| > did you even read the moneygram PR? First of all, I hope you read the guidelines. [0] Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
> So the real world use-case for Moneygram is to exchange cryptocurrency for cash and vice versa. How exactly does this refute his point?Whilst you were reading it, Did you ignore this? >> The partnership focuses on delivering a service that revolutionizes the settlement process. For the first time, settlement with MoneyGram will occur in near-real-time using USDC, one of the world's fastest growing dollar digital currencies. This enables an accelerated collection of funds, improving efficiencies and reducing risks. The claim: "Money transfer use-cases would fall directly in the category of “crypto-only”. For as long as Bitcoin has existed, this has been touted as a great use-case — but it never really materialized." Indeed, Bitcoin cannot be used for that use case for a number of obvious reasons and it seems that Moneygram, Stellar, etc partnered for that use-case, otherwise that solution would not exist. The author seems to be trying their hardest to narrow the goal post for this one. > And having blockchain domains that can only be accessed using a particular dns, a VPN service, certain browsers or having to install an extension is hilarious. So that means you can't use it today and it is 'not a use case'? Perhaps it's 'hilarious' for users today especially those in either Russia or Ukraine to download a specific browser or extension to access the Tor Network or .onion links. Seems like all these users defending it don't see that as a problem? [1]. Beacon browser (Chromium derivative) does the same thing for Handshake, ENS domains: https://impervious.com/beacon Assuming you have read the whole article in [2]: Can you seize a Handshake / ETH domain away just like a private equity attempted to do for a .org domain? Surely they [3] saw that as a problem and were crying about it. > "Handshake domain names provide true ownership. Which means there are yearly renewal fees" The mining fees for a TLD are biannual and are for every 2 years and are 100,000x times cheaper compared to ICANN which is $180,000 per TLD filed for application + $5,000. But I thought you read the whole article from [2] which you failed to cite this. Clearly you did not. If you want 'true' ownership, you will also find that in [4] that a Handshake TLD can be locked and verified in a decentralised registry forever [3] which has virtually zero renewal fees. So once again, there's seems to be a valid use case in blockchain domains. Especially with the use-case in payments directly to readable names rather than unreadable addresses. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288058 [2] https://learn.namebase.io/about-handshake/about-handshake [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677 [4] https://registry.impervious.com |