
Microsoft Store doesn't accept Bitcoin anymore - mathieutd
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin
======
minimaxir
Mozilla did A/B testing last year showing that simply offering a Bitcoin
option reduced the amount of donations to the org _overall_ by 7.5% on
average. [http://insidebitcoins.com/news/mozilla-study-shows-
bitcoin-h...](http://insidebitcoins.com/news/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-has-
negative-impact-on-donations/34466)

It is possible that just associating with Bitcoin makes the consumer more
skeptical.

~~~
jarcane
I pretty much see taking bitcoin as an automatic sign to be wary of a
business. I have walked away from online stores or services because they
offered it.

At best, it shows an incredibly shaky understanding of how to build a sound
business. At worst it signals a level of shadiness I don't want my money
anywhere near.

EDIT: I am surprised that a community which so regularly likes to makes claims
at business acumen would have so many eager commenters who would need to
actually have it explained why use of a currency with more price fluctuations
that the Zimbabwe dollar, and which cannot be reliably exchanged for other
currencies because its money changing firms go out of business or turn out to
be open frauds on a near-monthly bases, is not a sound business decision.

~~~
alykhalid
Can you elaborate as to why you came to this conclusion. What factors /
information drove you to associate bitcoin with an unsound or shady business ?

~~~
lordgilman
[http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/](http://simplikation.com/why-
sealioning-is-bad/)

~~~
ikeboy
I sympathize with those who feel that explaining there views to people who
don't know a lot about the topic is a waste of time. But if you decide that
for a given topic, _don 't go to a forum and make claims_! If you make claims,
be prepared to back them up; if you aren't prepared, refrain from making
claims.

An exception is if you have authority that will shift people's beliefs even
without backup.

Another exception can be if you merely post links, and don't endorse any
statements beyond that link. Then you're performing the service of providing
more information, and any problems can be taken up with the original author.

But making claims and refusing to back them up or clarify on account of
trollphobia is borderline troll itself.

------
danbruc
Bitcoin is dead and has been for years. And nobody broke it, it is just a
solution without a problem. Sure, Mt. Gox, ASICs and the block size debate
didn't exactly help Bitcoin, but nothing of that broke it.

Yes, Bitcoin has some nice theoretical properties, but the masses don't need
them. What good is an anonymous currency for buying stuff if the next thing I
do is entering my shipping address? Whether the system is decentralized or
centralized, the average user doesn't give a shit as long as it works. I don't
have to trust a bank? I don't care, I never had any issues.

And with Bitcoin I have to trust every single seller, no way to charge back in
case they don't deliverer. Multisignature escrow transaction you say? Well,
now we are back at square one with trusted third parties.

I am from first world country with working banking system, Bitcoin is for
countries with a lot of unbanked people you say? A system that needlessly
burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year to provide
anonymity no one asked for can hardly be the best solution.

People that are still into Bitcoin just haven't yet really thought things
through, hope to capitalize on greater fools, are into some less legal
business or something along that line. Half a decade ago I really loved the
idea of Bitcoin but since then enough time has passed to really understand the
system and its implications. He's dead, Jim.

~~~
adrianmacneil
I think you're missing the point that Bitcoin is an interesting payment
network, despite the fact that as a consumer currency it's not particularly
useful. Regardless of whether you or anyone wants an anonymous digital
currency, or whether Bitcoin succeeds as being the dominant blockchain network
in the long run, there's no denying that it's an interesting and useful
technology. I see many commenters on HN who don't seem to understand the
difference between these.

~~~
danbruc
It is an interesting idea, definitely. I can also easily imagine that a future
cryptocurrency will see widespread adoption. But I can not see how Bitcoin or
something build on top of Bitcoin or something very similar to Bitcoin could
achieve this.

What I don't understand in your comment, what is the relevant difference
between Bitcoin as payment network and Bitcoin as currency that may make it
work in one case but not the other. Interesting, yes, useful in its current
incarnation, I don't see that.

------
geographomics
Unsurprising that they've ceased to accept Bitcoin. The only significant use
cases thus far have been ransomware and buying recreational drugs. And early
adopters cashing out of the pyramid scheme.

~~~
minimaxir
Yesterday, 21.co made a blog post proposing a micropayments API:
[https://medium.com/@21/the-first-micropayments-
marketplace-3...](https://medium.com/@21/the-first-micropayments-
marketplace-38c321127d12)

The two key value propositions noted in the post are:

> Buy APIs instantly without signup or credit card

> Sell APIs instantly without a bank account

...which are solutions looking for a problem. If you are working with _legal_
businesses and dealing with signup, credit cards, or bank accounts are deal
breakers, then there are other significant problems with your business model.

