Not in the sense of “absolutely not”, but by and large this is what it means.
Fairphone staff might read along in this forum and engage occasionally, or not. It’s better to not expect them to and address the company directly if you want something from the company. But hold that thought for the moment …
Not in the sense of “absolutely not”, but by and large this is what it means.
Sorry, could you please tell me, what you do mean by FUD?
The video is - in my opinion - not really convincing. Because the two points made are really weak points:
- The energy is procuced by plants, that are designed to meet future needs, so lets use this energy now instead of wasting it.
The problem with this kind of reasoning is twofold:
- When the energy is used up even now for mining, the reserve for future developments is gone and guess what? I already hear the argumente: “We need more powerplants, because the rise in consumption is exceeding plans.”
- As all the energy is used up, the drive to reduce energy consumption and all arguments to shut plants down are countered. Not exactly a good thing in my opinion.
- Bitcoin mining obviously is using lots of power. But it’s unfair to mention this, because standard payment is using lots of energy as well (trucks, cash machines, servers for transfer etc.)
That argument is not convincing me as well.
- If the energy used for usual payments is equaling bitcoin mining, some data for that argument would be nice. But just making a list of energy consuming processes is misleading. A long list seems to imply big consupmtion, which might not be the case. And listing things that belong to investment banking is not volid at all, since banks do more than just payments (that’s no statement of the sense and moral of all those actiions, just a fact).
- Others doing equally bad is never an argument that bad behaviour is acceptable.
- The study I already cited above gives some´estimate in comparing energy consumptions:
Digiconomist: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index.
Regarding the fact, that bitcoin is higly speculative, just watch the exchange rate and compare it to any widely traded currency. This makes trading in bitcoin and selling goods for bitcoing kind of a gamble; in my opinion that is, of course.
When selling goods, I think normally you would leave your prices in EUR and let some payment service provider handle Bitcoin payment for customers who want to pay in Bitcoin … so you would get your normal EUR price, and Bitcoin payers would have the risk of the exchange rate.
Hi there, to answer your question, we do not have adding bitcoin as a payment method on our roadmap for the foreseeable future. However, if anything changes down the line, we will definitely keep you updated.
Let’s take it from the beginning. Every merchant needs at least one payment option to be able to sell anything. Different payment options come with different pros and cons. You said “bitcoin does not seem to be the best choice for a startup selling a fair / ecological product.” Implying that would be a worse ethical choice than the other payment options, because of its energy consumption. A thing that is very transparent in bitcoin, not so for other payment options. If one is to make an ethical choice among payment options one has to also consider other things.
Has everybody already forgotten that time when Visa blocked people from supporting Wikileaks after they exposed war crimes committed in Iraq, while at the same time allowing people to send money to Ku Klux Klan?
To be clear, I’m not saying that Fairphone should drop Visa, that would obviously be commercial suicide. Just that a fair world needs censorship resistant money. IMHO
Sure, but why wouldn’t normal money transfer via bank account do the trick?
And if your bank is limiting your options, you always can change for another bank.
I guess, the main advantage/point for crypto currency is anonymous payment.
The downside of it is, that all the scammers, blackmailers, porn-, drug- and arms dealers use that currency as well.
True in a way. But the reports, I found and that tried a comparison came up with a really bad result for bitcoin.
You’re really doubling down on spreading the FUD
Do you understand that censorship resistant is actually something completely different than anonymous payment? And that bitcoin isn’t actually anonymous, pseudonymous at best.
I surmise, you read my posting.
Yet, I am not so sure, you understood it.
First I agreed with you on the point of censorship resistance by saying “SURE”
Then - and that being a different point - I just posted my own opinion (“I GUESS”), that the main advantage of cryptocurrency could be pseudonymity - I stand corrected there for not being precise enough.
Next you could try some counterargument to the fact, that scam-mails and blackmails (at least all that I received) come with a code for a bitcoin wallet and that crypto currency is kind of “the option” on darknet marketplaces selling illegal goods. Do some research there of your own (for starters: on the web).
But alas, you just call it FUD, as if that is argument enough. Well, it isn’t. It is rather a kind of insult. Where are your arguments?
I obviously made a difference between censorship resistance and anonymity/pseudonymity, but you just failed to catch it.
Anonymous was not correct. Pseudonymity is the correct term; which still is an advantage over other payment options.
If you would like to buy a Fairphone I recommend you adapt to the status quo of payment (IBAN, credit/debit card). Just like you gotta do with your insurance, taxes, rent, etc etc.
The argument of Bitcoin being censorship-free (I don’t agree with that, but lets take it for granted) does not apply to Fairphone 3. Or do we have some kind of magical reports of people being not allowed to own or buy a Fairphone 3?
What I consider FUD are blanket statements like “X is preferred by criminals”, now I am all for discussing ethical considerations with different payment methods, but I think it should be more balanced. Perhaps “Y is also used by criminals”. In fact I don’t think there exists a payment method in this world that is without criminal transactions. And the ability to make payments is a necessity, so we can’t just throw them all out. It is a quite complex and difficult question what would be the most ethical payment method. But let me just take ONE example from the traditional banking sector, from just two months back
For over a decade they been washing ill gotten criminal money clean. And that’s just one Swedish bank.
Sorry, but I’m quite bad at adapting to status quo
Well, FUD stands for “Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt” as a scare-tactics.
I am always accepting if one argues, that my arguments can be considered FUD, but the keyword is “argueing”. Placing labels is not enough.
And I am really sorry, that my statement is not more balanced.
But since I was discussing bitcoin as a payment method, my statements were concening this kind of payment option.
Of course you can do fraud in every currency and using all kinds of payment options like stolen bank accounts and credit-card data. And quite obviously most illegal transactions and frauding happens through standard payment options. But much more interesting is the percentage of transactions concerning illegal / criminal stuff.
Besides: I never ever stated, that bitcoin is preferred by criminals. My arguing was, that pseudonymity is an important argument pro bitcoin and proof of this is the fact, that cryptocurrencies are widely (and preferredly used in the darknet for criminal transactions.
My very own, really not representative experience; I never ever received a mail claiming my computer has been hacked that was sending me bank account data for making a payment to hinder someone from deleting my data. But I got quite a lot of mails like that sending me a bitcoin wallet code.
As you - in my very personal opinion and just regarding this thread - are at argueing.
You once again omit taking up my arguments.
Instead: the article you linked to is about a fine for deficiencie in anti money laundering measures.
PLEASE do tell me, what kind of anti-money laundering measueres are connected to bitcoin, if any. I wouldn’t know of such a thing.
Only problem is, that there is no organisation you could fine for a lack in those regard, it’s rather a systemic deficit.
So, in my opinion , while your reasoning is absolutely correct, it doesn’t cover my arguments, that you claim to be FUD.
That’s it from me, since we are already very much off-topic here and I am really absolutely fine with everyone using every possible payment method.