Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 442.

lunarboy

hero member

Activity: 544

Merit: 500

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 29, 2015, 07:55:09 PM

Quote from: tabnloz on March 29, 2015, 07:53:15 PM

Banks are charging big fees for overseas CC purchases and not bothering to inform customers which option increases fees (pay in local or Australian dollars).

does this apply to US citizens traveling abroad?

this has been happening for many years now. For all UK banks and overseas cash withdrawals, and most card transactions.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

still healthy growth. amazing:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

bad news for the USD:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102543220

tabnloz

legendary

Activity: 961

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 29, 2015, 07:55:09 PM

Quote from: tabnloz on March 29, 2015, 07:53:15 PM

Banks are charging big fees for overseas CC purchases and not bothering to inform customers which option increases fees (pay in local or Australian dollars).

does this apply to US citizens traveling abroad?

not sure, might just be Australian banks doing so? Although I assume its an industry thing. Dynamic currency conversion, one to read up on.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tabnloz on March 29, 2015, 07:53:15 PM

Banks are charging big fees for overseas CC purchases and not bothering to inform customers which option increases fees (pay in local or Australian dollars).

does this apply to US citizens traveling abroad?

tabnloz

legendary

Activity: 961

Merit: 1000

This is new - bank deposit tax in Australia

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-29/australia-start-taxing-bank-deposits

also in relation found this on Australian news site

http://www.smh.com.au/business/dynamic-currency-conversion--robbery-by-choice-20150329-1ma77q.html

Banks are charging big fees for overseas CC purchases and not bothering to inform customers which option increases fees (pay in local or Australian dollars).

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Erdogan on March 29, 2015, 10:03:26 AM

Here is my thoughts on bitcoin powered remittance:

Stage 1 is companies in each country cooperating with each other to offer transfer and conversion between two fiats. Each company can be local to a country, does not need license to do foreign exchange. They can be an exchange, or work with a local exchange. They can offer short time fixed exchange rate gurarantee through options, cooperation with someone offering options, or just make a deal with a few individuals who offer to take that exhange rate risk. No single company has to be an international company. They can offer transfer fiat to fiat.

Stage 2 is when one party in the remittance transfer is a bitcoin user. In this case, only one local company need to be involved. For instance, a sender in Europe is a bitcoin user, the receiver somewhere in Asia is a fiat user. The bitcoin user transfers fiat to to a local company in Asia operating as an exchange, who sends fiat to the receiver. For this to work, bitcoin adoption has to increase among the foreign workers.

Stage 3 is of course when both parties are bitcoin users, who do not need to convert to fiat right away, but will do it when they need to.

As far as I'm concerned Abra Global has nailed it down for the remittance use case.

I personally use rebit.ph on a regular basis and they are an exceptional service. 0% fee. Same day delivery.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: justusranvier on March 29, 2015, 05:45:56 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoAnarchy/comments/30oj5r/daniel_krawisz_this_is_whats_going_to_work_so/

this is bitcoin. legacy.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoAnarchy/comments/30oj5r/daniel_krawisz_this_is_whats_going_to_work_so/

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

it's spreading:

http://www.deepdotweb.com/2014/10/07/african-countries-set-pioneer-bitcoin-system/

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Erdogan on March 29, 2015, 10:23:32 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 29, 2015, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on March 29, 2015, 10:03:26 AM

Here is my thoughts on bitcoin powered remittance:

Stage 1 is companies in each country cooperating with each other to offer transfer and conversion between two fiats. Each company can be local to a country, does not need license to do foreign exchange. They can be an exchange, or work with a local exchange. They can offer short time fixed exchange rate gurarantee through options, cooperation with someone offering options, or just make a deal with a few individuals who offer to take that exhange rate risk. No single company has to be an international company. They can offer transfer fiat to fiat.

Stage 2 is when one party in the remittance transfer is a bitcoin user. In this case, only one local company need to be involved. For instance, a sender in Europe is a bitcoin user, the receiver somewhere in Asia is a fiat user. The bitcoin user transfers fiat to to a local company in Asia operating as an exchange, who sends fiat to the receiver. For this to work, bitcoin adoption has to increase among the foreign workers.

