Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a cryptocurrency?
The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another altcoin, is a positive for me.
The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another altcoin, is a positive for me.
But they'll be competing against people that don't do that, so unless their content is really really good and unique, they'll lose in the market and either adapt or die. Maybe some mega celebrities could pull that off, but it would be pretty rare.
I mean, they could easily be doing that right now. $1.99 is high enough that the problem of micro payments isn't really a problem at that price. But they don't because it would be a terrible strategy...
That's already the case, yet there is no way to escape. We need to go back to browsers that don't take over our computer (harvest personal info etc).
How is anybody accepting micro payments currently? What technology do they use?
I believe there are people creating micropayment superchat like systems for crypto, but its difficult when its not integrated into the browser/not integrated into content as well as it is with youtube.
Brave has a pretty cool tipping feature that I’ve used a handful of times, but it’s not integrated into the user experience in a way that people actually use/very few people seem to know about it or use it.
I’m curious to know how it could be more widely adopted. Maybe a Flask integration? Other ideas?
I agree with long term concerns as block rewards decrease, though, which is why I prefer Monero’s tail emission to Bitcoin’s model.
Part of the brilliance of block rewards is it actually does pay for itself. Miners are rewarded for their efforts, and the reward amount varies based on the needs of the network.
At least that’s been true for the past decade, prior to getting towards the supply cap. It’ll be extremely interesting to see how miners behave as the rewards decrease in reality vs in theory. My personal belief is that the lack of tail emission and resultant price increase will keep bitcoin alive indefinitely, but make it more and more static overtime, even with stuff like lightning, and turn it into a kind of reserve note. This is not a novel theory and is what many are seeing happening.
I’m most bullish on Monero long term/think it’s extremely under-appreciated as a viable means for the mind of decentralized uncensorable micro-transactions people in the space all fantasize about.
Just because one browser bakes it in, it doesn't mean the resources created are limited to being accessed through that browser.
The concept seems to first appear in Nick Szabo's paper in 1999:
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/micropayments-and-...
Things like Brave's Basic Attention Token seem to solve this problem in the sense that it's completely automatic based on the amount of time spent on each site. But then you have to use Brave, and you have to use BAT...
In my case, most of the money would go to YouTube, Reddit and HN. (I think Brave actually has a way to send the money to individual creators on a site rather than to the site itself. But I haven't used it personally.)
I don’t mind paying for certain things, but the crypto trend is very much pay to play.
HN comments aren't free to host though. There is compute involved. How are they paying for that compute?
If it is out of boredom and good will, that's cool. But I very much am keeping that in mind when I comment here. I don't expect a hobby site to stay up long term because they'll just shut it down when it stops being fun.
If HN is paying for this from advertisements and job postings, well there is your answer. It is commercial.
I am not against commerce; I am against a pay-to-play internet.
You aren’t paying a fraction of a cent to post comments, but you’re paying in other ways. You just prefer the business model of HN, but i find the fraction of a cent model to be more straightforward and clear.
Would you say that Youtube is “free” as well?
Many people would simply prefer a more transparent / straight forward business model and I don’t think they are wrong for having that preference.
I would say that Youtube is pay to play as well. You’re just paying with your attention to their advertisers.
I don’t think this logic is misplaced. HN has the same business model as all “free” tech platforms, doesn’t it?
For better or worse, for most people the browser is the internet right now.
Yes: to not implement them at all.
I'm not a fan of cryptocurrencies by any measure, but I can understand why people would like that.
Why would I be against payments being built into browsers in a standardised and open source, open standards way if it might eventually solve those problems?
Since when has paying for content meant no ads?
I pay for a newspaper - ads, I pay for cable tv - ads, I pay for the internet - ads, I pay road tax - ads, I go to the cinema - ads, I buy a ticket to a sporting event - ads.
That is before we get to the influencer product placement world.
That ads still exist in other places where you've ostensibly paid for the content doesn't invalidate the op's preferences.
You can get ad packed content free, you can get ad-free content, you can get paid content that has ads, or paid content that is ad-free.
The "I paid for it" input has zero weight when it comes to determining if the content has ads is sponsored, infuenced or otherwise paid for.
1. As long as they’re paying a reasonable amount, paying customers should be more motivating to the company than whoever’s buying ads (because they provide more revenue), which means they are hopefully trying to keep me happy with their service.
2. I hate ads because I don’t want to see them, much less be distracted, or worse, influenced by them.
So I pay for content and run browser and DNS level ad blockers aggressively on all devices, as well as using reader mode wherever possible.