~~~
kuschku
Take for example most Germans.

We don’t have credit cards. At all. We use EC (the E in EMV), which is a
completely independent payment system, but isn’t used at all outside of
Europe.

So, no US websites accept it.

I’ve been trying for 3 years to find an actually free way to send Google money
to get a Google Play Dev account, but the only way is to pay money to get a
credit card.

Seriously, if companies in the US would just accept a fucking international
wire transfer – globally standardized, free to send and accept, processes in a
few minutes – I could use a lot more international services.

But the way it is, I can’t.

~~~
maaku
You need to pay money to get a credit card?

As for wire transfers, they are most definitely not free to send or receive in
the US. Fees are on the order of $25 each way depending on the bank, and
actual humans and faxed forms are involved.

~~~
halviti
I don't know how it is in Germany, but in my country you pay for credit cards,
and the amount you pay for the card determines how much insurance you have, as
most all provide some type of travellers/medical/theft/etc. type of insurance.

Everyone pays their credit cards off every month because it's the law. If you
are unable to pay, you can work out arrangements with the bank. If you need to
use lots of money you don't have, you ask the bank for a loan and pay it back
gradually.

It's my understanding that in the US, card companies make their money off fees
and interest, which to me sounds like a much less appealing system designed to
take advantage of the consumer.

~~~
throwaway160303
I suspect the fees+interest thing is mostly a cover story. As unflattering as
it seems, I'd be unsurprised to learn that the three pages of fine print are a
calculated display, to make it seem as though they're merely not-entirely-
oriented-to-the-public-good but otherwise aboveboard private corporations. And
it's not as if they _don 't_ get some income from putting the screws to those
short on cash, but if that were the extent of it then I should never get a
credit card offer, ever. My only credit history is on-time rent payments, and
my employment history + no dependents + no college loans should make it
obvious that I would never generate any income from late-payment fees or
interest. And yet, I've received offers throughout my adult life.

But even if they never saw a penny of income directly from me, what they would
still get out of it would be the _data_. And insight into the purchase habits
of consumers with plenty of expendable income - the same people that would
otherwise be a losing proposition for a business that actually relied on
failure to pay on time to stay afloat - seems like it'd be far more valuable
than the entirety of what they'd be able to squeeze out of the already-cash-
strapped.

I'm actually highly impressed at the extent to which they're completely
successful in focusing the public discussion on their "outrageous" and
exploitative policies. They put on a thoroughly convincing show of fighting
tooth-and-nail against regulations to reign in that behavior. But I think it's
because, if it ever got seriously done, people would start asking how it was
they were still in business - and they would definitely still be in business.
But the finance operation is just how they collect the raw material for their
actual product.

~~~
eyeJam
I think you have an interesting argument here but I would like to raise some
points as counter-arguments:

1\. Your argument is premised on the fact that since you personally have been
offered a credit card, and you personally have almost no credit history, that
therefore credit card companies don't make money from charging interest on
late-payments. That's an absurd premise.

2\. I believe, based only on my subjective observations, that you are the
exception in your use of credit. Many people are irresponsible in how they use
credit cards and end up paying exorbitant interest to credit card companies.
Mostly lower-middle class individuals who are trying to live beyond their
means. In Canada the average citizen carries ~20 000$ of personal debt
(excluding mortgages) and the majority of that is credit card debt.

3\. I think you're ignoring the "brand" value of having market saturation for
your product. For example, Coke vs Pepsi. Yes they are not exactly the same
product but they're very similar and there's no doubt that Coke has reaped a
huge benefit from having dominant market share. When you go to a diner and
order a burger, and they ask you what you want to drink, if you want a cola
you say "I'll have a Coke please". Its understood by that request that you
want a cola, and would likely be okay with either a Coke or a Pepsi, but
regardless you said Coke, and there's the value of market saturation. So yes
the credit card companies want to get as many customers as possible to use
their product in an attempt to saturate the market.

4\. Credit card companies also charge merchants for using credit cards so even
if the customers paid all their bills on time the credit card companies would
still be making money. I don't imagine they make the majority of their money
from charging merchants but it is still revenue they want in their coffers.

5\. Your final point borders on a conspiracy theory.

------
echelon
Does anyone have any idea why this is? Have companies moved on from
considering Bitcoin something serious?