Stage 3 is of course when both parties are bitcoin users, who do not need to convert to fiat right away, but will do it when they need to.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113814/bitcoin-and-m-pesa-what-stands-between-them

Yep, in my categorization, M-Pesa is a local fiat (or local fiat equivalen or extension) and bitpesa is one of the local companies in stage 1 or stage 2.

Coin.ph is really cranking it. from what i understand, the delivery is almost instant as they keep BTC and fiat stores on hand in both locations. that seems to be the best and most efficient way to speed the process.

Bitcoin eliminates the transmit process compared to traditional means.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 29, 2015, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on March 29, 2015, 10:03:26 AM

Here is my thoughts on bitcoin powered remittance:

Stage 1 is companies in each country cooperating with each other to offer transfer and conversion between two fiats. Each company can be local to a country, does not need license to do foreign exchange. They can be an exchange, or work with a local exchange. They can offer short time fixed exchange rate gurarantee through options, cooperation with someone offering options, or just make a deal with a few individuals who offer to take that exhange rate risk. No single company has to be an international company. They can offer transfer fiat to fiat.

Stage 2 is when one party in the remittance transfer is a bitcoin user. In this case, only one local company need to be involved. For instance, a sender in Europe is a bitcoin user, the receiver somewhere in Asia is a fiat user. The bitcoin user transfers fiat to to a local company in Asia operating as an exchange, who sends fiat to the receiver. For this to work, bitcoin adoption has to increase among the foreign workers.

Stage 3 is of course when both parties are bitcoin users, who do not need to convert to fiat right away, but will do it when they need to.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113814/bitcoin-and-m-pesa-what-stands-between-them

Yep, in my categorization, M-Pesa is a local fiat (or local fiat equivalen or extension) and bitpesa is one of the local companies in stage 1 or stage 2.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Erdogan on March 29, 2015, 10:03:26 AM

Here is my thoughts on bitcoin powered remittance:

Stage 1 is companies in each country cooperating with each other to offer transfer and conversion between two fiats. Each company can be local to a country, does not need license to do foreign exchange. They can be an exchange, or work with a local exchange. They can offer short time fixed exchange rate gurarantee through options, cooperation with someone offering options, or just make a deal with a few individuals who offer to take that exhange rate risk. No single company has to be an international company. They can offer transfer fiat to fiat.

Stage 2 is when one party in the remittance transfer is a bitcoin user. In this case, only one local company need to be involved. For instance, a sender in Europe is a bitcoin user, the receiver somewhere in Asia is a fiat user. The bitcoin user transfers fiat to to a local company in Asia operating as an exchange, who sends fiat to the receiver. For this to work, bitcoin adoption has to increase among the foreign workers.

Stage 3 is of course when both parties are bitcoin users, who do not need to convert to fiat right away, but will do it when they need to.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113814/bitcoin-and-m-pesa-what-stands-between-them

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Here is my thoughts on bitcoin powered remittance:

Stage 1 is companies in each country cooperating with each other to offer transfer and conversion between two fiats. Each company can be local to a country, does not need license to do foreign exchange. They can be an exchange, or work with a local exchange. They can offer short time fixed exchange rate gurarantee through options, cooperation with someone offering options, or just make a deal with a few individuals who offer to take that exhange rate risk. No single company has to be an international company. They can offer transfer fiat to fiat.

Stage 2 is when one party in the remittance transfer is a bitcoin user. In this case, only one local company need to be involved. For instance, a sender in Europe is a bitcoin user, the receiver somewhere in Asia is a fiat user. The bitcoin user transfers fiat to to a local company in Asia operating as an exchange, who sends fiat to the receiver. For this to work, bitcoin adoption has to increase among the foreign workers.

Stage 3 is of course when both parties are bitcoin users, who do not need to convert to fiat right away, but will do it when they need to.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

More regulation for the legacy payments and banking means more epic failures and unknowable wealth destroying outcomes for them ... go all in bitcoin.

shields

full member

Activity: 164

Merit: 100

Quote from: tabnloz on March 28, 2015, 07:00:42 PM

Quote from: shields on March 28, 2015, 06:48:45 PM

Quote from: tabnloz on March 28, 2015, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: NotHatinJustTrollin on March 28, 2015, 05:31:34 PM

Some FUD (Facts U Dislike) for y'all:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113795/europe-caps-payment-fees-at-02-undermining-bitcoins-appeal

"Low fees" was already a weak pseudo-argument for bitcoin (considering POW, exchange fees, volatility, spread etc), now is even weaker.

