I think I may have portrayed my view wrong, then. I don't have problem with the "bump" thing as a generic interaction. I can see it as a very handy way of doing certain things, like playing a game with a friend. At the moment I'd have to look for all nearby phones(/DSes, etc.) and figure out which one is my friend. Just nodding our phones together seems a great improvement. There are tons of other things I imagine it would be great for.

I do have a problem with its use for transferring money. It just seems pointless. That's what cash is for, and paypal is most useful because I can use it where cash is not an option. I don't see any benefit to using this kind of interaction here.

For it to be useful, we have to be in the same room, I'd have to not have any cash or cheques, or alternatively be required to use paypal. It also has to be something that has to happen soon, or else I could get cash later or use paypal regularly or something rather than going through the effort of us taking out our phones and looking like goofs. We also both have to already have the relevant app installed, with a compatible model of phone. I actually have to make sure of this, too-- I have to ask, "hey do you have that paypal app", etc., which takes more time. This is a situation I do not foresee happening very often at all. There are just so many limiting factors, and it's just so easy to have enough cash in my wallet.

The theory is that there are lots of transactions where you do not have cash or check (or would prefer not to use them). Some examples: your friend owes you money but does not have cash (yes, it does happen). You order food with coworkers and do not have cash (or change, we bump to pay people back for lunch almost every day). Or you are buying something off craigslist and want the security of PayPal rather than just giving someone cash (oops turns out it was counterfeit). Or you are doing a large transaction where check isn't accepted (>$100?) and don't have or want to carry that much cash.

Some people think this is a great idea, others not. Only time will tell. We would love for it to be successful, but have a lot of other things in the works as well. ;)

I can't speak for some of these (like craigslist-- until recently I have lived in very out of the way places). But for others, I have existing solutions that work well. For example, in the case of being owed money I just let them pay me back whenever. Generally it works out that maybe we go to play poker and he pays my buy-in in exchange for that lunch I bought him, or he grabs me a drink when he goes outside for a smoke, or some other timely, convenient thing.

Such is the case, I guess, for pretty much everything. Bump itself replaces things that already exist, but in its case it seems like it can do clearly better with few barriers to adoption (e.g. games), while with the paypal scheme it's not so clear. My reactionary tendencies pick up, "don't fix it if it ain't broke". But, you're right, time will tell. Just because the existing solutions seem perfectly fine doesn't mean Paypal's system won't become easy enough and commonplace enough for everyday use. Because, yes, it does have some advantages.

It still seems so pointless to me, but then I guess, so do/did a lot of established things.

I often don't have the exact cash I need to give someone. Do you?

Are you sure you aren't just trolling?

Exact cash rarely matters. If a friend of mine wants to get a soda at the machine, and all I have is a toonie, I'll give him the toonie [note: that's 2CAD, machines rarely go over 1.25CAD for a can of pop]. I'm a cheapskate, but it really doesn't matter in the end. I'll probably ask him for money if I'm short, too.

And, yes, I'm pretty sure I honestly believe that this isn't useful, and that I'm not making this belief up to start a fight. Why would I be confused on this matter?