Developers February 16, 2020

Accepting Bitcoin rather than traditional currencies?

blakedhamilton

I've been intrigued by cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, for some time now and it's incredibly rare that I encounter a business that accepts payments via Bitcoin.

What are you thoughts on accepting Bitcoin versus any other currency?

Is it something you would implement in your business if it was easier or are you skeptical?

  1. 2

    If I were going to accept crypto on my website I would use Bitpay. It supports payments in Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum (ETH), 3 USD-pegged stablecoins (GUSD, USDC, and PAX), and Ripple (XRP).

  2. 2

    I would stay away from Bitcoin because of the high fees.

    1. 1

      I've been using bitcoin for quite a while and never paid the supposed high fees, specially since I started using the lightning network about a year ago it's rare to pay more than a few satoshis per payment.

      On-chain, the highest fee I paid was 9 sats/byte.

      1. 3

        Try to use it during the peek of the bull market ;d Jokes aside, currently I don't think many people would like to pay in Bitcoin, as it is mainly used for speculative purposes (buy high, sell low) and remember the infamous pizza order.

      2. 1

        Fees have been going down for sure, but they are still high compared to other cryptos.

        1. 1

          Well, almost no one is transacting on the other chains... hardly any competition for fees.

          https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/sentinusd-btc-eth-bch-bsv.html#3m

          bitcoin moves orders of magnitudes more USD value than the other chains combined.

          Also, check out median fee on lightning is $0.000097791 per transaction! If you haven't tried it you should, it's super cool!

          1. 1

            Well, almost no one is transacting on the other chains... hardly any competition for fees.

            other chains such as eth, bch and bsv have up to 1000x more block capacity than btc. So handling the capacity of BTC doesn’t even scratch the surface for them. BTC blocks were intentionally kept small, allowing only 350k transactions to be confirmed per day. The goal was for menial small transactions to be done over the lightning network, which has been extremely slow to get off the ground.

            1. 1

              There are fundamental compromises those projects have made that make them, in my opinion, pointless, that's why I use bitcoin and not bsv, bch, dash, etc.

              And even those fundamental compromises don't solve scaling, even if they had 1000x more block capacity (they don't), 1000x more scaling doesn't allow visa+mastercard+swift+ach-level transactions, so even for those chains the scaling via increasing the block size is not enough.

              The good thing is we all can use whatever we think works best; I use the lightning network every single day and it works perfect. That whole narrative that LN is stalled or slow getting off the ground is just wrong.

              I think we're going super off-topic, happy to discuss on a DM if you'd like.

              1. 1

                And even those fundamental compromises don't solve scaling, even if they had 1000x more block capacity (they don't), 1000x more scaling doesn't allow visa+mastercard+swift+ach-level transactions, so even for those chains the scaling via increasing the block size is not enough.

                this is all mantra from the core devs who brought you the 2017 fee crisis.

                With graphene its possible to compress large blocks by 98%. That means a 1gb block can be compressed down to 20mb for transmitting between miners. At a 1gb block capacity bitcoin would process over 4,000 txs per second, which is 2.5x what visa does.

                1. 1

                  this is all mantra from the core devs

                  hey man, no call for that -- you are persuaded by a set of arguments, I'm persuaded by a different set of arguments and the market is persuaded by yet a different set of arguments. You can follow the graphene-based scaling, I'll follow the LN-based scaling.

                  Like I said, this has gone off-topic enough. If you want to keep discussing feel free to DM me.

          2. 1

            Crypto "currency" that needs a second layer solution for transactions is a joke. Lightning network has been in development for many years but hasn't made much progress.

  3. 1

    Depends who your target audience is I guess. If it's people that are super into crypto, go for it.

    If your target is the general public though, the market isn't mature enough with actual adoption of crypto for payments. People are mainly purchasing it to bet that it'll become something in the future (e.g. look at XRP and Lumens). Even as someone who owns crypto, as a user if I saw I could only transaction via crypto I'd be like.. nahh.

    If you want to move forward this way, it would have to be done where the user either doesn't know they're paying in crypto or its super easy for them to convert a regular payment into it.

  4. 1

    How about Tether - USDT?