Forcing someone to accept payments is the other side of the same coin.
I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments.
If anything, this is just a wakeup call that the credit duopoly have more power than we realized.
Kim Dotcom is nothing if not resilient. It is morally and ethically complicated to root for him in every aspect, but I fully expect him to come up with a clever solution to bypass this duopoly in a way that the average user can accept. I don't know if there's any question for which Bitcoin is an unqualified right answer, but this may be as close as I've seen it come.
> I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments
Most industries are regulated to some extent to prevent collusion and abuse of various forms. Do you disagree with regulation in general, or what makes you think payment processors in particular should not be forced to accept all lawful transactions?
Capitalism in general lends itself to institutionalized repression of the minority, and I don't claim to have a solution to that. My gut tells me that the government forcing private business is not always the right answer (though it sometimes is; I'm not anti-regulation in general). Perhaps my gut is wrong, because I can't come up with a higher-level solution.
For a start, payment processors should have some freedom to refuse merchants selling any thing that looks like snake oil: Requiring merchants to keep deposits and having putative chargebacks may not be enough to compensate processors for the reputational risks they are taking.
I disagree. If you only have 2 viable options for accepting payment world wide, then they need to accept all lawful transactions. Bitcoin isn't a viable option for Grandma.
If Grandma is that technically incompetent, the only thing viable for her is cash and check. They couldn't pay with PayPal anyway. Someone who is technical enough to pay with PayPal, however, can pay with Bitcoin all the same -- the hurdle is in making sure it's understood as a cash transaction with refunds at the mercy of the seller.
The hurdle is with not letting someone take your money. Right now every other month there's a scandal because either some technically savvy cryptoanarchists were apparently not savvy enough and got their money stolen, or some exchange decides to rob everyone altogether.
So explain to me how any grandma is supposed to work with a system that even techies constantly get burned by it?
The same way they currently work in a system everyone gets burned by? The main benefits of the current system from my perspective are that fraud detection algorithms are really good now, in the cases of credit card fraud the CC companies usually just credit back the stolen amount to the customer (which unfortunately hurts sellers since buyer fraud is still common), and when events like $300m-$900m getting stolen from banks happen, the overall system generates so much profit that it mostly gets swept under the rug and the average person isn't hurt. (FDIC helps too.) Despite all these benefits, the elderly are still routinely scammed out of money. (Some reports suggest increasingly.)
I haven't heard anything about outright bitcoin thefts from privately owned wallets with a password protecting them, but then again I don't follow bitcoin too closely. The typical drama I hear is an exchange shutting down (why would the elderly have their btc on an exchange when their bank account funds aren't on an exchange?) and occasionally someone's unencrypted wallet backup on a compromised server being taken. There was also the issue with the android wallets a while back generating insecure keys. I'm not convinced the elderly would lose any more than they already do on average given they're using bitcoin (which I think they're fully capable of using if they're already using online payment systems). Anyway this is kind of a fruitless discussion for this instance. Grandmas don't use MEGA.
It will take a lot more than "market pressure" to make Bitcoin a safe, usable option for Grandma.
We desperately need a digital currency standard that offers security and user-friendliness without being centralized in a cabal of shadowy clearinghouses, and without ridiculous technical limitations that keep it from being more than an overpromoted academic exercise.
Actually, you can absolutely have a say in bitcoin's operation or design decisions.
From the bitcoin FAQ:
Bitcoin is a distributed network, so any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users. Someone trying to change the way Bitcoins are generated would have to convince every user to download and use their software – so the only changes that would go through are those that would be equally benefit all users.
And thus, it is more or less impossible for anyone to change the function of Bitcoin to their advantage. If users don't like the changes, they won't adopt them, whereas if users do like them, then these will help everyone equally. Of course, one can conceive of a situation where someone manages to get a change pushed through that provides them with an advantage that no one notices, but given that Bitcoin is structurally relatively simple, it is unlikely that any major changes will go through without someone noticing first.
The fact that such changes are so difficult to make testifies to the fully distributed nature of Bitcoin. Any centrally controlled currency can be modified by its central agency without the consent of its adherents. Bitcoin has no central authority, so it changes only at the behest of the whole community. Bitcoins development represents a kind of collective evolution; the first of its kind among currencies.
Can you explain the connection between what you copypasted and the idea that I have a say in how Bitcoin operates?
I'm struggling to see how "any changes implemented to the system must be accepted by all users" is democratic, or gives any decision-making authority to the people.
The wording is inaccurate in that instead of /all/ users it should say the /majority/ of users must accept changes proposed to bitcoin. Regardless, you honestly don't see how that gives the decision-making power to the people? Why do you think that?
I don't see how that gives decision-making power to the people.
