> It is telling that the first purchases done via MoneyBadger on the Peach Payments platform were for spades at a suburban hardware store and light fittings
I'd love to see better privacy here. The company blogging about the specific items being purchased suggests they have detailed information about each purchase and are willing to share it (in a blog post). Or maybe an employee made the first purchases?
Reminds me of Zuck recently confessing that "people tell llama all kinds of personal things, and they use it for therapy" (paraphrasing). They read your shit.
I mean crypto itself is only as anonymous as your most public link to your wallet too, which is one of the reasons I dislike it despite seeing the appeal of the idea. People like to compare it to cash, but the fact is every hundred dollar bill in circulation doesn't have a list of people's unique if anonymized handles who's touched it since it was printed. And that gets doubly problematic if you use... really any of the wallet managers out there, who now know every wallet address associated with not only your personal info, but likely bank info.
There are techniques for anonyminity in cryptocurrency such as zero-knowedge proofs implemented in cryptocurrencies like monero and zcash (and many others)
These techniques vary in their effectiveness and efficiency. If you look at a monero transaction for example it uses something like 10x the bandwidth and CPU power to verify vs Bitcoin (which is already an inefficient network)
Some banknotes do have identifying markers, but I think you are right. Cash-like privacy should be the goal with all crypto
Relevant documentary (german, auto-translation probably an option) about bitcoin adoption in south africas townships, including pick'n'pay adoption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0QpNbDLoQ (pick'n'pay part starting minute 18:01)
They are using the lightning network or some other "2nd layer" network that makes the transactions follow a different protocol that can include near instant settlement vs the 10 minutes per block and the payment only settles six blocks after it was written into the blockchain history. The protocol on the 2nd layer is different, but the units or tokens being transferred are indistinguishable from the tokens on the main blockchain, meaning the protocol for transferring to/from layer 1 to layer 2 do no allow for a coin to be minted out of thin air on the layer 2 protocol and then transferred to layer 1. It only allows for tokens minted on the main chain that were "transferred" to the 2nd layer to change hands between users (meaning addresses) on the 2nd layer.
There is a way to transfer a balance on the second layer back to the main chain, so as a merchant or user you can "withdraw" from the layer 2 to the main network whenever. There is a fee to transfer from the 1st layer to the second layer, and a fee to transfer back to the 1st layer, this is the regular fee that is imposed to do any transaction on the main chain since from the point of view of the bitcoin blockchain, "withdrawing" to a 2nd layer chain is just a special case of a regular transaction between two addresses on the main blockchain.
The very obvious downside that everyone knows and talks about is that the 2nd layer network is not at all decentralized, and as a user that "moves" tokens from the main layer to the second layer you are taking on the risk of the 2nd layer operator stealing all of your money.
You mean the not-bitcoin bolt-on that pretty much mandates using a 3rd party wallet to ensure always online status and has been bleeding capacity for the last few years?
It would be a travesty if society decides bitcoin is the defacto payment crypto, in part because you need to use a totally separate service in order to reasonably send bitcoin.
> It would be a travesty if society decides bitcoin is the defacto payment crypto, in part because you need to use a totally separate service in order to reasonably send bitcoin.
Agree completely. Was a fan of Bitcoin Cash when it split off in 2017! Better to have things on-chain.
Bitcoin (BTC) doesn't work at all for payments less than $100 (as by design) and so adding a second layer on to that only makes it MORE expensive, not less.
Like saying I can't afford my credit card fees so I'll just take a cash advance on my credit card, put the money in a bank account, then use a debit card for transactions. It makes no sense and would only work to trick a moron that doensn't understand how the system works.
Bitcoin (now called Bitcoin Cash) solved the problem 10+ years ago, then Blockstream hijacked the BTC GitHub repo and injected the SegWit and RBF code that killed the project.
This doesn't show the merchant confirming payment. Presumably you'd wait for that before leaving the restaurant. Sending payment is just the first step.
Lots of people who have relatively stable currencies (EUR, USD..) do not want to use bitcoin. What if bitcoin price goes down? How many extra steps is it to convert my USD to bitcoin and then back to USD? Do I only convert the 19.99 USD for my current purchase into bitcoin or do I put in more?
Do you solve these issues for customers? Or are you only targeting people who already are happy bitcoin wallet users? Are stablecoins part of your strategy?
Given how Visa,Mastercard,Paypal are seen as bad actors. Do you think you can capitalize on that, possibly partnering with Valve or something of that sort?
We as MoneyBadger create an invoice for the customer in their local currency e.g. USD. If they pay with Bitcoin Lightning, they have 3 minutes to complete the transaction at our offered exchange rate. We take on the risk of the price moving.
If they’re paying with one of the exchange wallets we support like Luno.com, VALR.com or Binance.com we do the same, and they can choose to pay with any currency supported by those wallets.
