(no title)
krade | 3 years ago
"Consumers can now go into a MoneyGram location to either load their digital wallets to access the digital economy, or cash-out their digital currencies to increase the utility of their holdings."
So the real world use-case for Moneygram is to exchange cryptocurrency for cash and vice versa. How exactly does this refute his point?
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.
Not to mention ENS is running their "web3" on Cloudflare. The decentralization is truly mind boggling.
Oh and loved this part about handshake renewal fees:
"Renewal fees and ownership It’s important to understand that when you buy a traditional domain, you are hooked to pay the domains registrar a renewal fee each year. This is a fee to maintain ownership of your domain name. The renewal fees are subject to change and often times driven by ICANN and then the registrars. So with traditional domains, you don’t truly own them – you are simply leasing it"
And handshake domains solve this by:
"Handshake domain names provide true ownership. Which means there are yearly renewal fees*"
Gotcha, makes sense.
rvz|3 years ago
First of all, I hope you read the guidelines. [0]
> 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