[vanviegen]

In the Netherlands we have such a system called iDEAL. People use the app/site from their own bank to authorize the payment and the money arrives on the receiver's bank account instantly and irrevocably (without a judge stepping in). It's also very cheap (like 25 cents fixed).

Merchant fraud doesn't appear to be a big problem. Probably because the merchant requires a Dutch bank account, which requires a lot of identifying paperwork

It's pretty awesome.

Many other European companies have a similar system, and I believe there are plans to join them into one system. Let's hope the credit card lobbyist don't manage to mess it up.

[sneak]

I’m not knocking it for Dutch people, but the internet needs a trustworthy global payments system that works for more than the 20 million in .nl.

It also sucks that you have to provide strong identity to the payer or payee, sending or receiving payments should not require disclosing identity. That’s a bug, not a feature.

[mcherm]

> It also sucks that you have to provide strong identity to the payer or payee, [...] That’s a bug, not a feature.

No, it is a feature, just not a feature for the customer. It's also not a feature for the bank or fintech. The strict identity requirements are a feature for the GOVERNMENT, and if you want to avoid them you probably need to start your own government (which is notoriously difficult).

[DonHopkins]

Your need to buy illegal drugs and launder money anonymously and perpetrate fraudulent rug pulls and shill get-rich-quick pyramid schemes should not trump the needs of most other people who simply require a fast, reliable way to make legal secure business transactions without fees and middlemen. Anyway, the Netherlands and rest of the world already has a fully functioning illegal drug trading and money laundering network, without any need for your cryptocurrency bullshit: that's just a solution looking for problems, which it turns out were solved much better, a long time ago.

[semi]

you're making a lot of assumptions in bad faith. why?

Maybe they just don't want all of their personal information to be stored in yet another database waiting to be leaked.

[DonHopkins]

The blockchain is a public database that's leaked by definition.

Maybe they shouldn't spend their time evangelizing and shilling cryptocurrencies online just because their own financial security depends on tricking as many new suckers as possible into investing all of their money into the same get-rich-quick pyramid schemes they put their own money into, so they can pump and dump and pull the rug on them the way somebody else did to them.

[sneak]

It’s not a database, it’s just a ledger, and it doesn’t identify people unless you use it incorrectly.

Your unhinged attacks are factually inaccurate, and contribute nothing to the discussion at hand (that is, about payment systems for individual use, which are usually denominated in fiat currencies, which usually get paid in stablecoins) besides anger and hostility. I’ve been using cryptocurrencies as an end user for more than a dozen years and have never done any of these things you list.

Perhaps you paint with too wide a brush.

You suggest that the problems cryptocurrency solve were already solved long ago, but I don’t see it. How do I send money cheaply, instantly, permissionlessly, and irreversibly across borders without identity? I only know of one way.

[autoexec]

I still hope for some solution to the problem that doesn't depend on imaginary internet money the value of which fluctuates wildly by the minute. We can keep using cash for anonymous transactions, but there are so many limitations to cash transactions that money transfers via internet don't have.

[kolinko]

Hear hear. We have the same thing in Poland.