Refunds are processed at time of refund and are for the original amount in the currency of the invoice e.g. USD but at the exchange rate at the time of refunds.
It really all just works the same as paying with a credit card overseas would if you’re paying a EUR bill with USD funds.
Yeah, it seems kind of inconsistent. But the crypto page on peachpayments only mentions bitcoin https://www.peachpayments.com/payment-methods/cryptocurrency and moneybadger seems explicitly bitcoin: https://www.moneybadger.co.za/ ("Bitcoin payments made simple" "Accept Bitcoin or any crypto in-store or online, paid out in South African Rand or Bitcoin" "Pay with Bitcoin" "Accept Bitcoin" etc)
But I guess the answer is
> According to reported statistics, 68 percent of South Africans own or have bought Bitcoin – one of the highest adoption rates globally.
Why not just use Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin was designed to compete directly with Visa's transaction rate and still can. I don't get why people don't simple use what works?
That still means the chain is growing by 28GB every single day, so 10TB a year.
That's arguably past the point where running a small node is viable, so I would argue you're well into the territory of losing some of the decentralisation properties you want in a cryptocurrency
> It is telling that the first purchases done via MoneyBadger on the Peach Payments platform were for spades at a suburban hardware store and light fittings
I'd love to see better privacy here. The company blogging about the specific items being purchased suggests they have detailed information about each purchase and are willing to share it (in a blog post). Or maybe an employee made the first purchases?
Reminds me of Zuck recently confessing that "people tell llama all kinds of personal things, and they use it for therapy" (paraphrasing). They read your shit.
Especially if they are going to be used for hiding a body.
The stores just said what they sold. They didn’t say who they sold it to.
That seems possible too. Are you familiar with the system, or are you also guessing?
I work for MoneyBadger
[dead]
I mean crypto itself is only as anonymous as your most public link to your wallet too, which is one of the reasons I dislike it despite seeing the appeal of the idea. People like to compare it to cash, but the fact is every hundred dollar bill in circulation doesn't have a list of people's unique if anonymized handles who's touched it since it was printed. And that gets doubly problematic if you use... really any of the wallet managers out there, who now know every wallet address associated with not only your personal info, but likely bank info.
There are techniques for anonyminity in cryptocurrency such as zero-knowedge proofs implemented in cryptocurrencies like monero and zcash (and many others)
These techniques vary in their effectiveness and efficiency. If you look at a monero transaction for example it uses something like 10x the bandwidth and CPU power to verify vs Bitcoin (which is already an inefficient network)
Some banknotes do have identifying markers, but I think you are right. Cash-like privacy should be the goal with all crypto
Relevant documentary (german, auto-translation probably an option) about bitcoin adoption in south africas townships, including pick'n'pay adoption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0QpNbDLoQ (pick'n'pay part starting minute 18:01)
This one is also cool! https://x.com/itsmaxdemarco/status/1611019316488536066?s=46
Can you give us a summary?
Bitcoin is wildly unsuitable for small scale payments, at least in it's current architecture
You are both completely correct, and incorrect.
Here is a 4 year old example on how it is possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bOo3zLFhEk
They are using the lightning network or some other "2nd layer" network that makes the transactions follow a different protocol that can include near instant settlement vs the 10 minutes per block and the payment only settles six blocks after it was written into the blockchain history. The protocol on the 2nd layer is different, but the units or tokens being transferred are indistinguishable from the tokens on the main blockchain, meaning the protocol for transferring to/from layer 1 to layer 2 do no allow for a coin to be minted out of thin air on the layer 2 protocol and then transferred to layer 1. It only allows for tokens minted on the main chain that were "transferred" to the 2nd layer to change hands between users (meaning addresses) on the 2nd layer.
There is a way to transfer a balance on the second layer back to the main chain, so as a merchant or user you can "withdraw" from the layer 2 to the main network whenever. There is a fee to transfer from the 1st layer to the second layer, and a fee to transfer back to the 1st layer, this is the regular fee that is imposed to do any transaction on the main chain since from the point of view of the bitcoin blockchain, "withdrawing" to a 2nd layer chain is just a special case of a regular transaction between two addresses on the main blockchain.
The very obvious downside that everyone knows and talks about is that the 2nd layer network is not at all decentralized, and as a user that "moves" tokens from the main layer to the second layer you are taking on the risk of the 2nd layer operator stealing all of your money.
It uses bitcoin lightning, are you referring to that?
You mean the not-bitcoin bolt-on that pretty much mandates using a 3rd party wallet to ensure always online status and has been bleeding capacity for the last few years?
It would be a travesty if society decides bitcoin is the defacto payment crypto, in part because you need to use a totally separate service in order to reasonably send bitcoin.