The low fee argument is weakest while Bitcoin is relatively small; that's why exchange fees factor in (people need to buy in and cash out. Volatility, PoW has been done to death). But it is also only weakest in selected areas. I wouldn't say an area that has an average 12% remittance fee is not ripe to be picked by bitcoin remittances (especially if bitcoin operates behind the scenes as company develops their own avenues / relationships at both ends).

This new European cap is good for everyone and high time the financial sector stopped the gouging. But if bitcoin gets a proper foothold, a 2% seawall won't stem the tide. In the upside-happens for bitcoin possibility, btc can limbo lower than the legacy sector. Until then though, your point stands.

As (or perhaps 'if', considering your perspective) bitcoin matures enough that users can stay within a bitcoin economy, then low fees are a positive. So, the more it expands, the more relevant the argument.

I would love some clarification on this as I don't think it's as clearcut as it might seem at first. Firstly, does this 0.2% (which is not 2% btw!) only apply to some bank portion of the fee or is it the total credit card fee that a merchant will incur. Secondly, if it is the total fee it means the credit card companies will be taking a MASSIVE hit, going from 2-3% (sometimes more) down to 0.2%? can they survive on 10% of their previous fees? It would effectively mean that there is a level of fraud for which they are no longer profitable as they can't raise the fees. This would be more of a threat to credit cards themselves than bitcoin no?

Seriously, am I missing something here?

Correct, its .2%. My mistake. Debit card transactions. .3% for CC. As per article, its an attempt to combat lack of demand, deflation in EU. Most bitcoin payment processors are already facing margin compression (at or near 0% fees anyway). As Cypher & yourself noted, imaging being a legacy payments processor when this is implemented.

The more important aspect of my post was whether this ruling is actually being interpretted correctly, i.e. does the regulation really cut the credit card processors fee by 90% (seems unlikely, too drastic) or is the fee that is being limited only *part* of the total fee. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#Costs_to_merchants for example of how card fees are not just a simple single fee.

EDIT: either way it's probably good for bitcoin, as it will either not reduce total merchant fees by much, or it will destroy credit card company business models.

tabnloz

legendary

Activity: 961

Merit: 1000

Quote from: shields on March 28, 2015, 06:48:45 PM

Quote from: tabnloz on March 28, 2015, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: NotHatinJustTrollin on March 28, 2015, 05:31:34 PM

Some FUD (Facts U Dislike) for y'all:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113795/europe-caps-payment-fees-at-02-undermining-bitcoins-appeal

"Low fees" was already a weak pseudo-argument for bitcoin (considering POW, exchange fees, volatility, spread etc), now is even weaker.

The low fee argument is weakest while Bitcoin is relatively small; that's why exchange fees factor in (people need to buy in and cash out. Volatility, PoW has been done to death). But it is also only weakest in selected areas. I wouldn't say an area that has an average 12% remittance fee is not ripe to be picked by bitcoin remittances (especially if bitcoin operates behind the scenes as company develops their own avenues / relationships at both ends).

This new European cap is good for everyone and high time the financial sector stopped the gouging. But if bitcoin gets a proper foothold, a 2% seawall won't stem the tide. In the upside-happens for bitcoin possibility, btc can limbo lower than the legacy sector. Until then though, your point stands.

As (or perhaps 'if', considering your perspective) bitcoin matures enough that users can stay within a bitcoin economy, then low fees are a positive. So, the more it expands, the more relevant the argument.

I would love some clarification on this as I don't think it's as clearcut as it might seem at first. Firstly, does this 0.2% (which is not 2% btw!) only apply to some bank portion of the fee or is it the total credit card fee that a merchant will incur. Secondly, if it is the total fee it means the credit card companies will be taking a MASSIVE hit, going from 2-3% (sometimes more) down to 0.2%? can they survive on 10% of their previous fees? It would effectively mean that there is a level of fraud for which they are no longer profitable as they can't raise the fees. This would be more of a threat to credit cards themselves than bitcoin no?

