Topic: Wal-Mart stops accepting Visa cards in Canada - page 2. (Read 2046 times)

walmart should start taking bitcoin and selling bitcoin. Would make
it so much easier to get bitcoin and they could just charge a middle
fee and make a lot of money with how many customers walmart has

Now that is baloney.


More baloney.
You just said "users can choose any fee they like, and their transaction will get processed ".
Now, "If you want something of high quality.. YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT" You shout...

Franky, your trolling is becoming excruciatingly bad. You do realise that you don't have to do this, that actually being a decent human being is actually productive and enjoyable? It can't be much fun being you, having to research a topic you're not that interested in and develop ways to subvert and undermine it. And it really shows how little you enjoy doing this  when you post such blatant inflammatory lies, like I said recently, you do realise people can check your "claims" for themselves, don't you? :\

Why not choose a job you can take pride in doing, Franky? You could enjoy your life!

^ now you see why blockstreamers dont want bitcoin real scaling ^
their answer is always
1)if you dont like it go play with monero(by the way carlton, icebreaker, gmaxwell already moved over to the monero ship)
2)if you dont like it go play with LN
3)if you dont like it sell your coins anf get lost

neither of which actually makes carlton look anything like someone who likes bitcoin, or sounds like he wants bitcoin to actually be open for anyone to use without headache or expense. to him bitcoin is just advertising tool to then bait and switch people away from.

i think its time carlton rejoins his friends on the altcoins because its obvious he has lost desire to help bitcoin

You misunderstand "market".

Forcing people to evaluate the costs and the benefits of using something IS A MARKET. And you're damn right it's uncontrolled, that's WHAT A MARKET IS. Your emotional rhetoric of "driving users away" is total baloney: the users can choose any fee they like, and their transaction will get processed according to how much fee is paid. If you want something of high quality or quick turnaround in this world, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. Everyone knows: you get what you pay for. Except for rizlarolla, apparently




Now, have you got something else to say?

Ftfy
(You misunderstand Satoshi)

I do. You're describing it using possibly the largest collection of loaded expressions could possibly fit into the description, and sitting in the middle of it is a cleveerly constructed fallcy. And your intention is deliberate, to cast the fee-market in the worst light possible. Allow me to refute your bullshit (if you weren't trolling, you would, of course, have worked it all out for yourself, this is for the benefit of a genuine audience, which does not include you, rizlarolla).


rizlarolla is essentially making the argument for infinite capacity. It's not a reasonable assumption that users of the system will say to themselves: "Hmmm, before I send money to someone, I really ought to check first whether the current blocksize trend is becoming too high to help safeguard node decentralisation....". Not even the most technical users have actually got time for that.

There just is no way to regulate the blocksize to satisfy the decentralisation criteria, because there is no sensible way to measure such a thing. It could be too easily gamed, even using the best-attempt at a solution. So, what we do instead (and THIS WAS DECIDED A LONG TIME AGO, BY SATOSHI) is to use a fee-market mechanism to put a price on space in the blockchain. That's what rizlarolla is arguing against, and it's one seriously moronic argument, that ends in infinite blockspace and infinite transactions.... no, actually it ends in Bitcoin becoming overburdened or centralised


And before "...but Classic has thin blocks to solve this!!!!" CORE HAS A GENUINE THIN BLOCKS SOLUTION. The Classic thin blocks has had several problems identified with the design already, which the so-called developers have shrugged off by suggesting miners do SPV only verification. You "people" don't have even a single leg to stand on, as usual

Why is this disappointing? Personally I fail to understand why people need to pay with credit cards at retailers at all. Wouldn't that be the perfect use case for hard cash? The only reason for the pandemic growth of credit card use is that people are encouraged to live beyond their means by making it more difficult to get an accurate overview on one's spending.

So any rejection of credit card acceptance is good news as it makes excessive spending harder. It's also good news for Bitcoin, because the usability of credit cards is reduced which increases the relative attractiveness of using Bitcoin (even if it is not accepted at the specific market).

ya.ya.yo!

I am not sure why it is only in Canada, but I read somewhere that the two companies couldn't come to an agreement so they have to stop accepting visa. Very disappointing.

I would love if WalMart started accepting BitCoin. I would sure as hell start shopping there for almost everything.

So you don't actually refute anything I said about Cores fees market?
(Not even that Wal-mart are clever enough to know they "cant" integrate bitcoin at the moment.)
Just tell me to sell up.

I know Core plan to scale , and no, I don't need to pretend anything. Cores plan is flawed.
Increasing fees will only be a symptom of adoption stifled as we wait for Core to scale sometime never.

And I would think of selling if your vision came close to fruition. But I don't think it will.
(btw, would you suggest Monero?)

(i think) Block size will be increased before segwit. And that is how it should be.
I suspect Core could do this. (technically, if not politically)
segwit needs more time for testing. Bitcoin adoption doesn't.

Oh please with the concern trolling, if it was so important to you, you'd sell your BTC and buy whatever altcoin fits your vision of cryptocurrency.