> It would be a travesty if society decides bitcoin is the defacto payment crypto, in part because you need to use a totally separate service in order to reasonably send bitcoin.
Agree completely. Was a fan of Bitcoin Cash when it split off in 2017! Better to have things on-chain.
Bitcoin (BTC) doesn't work at all for payments less than $100 (as by design) and so adding a second layer on to that only makes it MORE expensive, not less.
Like saying I can't afford my credit card fees so I'll just take a cash advance on my credit card, put the money in a bank account, then use a debit card for transactions. It makes no sense and would only work to trick a moron that doensn't understand how the system works.
Bitcoin (now called Bitcoin Cash) solved the problem 10+ years ago, then Blockstream hijacked the BTC GitHub repo and injected the SegWit and RBF code that killed the project.
Not true https://x.com/gavingre/status/1949395378610069905?s=46
This doesn't show the merchant confirming payment. Presumably you'd wait for that before leaving the restaurant. Sending payment is just the first step.
The merchant receives confirmation on the POS
Bitcoin doesn't need to be usable for small scale payments. That's what a payment processor is for.
As is the tax burden -- at least in the US.
I'm guessing that Bitcoin's usecases are mostly large scale speculation and criminal activities.
[dead]
68% of South Africans have bought or own BTC? There is simply no way. Impossible.
I agree, I find this claim very doubtful and would be interested in the source of this claim.
Site appears to be down. Hug of death?
https://archive.ph/D4271
happy to answer any questions!
Lots of people who have relatively stable currencies (EUR, USD..) do not want to use bitcoin. What if bitcoin price goes down? How many extra steps is it to convert my USD to bitcoin and then back to USD? Do I only convert the 19.99 USD for my current purchase into bitcoin or do I put in more?
Do you solve these issues for customers? Or are you only targeting people who already are happy bitcoin wallet users? Are stablecoins part of your strategy?
Given how Visa,Mastercard,Paypal are seen as bad actors. Do you think you can capitalize on that, possibly partnering with Valve or something of that sort?
We as MoneyBadger create an invoice for the customer in their local currency e.g. USD. If they pay with Bitcoin Lightning, they have 3 minutes to complete the transaction at our offered exchange rate. We take on the risk of the price moving.
If they’re paying with one of the exchange wallets we support like Luno.com, VALR.com or Binance.com we do the same, and they can choose to pay with any currency supported by those wallets.
Refunds are processed at time of refund and are for the original amount in the currency of the invoice e.g. USD but at the exchange rate at the time of refunds.
It really all just works the same as paying with a credit card overseas would if you’re paying a EUR bill with USD funds.
any interest in working with itch or valve given recent events?
steam used to have support but ran into volatility and price issues, so if you've got that handled it could be good press is my thinking
We’d love to enable itch and valve to accept bitcoin payments
Why bitcoin and not ethereum?
Technically it’s Bitcoin Lightning. We support that because its cheap And fast and widely used (650m users).
Also we are Bitcoiners.
However we do support exchange wallets like Luno.com, VALR.com and Binance.com and are adding many more and whatever crypto they support.
As Bitcoiners we try to basically just mention Bitcoin.
The website says Bitcoin and crypto*
Yeah, it seems kind of inconsistent. But the crypto page on peachpayments only mentions bitcoin https://www.peachpayments.com/payment-methods/cryptocurrency and moneybadger seems explicitly bitcoin: https://www.moneybadger.co.za/ ("Bitcoin payments made simple" "Accept Bitcoin or any crypto in-store or online, paid out in South African Rand or Bitcoin" "Pay with Bitcoin" "Accept Bitcoin" etc)
But I guess the answer is
> According to reported statistics, 68 percent of South Africans own or have bought Bitcoin – one of the highest adoption rates globally.
Any interest in adding other, fee-less currencies like nano?
We support Bitcoin lighting as a protocol because many wallets support it and it has a lot of users
Nano unfortunately probably won’t be worth supporting because of the small user base
However we’re quite open to supporting any wallet that wants to work with us
Why not just use Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin was designed to compete directly with Visa's transaction rate and still can. I don't get why people don't simple use what works?
Why not use Grin? Or Monero? Why would using Bitcoin Cash be better than Bitcoin?
BCH absolutely cannot replicate Visa's transaction rate on L1, at least not without block sizes becoming completely ridiculous
I think it would require something like 200MB blocks, which is within the realm of possibility.
The only thing stopping you from adding payment channels on top of that is transaction malleability, but I am not really caught up on the topic.
That still means the chain is growing by 28GB every single day, so 10TB a year.
That's arguably past the point where running a small node is viable, so I would argue you're well into the territory of losing some of the decentralisation properties you want in a cryptocurrency
[dead]
The reason bitcoin is so successful is exactly because people don't know how it works.