Bitcoin wasn’t down. Hasn’t had a single hour of downtime or hack since it started 15 years ago in 2008. No bank holidays. Clear and transparent supply, 100% open source code. Not run by any single government, corporate board, or CEO. Sends money across the globe in under a second for pennies in fees, all you need is a phone. Powerful stuff.
“under a second for pennies in fees”
LOL you either kidding yourself or had never transfer Bitcoin.
At a high demand time, it could take hours to complete a transaction (if it even went through at all) and with an outrageous fee up to dozens of dollars.
Bitcoin has never been known for time efficient nor competitive fees (except for maybe in the beginning when nobody uses it).
At a high demand time, it could take hours to complete a transaction (if it even went through at all) and with an outrageous fee up to dozens of dollars.
Bitcoin has never been known for time efficient nor competitive fees (except for maybe in the beginning when nobody uses it).
At least you admit people use it. Bitcoin lightning enables transactions in under a second for pennies in fees, it’s been around for 5+ years. Your information is outdated. In the last two months, Nostr users alone (decentralized twitter clone like Mastodon) sent each other 2.6 million tips (individual transactions) over Bitcoin lightning. None of that requires an on-chain transaction, none of it required high fees. It works. It scales. It continues to improve.
There is so much wrong with that firehose of nonsense you just said I don’t have time to correct it all. So I’ll focus on this one point:
Bitcoin may not be run by “a single government” but it is run by a small group of billionaires. You’re a fool if you believe widespread adoption of it can improve things for regular people.
deleted by creator
I see this comment every now and then, and it always forgets the cost of the transaction, confirmation time, and of course, the need for miners to exist to process these confirmations/transactions. The energy cost is extraordinary, and the end user is taxed for the use of their own dollars.
It’s not really feasible on a broad scale. Bitcoin is a holding stock, not a valid currency. Its value only increases because it manufactures its own scarcity. And as its scarcity increases, it naturally moves toward centralization since mining becomes too large an activity for the individual to reap any benefit. You can argue for proof of stake to eliminate the need for mining, but then you open the doors to centralization more immediately.
Oh yes, it is also feels so good that the richer have priority on transactions because they can pay exorbitant fees while you sometimes need to wait more than a month for a transaction to be confirmed.
I had to make a transaction to a private tracker and I don’t want to go through it never again.
The only crypto that is kind if useful is Monero and that’s because it is really private and anonymous. The problem with private and anonymous is that is ends up becoming a tool for crime.
I really like Talers approach with protecting the buyer not the seller. From a mass surveillance and advertising perspective they only see half the picture which makes the deep surveillance hard. Also it keeps businesses honest and supports rule of law.
I see this comment every now and then, and it always forgets the cost of the transaction, confirmation time
With Bitcoin lightning the confirmation time is under a second and you pay pennies in fees as you don’t make the transaction on the main chain. Even main chain is like $1.50 for a 10 minute confirmation time which for many transactions like an international wire is still a great deal.
The energy cost is extraordinary, and the end user is taxed for the use of their own dollars.
The energy cost to maintain the base chain is <1% of global energy use, mostly from renewables at off-peak hours since miners have to chase the cheapest electricity. Remittance services and other funds transfer companies also use energy and human capital to move value around, it’s not free. A single on-chain tx can open a lightning channel which can contain and secure trillions of transactions off-chain. Processing these transactions takes the energy equivalent of sending an e-mail. Users are “taxed for the use of their own dollars” in regular currency as well. Who pays that tax and the amount of that tax varies by context.
It can’t scale
In the last two months alone, Nostr users (decentralized twitter clone like Mastodon) sent each other 3 million tips over Bitcoin lightning. It absolutely scales. And there is plenty of more room to grow.
Its value only increases because it manufactures its own scarcity.
Its value also comes from its use as a transactional network and from it’s political neutrality geopolitically speaking. And from the known supply which nobody can manipulate. It’s not purely scarcity.
naturally moves toward centralization since mining becomes too large an activity for the individual to reap any benefit
And yet mining is still distributed globally. Any person, company, or country with spare energy resources can buy an ASIC and mine. Mining pools have become more centralized, but a lot of work has been done on that in recent years and that trend is reversing as a result.
Bitcoin lightning is absolutely hilarious. Your solution to Bitcoins problems is - not using Bitcoin. Wow, galaxy brain move.
The energy cost to maintain the base chain is <1% of global energy use, mostly from renewables
Yeah, that’s bullshit. First of all, 1% of energy use for a network that serves a few million transactions per day is really bad. A single 1kW node in Visa’s datacenter churns through that in an hour.
