Square is a payment processor and all payment processors are presented with an opportunity to use existing blockchains as the rails for a cheaper money transmission system. Blockchain networks have the capability to be cheaper than the offerings of the SWIFT system, ACH and VISA networks, for the payment processor.

Given the state of the technology today, taking advantage of these cost savings in the most network-aligned way requires massive liquidity. Square creating a liquidity solution helps them and grants their customers something they want.

So instead of using ACH which uses a currency with a fairly stable value and has a resolution process, they should use the blockchain instead, hope there are no major security issues in the near future, and hope their transaction eventually settles?

> Square creating a liquidity solution

How is putting transactions across the blockchain instead of ACH or Swift "more liquid"? I mean, I suppose if you want to evade taxes maybe, but I'm not clear how that actually helps the payment processor. Square doesn't benefit from "liquidity".

ACH is built on 70s technologies and fails more often than not. Storing transactions on an MS Access DB is probably safer and faster.

Really?

I've a system that has for years swapped NACHA files with a major bank for hundreds of thousands of accounts each day, and without fail it has worked 100% of the time! Guess what we use? SFTP whitelisted to specific IPs. A fixed width GPG encrypted file. That's it.

Can't say the same for most of these rubbish REST of an APIs out there that I've had to suffer through.

Some 70s technologies btw are great. There's nothing wrong with a well defined fixed width file with checksums. I wish all data files were those or CSVs.

> SFTP whitelisted to specific IPs. A fixed width GPG encrypted file.

Which is not part of the ACH spec... though I agree it is a good implementation

In other parts of the world you can transfer between accounts in almost real time, nobody uses checks anymore for rents or interpersonal transfers or intercompany money transfers.

Meanwhile the US still uses checks. ACH is jurassic.

> In other parts of the world you can transfer between accounts in almost real time

Real-time transfers under $5,000 are free between most American banks. For real-time irreversible transfers up to any amount, the Fedwire system is available. Most banks let large account holders send and receive domestic wires for free. ACH is used for low-cost, gross-settled transfers--it is the cheap, reversible option.

This myth of slow, expensive bank transfers dies slowly.

It works incredibly well even though it is archaic and a pain in the ass behind the scenes. Making it blockchainy solves nothing.

I'm not buying the cheaper argument. Which part of transacting on the Bitcoin network is cheaper exactly? Mining is cost-intensive, and transaction fees are at least an order of magnitude higher than Visa. Equating SWIFT to Visa is also disingenuous as the former is meant for cross border settlements where the restrictions are regulatory (AML), not technology. Switching to Bitcoin doesn't mean Square or any other institution can simply ignore AML laws.

I see this mainly as a service they wish to provide to a segment of their customer. I also expect it to be a loss leader and shut down over time.

"transaction fees are at least an order of magnitude higher than Visa"

Transaction fee on bitcoin presently is an average of 60c [1]. Visa is around 2% + 0.10. Thus for transfers over about 25 USD, bitcoin (presently) is cheaper. And that's not considering terminal fees, payment gateway fees, annual fees, monthly fees, early termination fees, statement fees and so on.

[1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...

maybe they'll get on the Bitcoin lightning network

No chargebacks?

Is that meant as a positive or a negative, as chargebacks help the consumer, as does non-repudiation. The general public wants these features in our exchange mediums.

It forces arbitration with the business in the case of a dispute. Wouldn't payment processors and businesses want that?

Consumers don't want that.

You can build a system that allows charge backs on a system that doesn't allow charge backs but you cannot build a system without charge backs on a system that does allow charge backs.

These escrow products already exist for customers on Bitcoin.

That's not a feature it is a drawback.

It is actually a feature. From the original Bitcoin whitepaper:

> Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

As a buyer I wouldn't use it then.

Mmm. I am not sure if Square actually lets you transact using Bitcoin or if this is just about purchasing and selling it to hold it as an investment. I haven’t actually tested it out.

I understand that some people don't see value in blockchain tech, but boy, this is just naked hyperbole.

Yeah, they should avoid New York state and their scammy, rent-seeking, regulators as much as possible. The idea of a cryptocurrency license is absurd and an affront to the very concept.

No totally, they should exclude the state with a 1.1 trillion dollar GDP, the 3rd highest in the United States and the same as the entirety of Mexico because they needed a license. Good point, I hadn't considered that.