If I can’t avoid the ads I’ll usually go without. You’ll never find me watching broadcast TV.
So yeah, if a browser can fix this problem with P2P payments, that would be huge.
AFAIK they aren't advocating for the banning of other browsers (like Chrome), so if you don't want to use a browser that has support for that protocol, you can choose one that doesn't.
It’s not a “really hard problem” - cryptocurrency is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.
Then what's the solution?
As far as 'micropayments,' that is begging for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'll give you an example. Netflix users watch about 100 hours of their service a month, for $15.59. So 15 cents an hour. There is no scenario in which Netflix benefits from creating a virtual currency in their system pegged at 15 cents an hour (think Flix-Bux), people are already pushing back hard on these internal 'currencies.' The irony is not lost on me the amount of energy used by smart dudes to create a browser that is proposing virtual currency which has been utilize to nickle and dime gamers from adolescence to adulthood (robux, vbucks, the plethroa of 'money sellers' on many platforms).
Nothing about this is about freedom, this is all about changing one central control structure for another, with little crumbs of implication that it's better for users and sellers alike.
I might be wrong, but no one responded to my question with an answer of a better solution than crypto. All they say is: "should not do it". Well, the question was not whether they should do it or not. They already did.
You think crypto is on the net positive side of nothing. A great number of HN do not see it as such they see it as a constant source of scams, funding hype source, fraud, speculation, laundering, and so on with little to actually show in the way of being the world changer it is always promised. The point of that isn't to bring up a debate about if crypto is or isn't so, that conversation has been rehashed a thousand times here and nobody really wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole plus much better resources on the topic exist than comments, it's mentioned as why that portion is wary of a product which puts a lot of spotlight on crypto payments being a core part of why it exists instead of just focusing on the initial crypto based revolution it is already promising: a p2p decentralized browsing experience. Combine the two and you've got something that for many is squarely in the "I'm not going to touch this until it is shown to not be like the other stories and wish it wasn't about payments" camp.
I consider my industry to be Media. I wanted to be a Journalist(TM) when I grew up. Won a contest...went to a major paper in Boston as part of a group of "those that will one day be Woodward and Bernstein." Then Youtube happened. I pooh-poohed it because I couldn't wrap my head around why anyone, in my thoughts at the time, "would want to watch a bunch of amateurs do x."
Fast forward to today. I watch more YouTube than Netflix and Prime Video combined. These are the only two services we still pay for...we used to also have HBO and Acorn, but they are both one trick ponies and are not adding enough compelling content quickly enough. Also after HBO ruined ASOIF, they landed on my no-go list forevermore. Acorn is simply too expensive for what it offers. It might become for compelling if it were to expand to the Scandies...
I currently maintain a folder on my desktop (one of hundreds) called The Olsen Meter. And in the folder I save every article I come across about industry people-in this case finance industry folks-who I feel are making the same mistake I did all those years ago by pooh poohing crypto. The problems will get worked out...they always do. The energy issue is a sideshow. And mainly bandied about by those who (I feel) are reacting out of nervousness about the future and the unknowns. Crypto is constantly maligned because of the hacks and thefts, but the most stolen currency in the World is/was/always will be the US $100 bill. To the tune of Trillions. Crypto and is multi-billions have quite aways to go before it even comes close.
As to whether or not this will solve the micropayments problem, maybe not but I like the idea of it as a stopgap. Until someone builds something newer and better. And if it keeps journalists from selling their souls to corporations via ads, then the Devil I know and like will always be a better deal.
Last thing I'd like you to consider: How does Dr. Beverly Crusher pay for fabric on TNG in Episode 1? Now before you dismiss the question, realize that she has never been on this planet before, this is the first time they (the crew) have met the Bandi and she procures a whole bolt of beautiful fabric with one sentence? How does the vendor know whether or not she's good for it?
There's tons of cool P2P web stuff to do that isn't payments. And I don't want my browser to have a payment mechanism baked in anyway.
Along a different line of criticism, my bet is P2P payments in the long run is a nonstarter because once legislation catches up (which it will) every peer will need to be as compliant with financial regulations as a bank which is no fun to run as a peer so things centralize and we're back where we started.
And Bitcoin is absolutely not a positive. It's incredibly destructive to the environment (and in some cases, national economies and power grids) to the extent even diehard cryptocurrency advocates are warning everyone away from Proof-of-Work in favor of alternative schemes like Proof-of-Stake. Bitcoin is notable for being the one that popularized the tech, but there have been massive improvements on the core idea since then.