Second, it’s not renewables. It’s everything they can get for cheap. And that’s often enough coal, gas, oil. Also, they’re driving up power demand as a whole, which means fossil energy is actually needed longer.
Bitcoin lightning is absolutely hilarious. Your solution to Bitcoins problems is - not using Bitcoin. Wow, galaxy brain move.
Bitcoin lightning is Bitcoin. It’s a smart contract on the Bitcoin main chain. You move Bitcoin “into” lightning by sending it to that smart contract, you move it “out of” lightning by having that smart contract close. It inherits the security of Bitcoin main chain while getting the transaction speed of off-chain.
Agree to disagree about the rest. Energy use like carbon footprint is about “where you draw the box”. Off-peak demand is the cheapest power available, and it tends to be renewable. That trend continues to escalate.
As long as you ignore its problems it’s great. I’m sure you do.
Meanwhile the rest of us who don’t live in cloud Cuckoo land have to deal with your shitty system that takes 45 minutes to process a transaction and requires the burning down of several rainforests per transaction. So we can see it is probably not a good idea.
This is why Taler was created. It is a payment system not a payment form
45 minutes to process a transaction and requires the burning down of several rainforests per transaction.
Don’t listen to people who are critical of a thing if they clearly don’t even understand the basics of how it works. On main chain, a Bitcoin transaction typically take up to ten minutes (the time between blocks). It can take longer if you set a super low fee, but you can guarantee your payment goes into the next block by paying an average fee, usually around $0.75. Your wallet does this all automatically.
On lightning where most transactions occur these days (secured by main chain) transactions settle fully in under a second. Do your own research.
Besides, we all know Bitcoin only takes a single rainforest per transaction, it’s been that way since the great rainfork which is ancient history at this point.
I’ve had bitcoin transactions that literally took several days to process. This was also using an average fee. The more people using bitcoin, especially to handle common every-day transactions, the worse this problem would get.
I’ve had bitcoin transactions that literally took several days to process. This was also using an average fee.
I use Bitcoin regularly, this has literally never happened to me. If your transaction took days either you accidentally set a super low fee or your wallet was bugged somehow. Generally speaking the only way an “average fee” transaction takes more than a block or two is if you pay an average fee right before a rare massive fee spike, in which case, you can do a “replacement” transaction by upping the fee or just wait. Look up “average Bitcoin transaction fees” if you want to see rarity and size of fee spikes.
A handful of minutes or hours in a high-fee scenario, btw, is still much faster than ACH or international wires. Even if the money appears to move that quickly with traditional banking, full settlement is often measured in days to weeks, ask any vendor whose had a chargeback or anybody whose tried to “withdraw” from their Venmo right after depositing to it. Bitcoin’s main chain and Fedwire (used to settle liquidity between US banks) have equivalent daily transaction capacity.
You can open a lightning channel with a single on-chain transaction. That lightning channel can stay open for years and process trillions of transactions, instantly, for pennies in fees. If you need a transaction done quickly, you shouldn’t be sending it on main chain to begin with.
Long-term the vision is for folks to be using lightning or other L2s for everyday transactions, not main chain. Most Bitcoin transactions by transaction count are already on lightning. Lightning has been out for 5+ years now. It works well and gets better every year.
Crypto won’t scale
The computational requirements are high and its value fluctuates way to much. Also bitcoin isn’t even private and you are basically shouting to the world every time you make a payment.
Crypto won’t scale
And yet every year, for 15 years, the transaction capacity has continued to increase. Networking protocols (TCP/IP, SMTP, etc) also didn’t scale to “internet scale” in the first 15 years. They just kept adding new layers to the stack and optimizing it until it did. Just like Bitcoin added Lightning, Taproot, etc to improve scaling.
In the last two months, Nostr users alone (decentralized twitter clone like Mastodon) sent each other 2.6 million tips (individual transactions) over Bitcoin lightning. None of that requires an on-chain transaction, none of it required high fees. It works. It scales. It continues to improve. Lightning has capacity for trillions more transactions because capacity is not tied to chain space.
Also bitcoin isn’t even private and you are basically shouting to the world every time you make a payment.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous. If you make a wallet, nobody knows you own that wallet unless you tell them (or a third party like an exchange), but the balance and transactions on-chain are visible. There are ways to make your transactions more private, like coinjoin, you can have multiple addresses with multiple coins.
