> > You may be right that *certain types of retail transactions* (like, > buying a pushbike or something) are not amenable to e-gold-type > transactions. > > However "real money" e-gold direct online transactions are "fucking > fabulous" for vast categories of stuff. For instance, paying > employees and being paid. For instance, paying rent. For instance, > buying stuff at banana, or paying for things like hosting and DOMs. > For instance, thegoldcasino, which is a mega hit, because irrevocable > direct online transactions are tremendously advantageous for > gambling. e-gold type irrevocable direct online transactions would > also be totally ideal for say paying etrade, and so on.
Paying employees? Unless the company makes its money in e-gold, this is going to be costly. The marketmakers would be happy. Direct Deposit will work out much cheaper. Same problem for paying rent. 3% loss when you buy the e-gold. That's $30 a month if I have a $1000 rent. The casino, yes, that's one of the best example where non-reversible payment is the (only) way to go. > > But sure you're right that there are many categories of retailing > that credit-card type revocable transatcions are popular for .... and > .... As far as I know consumer spending accounts for about 70% of GDP Companies will make money in e-gold only if customers start paying for goods in e-gold (and these customers prefer reversible payment). Once the company makes e-gold , only then it makes sense to start paying the employees in e-gold, and when that happens the people can pay their rent in e-gold. The first step is largely missing (because no reversible payment systems with e-gold), so the next stages (employees and rent) are only happening rarely. > > >Yes, but e-gold will not get popular unless you can do reversible > >transactions with it. > > i do think though Danny that e-gold "made reversible" would simply no > longer be e-gold. It would have lost it's raison d'etre and be > completely pointless. The "made reversible" should only be optional. So for users who insist on non-reversible payments (to be set in the account settings), nothing would change. Such a system would have both, all the possibilities of e-gold , plus all the possibilities of Paypal, at the choice of the user. I can't see any loss or pointlessness there. For you it will still be the e-gold like it has always been. Some others will offer their customers the possibility to claim their e-gold back for whatever reason. It is still gold being circulated electronically... > > (In contrast ... let's say you started a new system, "abcgrams.com" > which WERE revocable. what would happen? What would happen is > everyone would imemdiately convert their abcgrams to e-gold grams > because ... e-gold grams are not revocable! :) IG is meant to be > non-revokable, or else it's not really IG.) Simple solution. As I said before, there is a set period during which the customer can do a charge back, for example one month. If you have accepted reversible payment, you can only take out the gold that is free from chargeback possibility, that is after one month. This system is fair and clear for everybody, no added risk for e-gold (the merchant who accept reversible payment takes all the risks for doing so. Fair) This is actually a major improvement over what creditcards are offering now. The cc company can process chargebacks even months after the purchase. They also don't offer partial chargeback possibility. > > So yes, I think as Patrick was saying, there's probably a HUGE, HUGE > opportunity for a "Van den Berghe payment system" which is sort of a > credit card based on egold or a praypal based on egold. Not really a creditcard, because no credit comes in. Only a really flexible and secure payment system with gold backing. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
