Bitcoin exchange | new territory idea \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

527 sats \ 11 comments \ @fourrules 20h AskSN

@k00b has anyone suggested this before?

Repeat interactions foster trust. Can the trust fostered by repeat interactions on Stacker.news be leveraged to build a more user-friendly alternative to Bisq, for regular small-cap stacking and drawing down?

Users would have to know that there is no meditation or escrow, except maybe a 3-strike policy for users who are involved in disputes, who would be banned from the territory (if that is possible on SN).

I'm a big fan of spend-and-replace to increase my cost basis.

I like to use Bitrefill for much of my regular monthly spending, groceries, presents, sometimes travel.

But there are many vouchers that are not offered on Bitrefill, airlines, restaurants, clothing stores, grocery stores.

My main grocery store, for example, sells gift vouchers, but not via Bitrefill.

Proposal:

new territory
bounty-only (this might not work for people who want to buy bitcoin, needs thought)
moderated for scams

Rules:

amount requested/offered
rough description of requested voucher, without doxxing yourself, only necessary information
How you want to receive the voucher (e.g. burner email, Nostr, Telegram/Signal username)
bitcoin zapped with message contact details *
What payment processors are accepted to purchase the voucher

You don't put the contact details in the original post, you say how you want to receive it, so the person sending the voucher knows that they need a Signal or Nostr account to fulfill the request. They'll get the actual content in the message attached to the zap.

Some types of purchases, like wishlists on various websites (Amazon.com, Lego.com, etc...) require sending an address, or at least a pickup address, to another stacker. But the reality is that these larger online retailers are covered by Bitrefill, and I'm really talking about the long-tail of retail that represents a significant monthly spend for an average person.

In principle, neo-banks also make it very easy to make transfers with usernames, like regular chat apps, so one could skip the voucher part and just give a Revolut username via Signal or Nostr.

Any thoughts?

view all related items

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 15h

I have heard rumours of a transaction or two occurring on SN pre attached wallets when de facto PMs existed. I also am aware of a few that have occurred through nostr PMs. I'm not sure there would be a benefit to having a dedicated territory, with lots of eyeballs focused on what's going on. Informal one off transactions with accounts who you trust may be safer.

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules OP 7h

I wonder if I territory can have reduced permissions, so you can't see it unless you've signed up with a lightning wallet.

I know it's not much of a filter for someone determined, but if it's successful then maybe it could be moved to a domain like stacker.exchange on the same auth system with more advanced features that help to foster Bitcoin as a medium of a exchange.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @grayruby 20h

I don't think you need a new territory to execute a peer to peer transaction with someone. I am sure this something @k00b has zero interest in SN being the middleman for in any way.

60 sats \ 6 replies \ @fourrules OP 20h

Name the existing territory such a bounty would be posted to.

I'm not proposing that SN become a middleman, no more than Facebook or Craigslist are middlemen. I'm not describing or proposing an escrow service or system of dispute mediation.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 20h

I don't see why you couldn't post a bounty in Bitcoin.

I mean middleman in the sense of having to potentially moderate bad behaviour, mediate disputes and make an effort to protect people from scams more than a transactional middleman.

That's aside from the potential legal issues this might create for them.

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @fourrules OP 20h

If you did that you'd need to restate the rules repetitively, and different people would set slightly or dramatically different terms.

Simple protocols for conducting these exchanges are useful because they can be argued about until optimal terms and processes are agreed by the widest group of people, and thus rough consensus reduces friction. Basically people know what to do and what to expect without needing to read the entire post, and if one party deviates from the protocol and there is a mix-up that results in loss of funds they can't claim that the other party was wrong, whoever deviated from the terms of the territory is by default in the wrong.

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 20h

SN went to an awful lot of trouble to not have an SN hosted wallet on the site. Not sure how they would feel about this but you can discuss it with k00b.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules OP 19h

Why would this require hosted wallets? Again, I'm not talking about an escrow service. You zap the bitcoin-buyer directly with a message attached to the zap that allows them to send the voucher to you.

SN would not be an intermediary. The person doing the work would be the person who puts up the bitcoin to start the territory and then moderates it.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 19h

Point is SN went out of their way to avoid any legal liability as a potential money transmitter, they probably don't want to wade into any muddy legal waters even if they aren't an intermediary. All I am saying is talk to k00b about it.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules OP 19h

Fair enough, but there are subreddits that do the same, but are full of scams. I don't think it's much different.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 3h

this is stacker NEWS, kinda makes no sense, ton of great options out there, what a spooky post