I do think that sets an extraordinarily high barrier to making any changes; far higher than a citizenship test or a poll tax, two other things that have been discarded as antithetical to a democratic right to vote.
You mean like the shit-show that railways, telephones, and the internet as it stands right now are?
edit: In addition to down voting me zaroth, would you mind including examples of how common carrier doesn't work for the examples I provided? I'm genuinely interested.
There's better discussion elsewhere on this thread about some reasons why it's actually better to live in a world where PayPal can drop Mega if they feel like it than a world in which they can't.
Umm... and FYI, I pretty much always upvote replies to my comments regardless of content. I would not down vote your reply even if I could.
I'm sorry about that incorrect assumption, I was unaware of how the system worked, and it happened seemingly instantly. And there may have been some beer somewhere in the mix...
> I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments.
While I 100% agree in principal in reality there are so few options to accepting payments online that if a couple of the big guys block you then you're completely out of business. When you have an industry controlled by just a couple of companies that everyone in the world has to essentially use, there is a big concern there.
Actually what you oppose is considering them common carriers. The government has forced business to accept customers in the past and they applied similar theory to net neutrality yesterday.
If they are allowed, how is the criteria selected? Are you(payment industry) going to stop payments for the following:
Atheist groups?
Islamic non-terrorist groups?
Foreign countries you don't 'like'?
Libertarians/Greens/Socialists/Communists?
Non profits you don't like?
Church of Satan donations?
They have a monopoly over the bulk of commerce, as does PayPal. And they act as a cartel, de-facto banning whatever they disapprove of. In other words, having them strongarm businesses is killing their connection to the market.
With the exception of discriminating against certain protected classes, American companies are generally free to decide who they want as a customer and who they don't. You don't have a right to credit card processing any more than you have a right to eat at a fancy restaurant or hire a developer -- imagine if contract developers weren't allowed to turn down clients.
On the other hand, there is a legal obligation to process dollar bills for debts. In a world where everything is increasingly digital, it would be nice if there was a government-sanctioned option that doesn't discriminate against any [legal] services.
There is the concept of legal tender, which creditors are required to accept as payment of debts (it's printed on US currency). We need some kind of electronic payment equivalent.
You are thinking too literally. An electronic legal tender must necessarily have an electronic means of conveying it. That may not be Visa, but the means of payment would be just as essential to the concept as acceptance of payment.
I wouldn't put too much credence on the US government to figure this out in any sort of timely manner. There's plenty of areas in our country which are years behind in terms of governance, policy and societal effects.
They're still playing the game "if it's an internet technology, the Constitution doesn't really apply".. So to see if they could wrap their heads around an internet based currency is pretty much a joke.
And then I think, how did the FCC decision pass? Bureaucracy. It's not the Legislative/Executive/Judicial.
Not only are they allowed to reject customers at will, but they are required to by US law. The PATRIOT Act altered US anti money laundering rules in a subtle but important way. It deleted the "mens rea" requirement and converted money laundering into what's called a strict liability crime.
In English, that means any company that routes money around is criminally liable for any crimes committed by their clients - even if they didn't know about them or believed the activity was legal.
In effect, every banker and money transmitter in the world can face a 20 year jail sentence and/or crippling fines if ANY of their clients are themselves considered to be or merely suspected of being, criminals. No trial needed.
This is why you keep reading about banks being involved in money laundering. It's impossible to move money and not be considered a money launderer by the US government these days.
So this puts VISA/MC/PayPal in an impossible bind. They can look at Mega and say, well, this seems like a legal business. There's no law obviously being broken. But the guy is being charged over a previous business, accused of being a criminal. If they give him financial services and then years later this new Mega is also suspected of being criminal (note: suspected not proved) then VISA/MC can find headlines like "Visa found guilty of money laundering".
They have lots of clients, so from their perspective, eliminating all the politically risky ones is a no brainer.
Same thing for Wikileaks, CAGE (UK civil rights group), the entire nation of Somalia etc ... they all lose banking services because they are politically unpopular and therefore expose bankers to AML violations.
Yes, of course. Companies shouldn't be forced to provide service if they feel it's not in their best interest. If you were a consultant (you may be), would it be reasonable to force you to accept any client?
Things that serve all people without choice are utilities, and should be left to the government (either directly or through strict regulation).
I don't want my government to strongarm credit companies into refusing to process payments for politically troublesome customers. But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments.
If anything, this is just a wakeup call that the credit duopoly have more power than we realized.
Kim Dotcom is nothing if not resilient. It is morally and ethically complicated to root for him in every aspect, but I fully expect him to come up with a clever solution to bypass this duopoly in a way that the average user can accept. I don't know if there's any question for which Bitcoin is an unqualified right answer, but this may be as close as I've seen it come.