I imagine their Bitcoin code was too expensive to maintain relative to the
transaction volume it brought. Could this be a sign of things to come from
other companies that support Bitcoin, and if others follow in Microsoft's
footsteps, does this impact Bitcoin at all?

~~~
valhalla
If the Microsoft was liquidating bit coin the way planetjones describes, it
was probably too inconvenient since the exchange rate (Bitcoin to $) would
fluctuate so unpredictably and wildy (at times) there was no way to reliably
exchange bitcoins for the _exact_ amount customers were charged.

If the exchange rate was too low, MSFT would lose money. If it was too high,
they'd be breaking a number of very basic but important laws that are designed
to protect consumers.

~~~
LukeHoersten
Microsoft did liquidate to USD right away using a company called BitPay.
BitPay would take on the short term price risk and Microsoft would get exactly
what they quoted in USD. Microsoft was not subject to BTCUSD price fluctuation
in this scheme.

------
pbreit
The move is to add bitcoin to your online store, generate a bit of buzz from
the gimmick and then remove it since it makes no sense.

~~~
minimaxir
Adding a Bitcoin payment option is not "free," since there is non-technical
overhead opportunity cost/QA/support involved with adding Bitcoin payments,
even if using a payment processing API eliminates the technical overhead.

It is too much effort for "a bit of buzz."

~~~
makomk
Probably the support overhead especially. The most popular Bitcoin payment
provider (Coinbase) apparently fails transactions and requires manual
intervention if they don't receive them within 15 minutes, and I'm not sure
what they mean by receive but it happened to me despite sending payment within
a couple of minutes of starting the transaction. Per the docs, they don't send
any kind of API callback if this happens, just an automated e-mail telling the
vendor what happened.

Of course, that's an ongoing cost so it kind of makes sense to add Bitcoin for
the publicity and then remove it later.

------
planetjones
My understanding was that companies accepting bitcoin like Microsoft just
liquidated the BTC straight to USD anyhow. I don't blame them because of the
fluctuation risk.

However, I am not sure they were really helping bitcoin's long term viability
- other than allowing the Bitcoin millionaires to spend their coins. I suspect
not enough of these people who got rich by holding bitcoins were using their
bitcoins to justify having it as a payment method in the Microsoft store.

~~~
colejohnson66
Maybe it has to do with the obscene amount of time it takes for confirmations?

~~~
sidko
Why is the time obscene? It usually takes 45 days for confirmation if you pay
via a credit card. Compare that to about 60 minutes for 6 confirmations on the
Bitcoin blockchain, and it's orders of magnitude higher.

You aren't actually comparing the few seconds it takes to swipe your credit
card to 60 minute Bitcoin confirmation I hope. It's about 'reversibility' of a
transaction - for a Bitcoin transaction to propagate takes about the same time
as a credit card swipe to propagate.

Edit: Wow why the downvotes? Seems like people here don't understand the first
thing about how payments work in the real world. The funds are not 'confirmed'
instantaneously. If someone walks into your store and pays you $1000 with a
card, you can't say withdraw it in cash in 2 seconds.

It takes about the same time for a 0-confirmation Bitcoin transaction as an
'unconfirmed' card transaction.

~~~
jdcarr
But there's a clear difference between being able to make a chargeback within
45 days and a payment system without reversible transactions.

Authorising the card is instantaneous and the funds can be settled into your
account within a couple of days.

------
vamur
They only disabled it for Windows 10/Mobile, probably because no one is buying
those using their store anyway.

------
qKTDxAy4KfcOjA9
The elephant in the room here is that Bitcoin is dodgy.

It's proponents claim that it has all sorts of uses, but the only thing people
actually use it for is illegal activity.

Since the Ross Ulbricht trial, it has become obvious that even using it for
illegal activity is a bad idea, as it's easily traceable.

~~~
jordigh
Sigh, I use bitcoins to get paid for online math tutoring, and I've spent them
to buy headphones online and madeleines at coffee shops.

I am not just a proponent; it just so happens that bitcoins are a convenient
form of international internet money for me.

------
Crito
I'm honestly _still_ surprised they ever did.

I wonder how much they spent implementing their ability to accept bitcoin.
Probably more than they ever made in profit.

------
LukeHoersten
Turns out Microsoft is still accepting Bitcoin. The post was a mistake.
[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/microsoft-stops-accepting-
bit...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/microsoft-stops-accepting-bitcoin-on-
windows-10.html)

------
runn1ng
I would bet there are more people commenting here on this submission than
people who ever used Bitcoin to buy anything in Microsoft Store.

~~~
bdcravens
Or used Bitcoin to buy anything.

