes, there are ways to trace bitcoin et. al. given some level of sophistication. But the threat model isn't an intelligence agency trying to unmask a single porn consumer or cam worker. These technologies are "anonymous enough" so that an outfit like OnlyFans can reliably take payment from arbitrary consumers without fear of regulatory interference. This part really is solved. It's just not enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com