With lightning, transactions are opaque except to you and any nodes you route through, because lightning transactions don’t go on chain. This also means nobody knows your current balance. If you make a transaction between two lightning nodes that share a channel, nobody knows that transaction was made outside of those two nodes. Privacy continues to improve, see BOLT 12 for the latest upgrades in this area.
Regarding homeless people I’d say just carry a bunch of 2 euro coins. You can get them in a roll against a small payment at exchanges and it’ll last you a long time. That way you can also budget your donations.
What good is cash gonna do if the networked cash register doesn’t open anymore?
They have paper and pens that they can track their transactions until the system is fixed.
How are you getting change?
Use exact change?
If we’re going cash only, I’m bringing those coins too.
Somebody’s never worked retail. Yeah, there’s no way they’ll do that. Maybe at a small independently-owned store? Otherwise, there’s no way they’re even allowed to do that!
They can do that anyway. It’s called credit.
Simply not allowed for a lot of businesses in my country, either by the government or corporate.
More like it shows dangers of using only one provider for almost all IT infrastructure.
…why not both?
Choice sounds like something people should not be fighting over :)
because cash is disgusting
Agreed. While I agree with the privacy and security arguments against cashless payment methods, I’m still for them for the simple fact that as someone who works as a cashier for a living (or some semblance of one anyway), I’m more aware than the average public of just how DISGUSTING cash actually is.
Is the money really filthy or what?
Oh gods yes.
I get so many bills that are dirty, but also you don’t wanna know all the germs that are on a lot of those bills. Another thing I learned from years of working in retail is that people are also disgusting as all hell. Many people don’t bother washing their hands after going to the bathroom, or they’ll hand you nasty sweaty bills they pulled out of their pocket after walking into a store or up to a fuel kiosk during a >80 °F (26 °C) day, or after working a shift in construction or a factory job or even simply just exercising. Some women will pull cash directly out from under their bra, as if I want to accept sweaty boob money. Yes, they could use a wallet. However, many people don’t. Rather, they just shove the cash directly into their pocket or bra and be done with it. Because fuck cashiers, I guess.
Not to mention that the majority of bills out there have at least some trace amount of cocaine or other drugs covering it, though you may not be able to see it.
So, in short, sorry for the ramble but, yes, people are absolutely disgusting and so is their cash.
Retail. has. fucking. ruined me.
/rant lol
Because cash doesn’t solve the problem. If the stores themselves rely on computers, and they do, it doesn’t matter what’s in your wallet. (In other words, you need more than just cash to have a reliable alternative. It’s certainly possible to do so.)
Also, some of the big problems were in airports and hospitals where payment was not the serious concern.
Because if everyone used cash, schedule systems, records systems, communication systems around the world, breakdown still.
If there’s a verity of software vendors used in these systems, and financial systems, you don’t get simultaneous global breakdowns any more.
Basically. Using cash won’t prevent this from happening. Using several interoperable software providers and systems will.
It’s also not like as if I care. In case of total collapse and me being hungry, I’ll just take the food regardless. Cash is pointless as we’ve already moved digital, even in a cash country like mine.
Using cash won’t prevent this from happening.
I mean yeah, that’s why I said both, not just cash. I carry some cash on me because you never know. I’d also like to see less monopolization of just about everything because it makes for single points of failure. Diversifying your payment methods by including the potential for cash also helps.
But cash has nothing to do with this.
It’s an entirely unrelated issue.
It could equally be a warning to floss every day for all they’re related.When the payment processor goes down, I can buy my groceries/gas/weed with cash, not by flossing my teeth. I don’t follow the point you’re making. Going fully cashless is a bad idea, and the recent outage didn’t affect every system used. I don’t see how having multiple methods of payment is possibly a bad thing. I’m not advocating for only cash.
this wasn’t a problem with cashless infrastructure tho, this was a problem with monoculture. if the globe stopped using microsoft for gov and business, and instead threw their tax money towards open development; as in - the people, not microsoft, these kind of global issues wouldn’t exist.
The inventory and POS systems also go down. You still can’t by your groceries/gas/weed.
Going cashless is a bad idea. But not because of this.
That’s not what I witnessed recently. Payment processors went down but local POS was fine. Inventory didn’t matter with the short duration of the outage. This is one of the reasons going cashless is a bad idea. Far from the only one, but it’s a factor, and I experienced it. Going cashless reduces diversity in payment options and makes the system more vulnerable.
Going cashless is a bad idea. But not because of this.
It’s pretty clear this incident has highlighted a myriad of very important issues.
