Hacker News Reader

Comment by targ65 | Hacker News Reader

"Let’s say you want to make a $100 payment to a merchant. Using your credit card would cost the merchant $3, which is then passed along to you via hidden costs. "

You also get 1-3 credit card points, which for you is extra money that you wouldn't get if you were to pay for this with Bitcoin or, for that matter, cash.

Also if the merchant screws you and sends you the wrong or a broken item, you can dispute the charge and real humans from American Express or Chase will spend their valuable time to help you resolve the dispute.

And, of course, if someone makes an outright fraudulent transaction with your card then the CC company will return your funds no questions asked. With bitcoin, your funds are lost for ever whether it was a mistake or a fraud.

These services are necessary (to build trust or for regulation reasons). If that was not the case we'd have seen a lot more real world adoption of crypto by now.

View on HN

If crypto was the default we would all be amazed at this improved system of having fraud insurance, rewards for spending, customer service, and fast transactions.

And not using more electricity than an average household consumes in a month for a single transaction.

Lightning, the technology discussed in the article, solves this problem.

> As with most layer-2 solutions, Lightning seeks to increase transaction throughput and lower costs while retaining sufficient decentralization by moving activity to a second network. Once BTC is on the Lightning network, it can be transacted instantly typically at fractions of a penny.

> Rather than expensively sending each transaction over the Bitcoin blockchain, users deposit BTC into the Lightning Network and then transact inexpensively through payment channels. As with most networks, the more people and companies that join, the more useful it becomes.

Not to mention in Europe credit card fees are capped to 0.2% of transaction value.

Americans at getting screwed with their "reward" cards.

I noticed that abroad too that no one batted an eye at using a credit card for tiny transactions worth ~$2, but in the US an independent merchant would either have a $10 minimum or charge a ¢50 fee or both.

I dunno, I'm skeptical that if merchants actually saved more money now they'd pass along those benefits to consumers. Maybe if we were at the beginning of the adoption of cards, but with those costs baked in I'd bet it'd just be pocketed as profit.

A company could offer these on top of the lightning network. The article's point is that an oligopoly of payment processors is collectively costing consumers billion. It is sad so many HN users would rather see cryptocurrency fail than see disruption of this space

But I think consumers understand that getting a Bitcoin-based payment network off the ground is far more important than any of those features you list /s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com