A fairly good overview, however Pearson should have noted that Satoshi stated that the limit was arbitrary and should be lifted. It was only a means to prevent DoS when bitcoin transactions were extremely cheap.
Meh. Meanwhile, I gladly pay the credit card transaction fee that is baked into the price of my morning coffee, because if it weren't for the fact that my local pub doesn't do cards, I would literally never carry cash. I don't really follow bitcoin, but it seems to me that this block-size drama is deeply important to anyone involved in the community and utterly unimportant to your average coffee shop owner wondering if they should accept bitcoin....consider this: When I pay two dollars for my morning coffee in cash, I don’t have to pay any amount, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, for the privilege.
You don't, actually. It's illegal to charge an additional fee for using a card. It's legal to offer a discount for cash, however. Not only that but the fees charged per card are different depending on the card and the banking network it's processed through. The debate about coffee shops taking bitcoin is all about the access, as per usual. If Square ran on BTC your local coffee shop would run on BTC. The problem is that BTC is becoming cumbersome for anything but big transfers; it's starting to look more like a bad implementation of ACH and less like a peer-to-peer network (more Spotify, less Pirate Bay). If you're going to put up with something cumbersome, why not stick with the FDIC-insured, not-taxed-as-property alternative known as "money?"
Correct me if I'm wrong (Wintermute), but I'm assuming she/he meant that prices are raised proportionally for everybody by places that accept credit to make up for the fees they have to pay, so you're paying a shop's credit card fees whether you're paying by credit or not. I can't imagine that it's illegal in this situation, but I have no idea about the law you're referencing.
I'm aware that's what they meant. I was pointing out that it's a facile argument. On the one hand, you might as well assume the fees are "baked in" from the pastry delivery charges, or the extra time necessary to make a pour-over, or the electrical bill. There's certainly overhead associated with a credit card, but if you add it in in any way visible to the customer, Visa, Mastercard and Amex will all revoke your agreement. Also, any sorts of charges are flatly illegal in 10 states. On the other hand, cash discounts are entirely legal. So is that discount "baked in?" If the shop offers no cash discount (most commonly seen at gas stations), the answer is no. Even though it's perfectly legal. Even though credit card transaction fees are usually between 3% and 7%. So - variable overhead you are explicitly forbidden from outlining vs. fixed overhead you are explicitly permitted to outline. "baked in" is a dumb way to describe it.
That's a large part of the debate, actually. One side in this debate wants your coffee transactions to eventually become bitcoin transactions, saving the merchant (and thus, you) money that would have gone to payment processors. Also, you could then use your card at the pub. The other side doesn't want bitcoin to be used for currency at all. Eventually you will be buying your coffee on a blockchain. You might not ever realize that you are when you are doing it, but it has the potential to cost you and the merchant less when it is. It do not think it is likely that you will be using the bitcoin blockchain, however.