It’s likely more productive to discuss the other issues in their own threads - this thread is clearly focused on the cashless problem.
There’s more to it. The mono-culture is one thing, but rolling out the update to millions of computers on the same days sounds like a bad idea.
Fun fact in 2008, with nuclear submarines, the mono-culture was not that bad yet.
It’s interesting to note the UK went with a Windows XP variant and not Windows Vista, which is marketed as the more reliable OS. The USA never made the same calculations: The American Navy runs on Linux.
No wonder those Navy touchscreen controls killed people…
I personally have never had good luck with Linux touchscreens…
sounds like they rather spend that RND on pocket lining over contributing to software dev.
Navy: “we use Arch btw”
This
Not necessarily one provider but one point of failure. In this case it was the update system that allowed one company to push something to production on other companies systems.
I’m not in favor of a cashless society but looking at how Apple and Google are pushing their wallets (and how practical it is) you guys need to come to piece with the fact that cash might die with the millennial generation. Most Gen X don’t have / want a physical wallet and money needs to be digital.
With that said, I believe this Crowdstrike fiasco just proved that the biggest threat to IT lies inside the companies themselves and on the managers who decide to use this kind malware without properly understanding the risks. Yes, I’ve said it and I’ll say it again Crowdstrike is malware, anything that messes with Windows at that level is malware, there’s no other description and shouldn’t be allowed by Microsoft to exist.
Im the Xer type with no smartphone and prefers the wallet. I remember so many shows or street people with paranoia would have the horror of government trackers but I find the horror of corporate trackers to be much worse and far to real now.
Yeah, those same people totally paranoid about govt tracker are now carrying smartphones around no problem, how ironic isn’t it? :)
Industry standard solution that protects companies against malware is malware? Any proper AV will have unrestricted access to system. Only other option is for companies to completely lock down your device.
Here’s the thing, malware protection is supposed to deliver protection and one important aspect of that is making sure there’s business continuity… what they did was to completely fuck over their customers in that aspect, they become the problem and I bet that most companies running their solution would never suffer any catastrophic failure this bad if they didn’t run their software at all. No hacker would be able to take down so many systems so fast and so hard.
Yes. It is.
Any system with this level of access to the system should be opensource and tested against actual workloads before shipping updates to prod.
Something like ebpf would make more sense too.
I carry cash and so do many of the younger people I know. It is handy sometimes and happens to be private.
Me too, but we’re not the majority.
Can’t remember which one but credit cards were offline for a time with something and places that still had the carbon paper roller things stashed away took them out and used them. They should keep those things around.
That’s against the rules for PCI compliance
Under no circumstances should you copy a card
are they not allowed now. The thing im thinking about was definately post 2000 but maybe not 20teens
Shop I worked for in 2005… I think … ran cards when the connection was down and took card impressions, and I think the transactions were all auto submitted when the connection came back up.
did they do something special. most places I have been to when the network is down it just does not work.
national chain. I think it stored the transactions for transmission, and in-case it didn’t go through we also had the imprints as proof of having the card at the time of transaction. I assume it processed them as a different option instead of instant approval, and probably has different liability implications if the transaction is later denied. Being a big company, was probably fine.
deleted by creator
Do people still have embossed credit cards? All mine are flat now.
good point. I think embossing went away about when wireless became ubiquitous with it. So they would need to be doing that again.
My card is embossed. Then again it’s also from a community credit union in southeast Michigan. Lol.
My friends and I used to call those machines ker-chunkers. 😂
I’ve heard it mentioned as a “fly swatter” in my mother’s tongue.
Knuckle-buster was the industry term, and they were already obsolete 20 years ago…
Not sure how much good that’ll be… A lot of banks are giving out cards where the numbers are only printed, I haven’t had one with raised numbers in years.
You could just write down the numbers.
You could, but then we wouldn’t be talking about a carbon paper roller thingy…
Serious privacy issues around copying cards. That means the store has to retain a physical copy of the full embossed card number.
There were boxes full of them in the backroom.
Agreed. I would love to see a law requiring businesses to accept cash where possible. That sort of law already exists at state and local levels in the US, would like to see it adopted in the UK.
There already is a lawyer in the UK that says that.
Interestingly, the EU is moving in the other direction, with many places requiring that you accept card payments, with cash being optional.
One would think that there would be more than just one lawyer who says that… Oh well… :)
One EMP and ** Poof ** It’s all gone
See, we don’t have to use nuclear warheads anymore. Everyone, please dispose them safely
More or less the opening line of Dark Angel, iirc
So is the water supply, food and electricity. I don’t want to think about it.
