AFAIK, pr0nhub currently only accepts crypto payment.
PH didn't decide "we are only gonna accept crypto so we can circumvent the system" it was a position forced upon them as a punishment for their shitty behavior. Now they are trying very hard to moderate effectively in order to win back the good graces of the payment processors because they are probably going to eventually go bankrupt if they don't.
the post claimed that Pornhub has been targeted because of their industry.
i have never verified the veracity of these claims, but they seem plausible
Facebook is also orders of magnitude larger and has to deal with content that blurs the line between legal and illegal. It's a significantly more difficult task.
All of Pornhub's content blurs the line between legal and illegal, depending on the jurisdiction. Every single piece of content they deal with.
That's a pretty freaking blurry line.
From what I can tell they actually do more than anyone can expect.
Its a forced position because PH very much wanted to continue to accept credit cards, which I suspect was where 99% of their income was from. However, the payment processors blacklisted them so they can't.
Wife catches a weird pornhub charge on your monthly statement? Whoops! Those hackers are at it again. Call it fraud and charge it off.
The high cc processing rate accommodates the increased risk.
Btc solves this as no chargeback is possible.
It also doesn't explain why porn actors routinely find their checking accounts closed out on them, or they get blacklisted entirely.
It has nothing to do with risk, and everything to do with Christian fundamentalists in the banking industry exploiting their positions in industries we need, to force their morals on others.
Buyer initiates purchase, and the seller gives them a window of x minutes to send y btc to an address, where the price of the service is denominated in btc as of the trading price at that moment.
If at least 1 transaction doesn't show up on the btc network in the x minutes, that transaction times out.
If at least 1 does, then the seller waits for w confirmations to take place before the payment is recognized as valid, where w is set to their tolerance. I've seen as low as 3 and as high as 7.
It is not centralized as in a central entity needs to approve your transaction.
1. Relies on some central entity to buy/sell it as to peg/back it to another asset.
2. Relies on some central observer to sign exchange rates so that the system can automatically adjust its reward system.
I'm guessing it's the latter. But feel free to explain to me how it isn't centralized if you think you have a case for it.
The oracle is handled by Chainlink which is decentralized.
>The first is handled by arbitragers who can mint/redeem it for other decentralized assets (it is fully collateralized by a treasury of decentralized assets).
Sure, but the parameters of this mint/reward system are a function of the exchange rate, are they not? Even then, those decentralized assets are either other stablecoins, or non-stablecoins. If it's backed by stablecoins, then it's centralized. If it's backed by non-stablecoins, then it's non-stable.
>The oracle is handled by Chainlink which is decentralized.
You can't have a decentralized oracle in any meaningful way, it is like what truthcoin tried to do. I admittedly have no idea how chain-link works, but I am pretty certain that it is not decentralized. It is almost a truism that members of distributed system cannot verify arbitrary facts about the outside world (for example, exchange rates) without having trusted oracle/oracles. You can try to make the system reliant on many different oracles, but that is similar to classical consensus and there's no distributed way to prevent them from colluding. It is essentially the problem with proof-of-stake.
If you ask me, Fei looks like yet another ponzi system like USDT/LUNA. Why are stablecoin owners always rewarded for merely holding?
You can absolutely have price oracles of crypto assets without any interaction offchain, as you can use uniswap market prices and if they differ from any other exchanges arbitragers will make a profit by fixing that difference. But that is another oracle that is different from chainlink.
Chainlink is decentralized. It could possibly be attacked with enough effort and money to destabilize things but that is a totally different threat vector than the government restricting trading to services it doesn't like or censoring users.
Fei is backed only by decentralized assets.
UST was backed by nothing which is why it collapsed, Fei is over collateralized. You don't get any rewards for holding Fei.
Uniswap is only between cryptocurrencies. As I said earlier, those cryptocurrencies are either other stablecoins, or non-stablecoins. If it's backed by stablecoins, then it's centralized. If it's backed by non-stablecoins, then it's non-stable.
Chainlink is, from what I understand, a truthcoin-like system where oracles put down collateral. It is fundamentally a broken system because whatever group with the majority of the collateral just wins. What is stopping a government that can censor users and restrict trading from forcing oracles to collude and report false information?
I addressed your comment on Chainlink already, yes it could come under pressure or attack which would destabilize the network. This could be used to break many things, but it's not a vector for censorship / centralization because it has nothing to do with Fei's use as a currency and definitely doesn't make Fei centralised.
Fei's reward system is controlled by whichever party controls the oracles. You can outsource the oracles to a proof-of-stake-like system on chainlink, but that doesn't get rid of the fundamental problem.