You can't pretend like Bitcoin Core has no plans to scale up, and you can't pretend that their plan is not the best plan, the HF competition have been proven totally incompetent software engineers in a matter of months. So you'll get your wish, as you present it; the rate will go up, when the actual, credible scaling infrastructure is activated.

It's been suggested that if Wal-Mart chose to accept BTC, it would need to get some service from Coinbase or Bitpay, but I don't think so.
If Wal-Mart has chosen to stop accepting Visa to save millions, this isn't to give millions to another payment processor.

I believe Wal-Mart could get into the exchange business. Run a node in every store? Piece of cake. Get a money transmitting license? Difficult for an individual, but easy to Wal-Mart. I don't think they'll do it, but if it wanted, Wal-Mart could.

Your probably right Alyssa.
I also see problems with Core's "fee market" design.
I thought, maybe incorrectly, that a "fee market" should be a steady and predictable thing, not some wild chase to be included in a block.
Without spare capacity, how can it work this way. (only eternally increasing fees to drive away users)

Without spare capacity, if there is a "rush" of recommended fee paying bitcoin transactions, (maybe more adoption) miners are powerless to process these extra transactions. (in any predictable timescale)
Importantly, many transactions could be left in limbo. (even having paid recommended fees or higher)

If miners had (some) spare block capacity then they could absorb these recommended fee paying backlogs.
Without this spare capacity, it is more an uncontrolled "block space ransom market" - pay more fees than most others or risk your transaction never getting comfirmed.

If wall-mart replaced Visa with bitcoin today, yes fees would skyrocket, but most attempted transactions would never even get confirmed and would finally be dropped from the mempool.

(I'm not too worried. IMO, a sudden HF blocksize increase will prevent this situation getting too entrenched)

walmart is planning to disable visa at store level one-by-one (not online). i think online removal of visa payments would be the very last ditch attempt after removing it from all the stores. but most of this is just threats and schemes to eventually allow visa payments. but at a cheap rate walmart is happy with (subtle form of blackmail)

seems carlton wants to twist stories to be about blockstream features.... this topic is about corporations accepting/rejecting a payment system

even if lets say LN and sidechains was released.. walmart/starbucks wont suddenly jump on board bitcoin. because as i initially said before carlton began to meander off topic. the problem is the fiat/bitcoin exchange rate/processing fee.
monolith corporations will not do OTC trades even if "virtually free"(saving 1% fee could cost them 20% tax, for instance)
monolith corporations will use payment gateways to avoid the headaches.
but so far companies involved in that border industry between bitcoin and fiat are considered expensive (yes even at 1%)

this topic is not about individual people moving bitcoins to each other (consumer-to-consumer) but about corporations using payment processors(business-to-business)

i have no idea why carlton is trying to turn this topic into an advertisement for segwit/ln/sidechains and anything else blockstream promoted, or even talking about things from a consumers point of view of scaling bitcoin to bitcoin transactions..

the solution to aid things like walmart/starbucks to happily accept a payment method is about having virtually no cost in doing so.
LN/sidechain does not solve the headaches and costs of getting fiat that corporations need.
however those 'features' could help if walmart/starbucks had a loyalty card system where funds were kept as bitcoin and just moved back and forth.(but thats a whole different topic/scenario)

so try to drop the LN/sidechain/segwit promoting. and realise that if bitcoin wants to grow in regards to being able to buy food, coffee, and other real world produce.. then reply about the costs of fiat processing(this topic).. not the usual blockstream promoting.. save your blockstream promotions for another topic

Wow, I never heard there is an online store to disable visa payment. Disable Visa payment?That is a surprise for me, Maybe for some time, Walmart is considering with visa payment, and it does not show a real statistic and Walmart want to disable it.

You're 100% wrong, Alyssa.

Transaction rate cannot be infinite, as each transaction consumes resources with a value. The dynamics of access to scarce resources means that a market for the fees will always develop to account for these dynamics. Even if you change Bitcoin so that the cost of the resources decreases, the cost still exists, and must be borne somehow, by someone.

Getting that balance right is what designing decentralised systems is all about. Return to Bitcoin 101, please (or BIP101 if that's what you're angling for, lol)

This, this, this.

You can only charge high fees if you monopolize payment systems and the merchant has no alternative. If alternatives exist, business simply migrates to whoever charges lower fees.

One problem: the people you have such a big issue with (Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Peter Todd etc) HAVE BEEN AS MUCH IN CONTROL AS ONE CAN BE OF BITCOIN FOR MANY YEARS ALREADY. Your argument is idiotic.


Franky, you're a poorly disguised member of the XT/Classic takeover attempt, as evidenced by your attempts at "subtle" undermining of the proven Core team and carefully chosen bolstering of anything that supports the takeover. And the contradictions are sssssssssso obvious, name-dropping Coinbase multiple times while claiming to "hate Coinbase". Your propaganda is so blatant, I expect your wages are frequently docked for being so unconvincing.