Seriously, am I missing something here?

Correct, its .2%. My mistake. Debit card transactions. .3% for CC. As per article, its an attempt to combat lack of demand, deflation in EU. Most bitcoin payment processors are already facing margin compression (at or near 0% fees anyway). As Cypher & yourself noted, imaging being a legacy payments processor when this is implemented.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: NotHatinJustTrollin on March 28, 2015, 05:31:34 PM

Some FUD (Facts U Dislike) for y'all:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113795/europe-caps-payment-fees-at-02-undermining-bitcoins-appeal

"Low fees" was already a weak pseudo-argument for bitcoin (considering POW, exchange fees, volatility, spread etc), now is even weaker.

that type of market intervention from on high is probably going to cause all sorts of unwanted side effects like driving some of the payment processors out of business. the others will find a way to pass on fees to customers in other ways like maybe decreasing service. in general, it's a good thing however and being driven by alternative systems but mainly by Bitcoin. these heavily infrastructured companies will never be able to compete in the long run however with Bitcoins low costs and speed. and they totally ignore the SOV function Bitcoin so beautifully enforces.

bottom line: it's a stop gap measure. they need to do more.

shields

full member

Activity: 164

Merit: 100

Quote from: tabnloz on March 28, 2015, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: NotHatinJustTrollin on March 28, 2015, 05:31:34 PM

Some FUD (Facts U Dislike) for y'all:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113795/europe-caps-payment-fees-at-02-undermining-bitcoins-appeal

"Low fees" was already a weak pseudo-argument for bitcoin (considering POW, exchange fees, volatility, spread etc), now is even weaker.

The low fee argument is weakest while Bitcoin is relatively small; that's why exchange fees factor in (people need to buy in and cash out. Volatility, PoW has been done to death). But it is also only weakest in selected areas. I wouldn't say an area that has an average 12% remittance fee is not ripe to be picked by bitcoin remittances (especially if bitcoin operates behind the scenes as company develops their own avenues / relationships at both ends).

This new European cap is good for everyone and high time the financial sector stopped the gouging. But if bitcoin gets a proper foothold, a 2% seawall won't stem the tide. In the upside-happens for bitcoin possibility, btc can limbo lower than the legacy sector. Until then though, your point stands.

As (or perhaps 'if', considering your perspective) bitcoin matures enough that users can stay within a bitcoin economy, then low fees are a positive. So, the more it expands, the more relevant the argument.

I would love some clarification on this as I don't think it's as clearcut as it might seem at first. Firstly, does this 0.2% (which is not 2% btw!) only apply to some bank portion of the fee or is it the total credit card fee that a merchant will incur. Secondly, if it is the total fee it means the credit card companies will be taking a MASSIVE hit, going from 2-3% (sometimes more) down to 0.2%? can they survive on 10% of their previous fees? It would effectively mean that there is a level of fraud for which they are no longer profitable as they can't raise the fees. This would be more of a threat to credit cards themselves than bitcoin no?

Seriously, am I missing something here?

tabnloz

legendary

Activity: 961

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NotHatinJustTrollin on March 28, 2015, 05:31:34 PM

Some FUD (Facts U Dislike) for y'all:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113795/europe-caps-payment-fees-at-02-undermining-bitcoins-appeal

"Low fees" was already a weak pseudo-argument for bitcoin (considering POW, exchange fees, volatility, spread etc), now is even weaker.

The low fee argument is weakest while Bitcoin is relatively small; that's why exchange fees factor in (people need to buy in and cash out. Volatility, PoW has been done to death). But it is also only weakest in selected areas. I wouldn't say an area that has an average 12% remittance fee is not ripe to be picked by bitcoin remittances (especially if bitcoin operates behind the scenes as company develops their own avenues / relationships at both ends).

This new European cap is good for everyone and high time the financial sector stopped the gouging. But if bitcoin gets a proper foothold, a 2% seawall won't stem the tide. In the upside-happens for bitcoin possibility, btc can limbo lower than the legacy sector. Until then though, your point stands.

As (or perhaps 'if', considering your perspective) bitcoin matures enough that users can stay within a bitcoin economy, then low fees are a positive. So, the more it expands, the more relevant the argument.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 442. (Read 2032286 times)