camosoul
Well-known member
I see a problem with some of the claims made in the recent DIP5 blog.
1) QR Codes are intimidating.
Since when?
2) Paying to a username is simpler.
No, actually, it isn't.
The username still has to be input. It still has to be acquired. Type it I, I troducing user error? Slower than scanning a QR Code.
And it also breaks the chain of inherent knowledge.
Once received, how does the receiver know from when we it came? In the conventional model, it doesn't matter, because a unique address had been presented for the transaction. But now, everything goes to a central point. How does the vendor know which customer sent it for which transaction? This was I weren't to the transaction model previously, but now it's broken.
This smells of the continued complete lack of interest in the vendor's needs. To the point of taking a bad vendor experience and making it worse.
Further, I see talk of deliberately avoiding any fiat bridge.
You have to bridge the gap before you can fill the gap.
Like it or not, vendor's vendors are forced to be in bed with legacy systems. You have to make it easy for them to bridge that gap.
Is adoption not the goal anymore? You had the golden feature with InstantSend, but still aren't capitalizing on. How do you expect to reach adoption if there's still nowhere anyone can use DASH in real life? And the reason for that being, you continue to make the vendor experience completely untenable.
You need simplicity. People walk up, scan, agree, fiat appears in the vendor's bank account. The vendor has the option to learn more, and if they so choose, hold a percentage as crypto, certain transactions, or shut off fiat conversion at some future point as they learn more, and if they feel like it.
Adoption will occurred when people can actialla use it. The only remaining barrier is that vendor's still can't do what they need. Evolution)DIP5 looks like a solution in search of a problem that actually generates new problems.
I'm not the only one that tried to bring something like this to market only to have the DASH community, and even some of the leadership, FUD and shut down every single project aimed at this. Even to the point of holding known bugs to use as an excuse.
Do you really intend to reach adoption by deliberately staying in your echo chamber?
1) QR Codes are intimidating.
Since when?
2) Paying to a username is simpler.
No, actually, it isn't.
The username still has to be input. It still has to be acquired. Type it I, I troducing user error? Slower than scanning a QR Code.
And it also breaks the chain of inherent knowledge.
Once received, how does the receiver know from when we it came? In the conventional model, it doesn't matter, because a unique address had been presented for the transaction. But now, everything goes to a central point. How does the vendor know which customer sent it for which transaction? This was I weren't to the transaction model previously, but now it's broken.
This smells of the continued complete lack of interest in the vendor's needs. To the point of taking a bad vendor experience and making it worse.
Further, I see talk of deliberately avoiding any fiat bridge.
You have to bridge the gap before you can fill the gap.
Like it or not, vendor's vendors are forced to be in bed with legacy systems. You have to make it easy for them to bridge that gap.
Is adoption not the goal anymore? You had the golden feature with InstantSend, but still aren't capitalizing on. How do you expect to reach adoption if there's still nowhere anyone can use DASH in real life? And the reason for that being, you continue to make the vendor experience completely untenable.
You need simplicity. People walk up, scan, agree, fiat appears in the vendor's bank account. The vendor has the option to learn more, and if they so choose, hold a percentage as crypto, certain transactions, or shut off fiat conversion at some future point as they learn more, and if they feel like it.
Adoption will occurred when people can actialla use it. The only remaining barrier is that vendor's still can't do what they need. Evolution)DIP5 looks like a solution in search of a problem that actually generates new problems.
I'm not the only one that tried to bring something like this to market only to have the DASH community, and even some of the leadership, FUD and shut down every single project aimed at this. Even to the point of holding known bugs to use as an excuse.
Do you really intend to reach adoption by deliberately staying in your echo chamber?
