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?
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
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
Agree completely. Was a fan of Bitcoin Cash when it split off in 2017! Better to have things on-chain.
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.
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'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
small nodes don't matter. They can prune or shard the blockchain.
What matters is the economics of medium-sized nodes that are operated by small buisnesses. These are are the entities that have material reasons to run a full node (to accept transactions in an automated manner while preventing theft), and these are the entities that evaluate the rules of the cryptocurrency at the time of transaction.