Achieving a moneyless society after one big overlong network outage.
cashless society is a really stupid idea. it’s not worth sacrificing privacy and stability for a tiny bit of convenience.
Does anyone actually want a cashless society though?
I don’t carry cash for the same reason I don’t carry my socket wrench. I use it for specific things at specific times but I don’t need it day to day. That doesn’t mean I think socket wrenches should be outlawed.
Governments love the idea. It’s much easier to collect taxes or punish dissidents in a cashless society.
Well, our own government has never said anything about it. If they did propose it I guess our democratic process would find the best way forward. The same could be said of a great many things that will never exist.
Also collecting taxes ought to be easy and fair. If no one cheats then no one pays too much if they do not cheat. Besides that, there’s plenty of other measures that can be applied in 2024 to diminish tax evasion.
It’s now illegal in many parts of Europe to make large cash transactions.
… but how could someone buy a new Audi during a blackout ?
The right to have cash is granted on a constitutional level in the EU, all 27 member states would have to agree to get rid of cash.
I don’t understand why we can’t have multiple forms of payment. I’ll keep cash and cards so I have options
Same here. In a more general way, I don’t understand why people can’t simply let things coexist in peace. Just because one doesn’t like or use something, doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t. I’m getting tired of that behavior in our society, to be honest.
People are shilling something they don’t understand and the regime is taking advantage of their poor education and impulses.
Adults need to adult. Use cash and educate people around you about risks of cashless.
Prolly a futile fight but what are we gonna do, give up? Fuck that
Doing my part.
I agree. If every of us would do their homework right.
Doing my part.
Need to send a friend some money? How about you download this proprietary app made by some random company who takes a cut out of the middle. Cash is so outdated we need to use phones for no reason
A cashless society is so stupid beyond words. In order to create one you must also create a full surveillance society to protect it, and even that would be ineffective to stop it from being hacked.
Just to be clear we are a mostly cashless society and the majority of currency is not physically in existence around the world and somehow it manages to be protected by and large.
The difference is that if someone decides to freeze your cashless bank account they can by a mouse click and you’re destitute. Whereas if that happens in a cash-based society they have to come and get it from you.
well that is sorta my point. I keep some cash on hand but the majority of my money gets auto deposited and debited from there when I pay bills. If someone steals the majority of my money and I have somelike 1 to 10 percent its not a much better situation than them stealing all of my available funds. I mean it is which is how come I do keep a bit of cash on hand.
Good thing jobs pay in cash, oh wait, only shady jobs do that.
How many hacks that generated infinite money have you seen?
Just 1, but it seems to repeat ad infinitum:
Be born rich.
Get a conservative business-focused person into the government and watch them give infinite money to business in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks.
All presidents since at least Reagan and Prolly all of them but FDR has been pro corporate welfare and each one rewarded his oligarchs with generous subsidies…
Call it chips act or aca or covid relief etc… These are transfers from us treasury to the owner class.
This is not a party politics issue, this is the regime policy
I think it is important to have cash as a backup.
A couple of years ago there were some issues with card reading terminals in Germany. Due to a faulty security certificate these card reading terminals were not operational for about a whole month. Many stores were affected, because they almost all use ones from the same manufacturer. The only reason why it wasn’t such a big deal was that people were carrying cash around anyway and were able to switch the method of payment easily. Having cash worked as a backup.
*global IT outage shows dangers of monopolies.
Why do you hate the “free market”
Me, wanting to abolish currency entirely…
I live outside of time, outside of currency…
No kings, no presidents, no senators… Just… Coreys.
The economy is so fucked i essentially interact with friends and family on a barter system anyway. I bake them cookies and cakes and they let me use their laundry machines.
I’ll pay with gold bars
Would Taler be more resilient than a typical EMV/AmEx card? It’s designed as an online payment system but it’s less centralised, so that could help.
It’s already an attractive project due to its privacy feature, and due to it being more regulation-friendly that cryptocurrencies. If it’s resilient enough it could act as a digital cash.
To me Taler is not a cash alternative, but a card alternative, besides cash. It’s better then cards, probably for everyone involved, but it isn’t better than cash.
Cash alternative
I don’t think replacing cash is a good idea
Taler is closer to an EMV card alternative, rather than a cash alternative.
Hopefully cash remains. But regions and businesses are already starting to go cashless, so I’d rather have Tale as an option.
