I feel very, very strange that payment processors can act that way. It's not the first time I hear about such things, other times it has happened with Paypal or Stripe.

I mean that's some users' fault, isn'it it? Isn't it the job of the payment processor to identify and handle problem users and crooks? What am I paying them for? I don't really understand how they can boot customers, _and_ boot them _without an explanation_. They should need at least a ruling from a judge. I can understand if my audience is "risky" and hence I get no discount on fees and so on, but this behaviour is unacceptable and - IMHO - it breaks business freedom and (potentially) competition.

I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in Italy, as an example, a "real" business operating in brick-and-mortar locations is considered a "public place" (pubblico esercizio) and it can't refuse its services to people that can pay for them (barring some legal limits, e.g. selling alcohol to kids or to people that are already drunk). I think that in a ruling some years ago those rights were extended to online shops and activities. If you want to give services to a restricted audience you can create a "private club", but then you're severely limited in what you can do in marketing/advertising and such.

I really think the same should happen for internet activities. This is blatant - albeit algorithmic - discrimination.

Preferably one with low fees, finality and a high transaction capacity, though. Things that doesn't seem to exist in any of the common cryptocurrencies, yet.

>Things that doesn't seem to exist in any of the common cryptocurrencies

Lightning (layer 2 on top of Bitcoin) seem to be fitting the bill pretty well at this point.

In it's current state it's not really functional, is it?

Bitcoin is a failure as a transaction system - it doesn't scale and fees rocket as the network gets full.

Lightning appears to be a failure too - it requires a lot of money to be comitted to the network and constant vigilance so as not to lose your funds.

Further, the market demand you talk about doesn't seem to be playing out - if anything the accepting of cryptocurrencies for actual transactions (rather than just speculation) seems to be on the decline.

Wikileak was pretty darn happy they found Bitcoin to get out of the clutches of the USG.

As for Lighthing, I think you're singing its demise a little too early.

They are also not the only way to scaling and ease-of-use.

Lightning appears to have major design flaws, the ones I have mentioned are not the only ones.

Wikileaks may well have been happy. That doesn't mean bitcoin is a good solution for wider use, especially with its transaction throughput limitations.

Ease of use in the cryptocurrency world is something of a joke...

So while I'm not versed enough in the crypto-space to comment on your first two points, I'd like to agree _Heartily_ about point 3, "Ease of use in the cryptocurrency world is something of a joke..." (And if that's why you're being greyed, that's dumb.)

As a "dumb user" I went to buy some crypto after the initial crash last winter. I found that: Most exchanges do not permit use in my state (Washington). Of those that did, Coinbase/GDAX ended up having technical issues, leading me on for months of useless support tickets, before blackholing me entirely, and once I finally obtained some eth on gemini, diversifying it into a handful of altcoins required yet-another "exchange search", learning how to do some very sketchy wallet transfers, and using MUCH less trusted exchanges that actually allowed my state and the pairings I needed. (And if I want to liquidate my position, I have to basically invert this whole mess of a flow.)

I very well could be going about this in a dumb way, or it could have improved, thus this post (in that someone can feel free to correct me). My perception is that ease of use is in fact a joke, and if crypto wants to become a thing for "Boring Normal People" it needs to fix that.

I think you have to separate:

   - hard to use because governments willfully get in the way

   - intrinsically hard to use.

The former is very easy to get around (it kind of being the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place).

The latter is a real hard problem for crypto that will require an entire generation to die off (those who can't understand and will never understand that using a 3rd party to manage your money isn't compulsory or even desirable anymore) before things evolve.

> The latter is a real hard problem for crypto that will require an entire generation to die off (those who can't understand and will never understand that using a 3rd party to manage your money isn't compulsory or even desirable anymore) before things evolve.

This is not a description of why cryptocurrency is intrinsically hard to use. It's intrinsically hard to use because - - It requires insane levels of OpSec to keep safe - It can be sent to the wrong place with a typo, and never recovered - Its transactions are irreversible, this is not a feature for most users - The fees are opaque and variable - Transaction processing can take an arbitrary amount of time

It's not that people 'don't understand' that using a 3rd party is unnecessary, it's that these third parties provide a lot of valuable services. The use of cryptocurrency is a marked step backwards from the existing situation for most scenarios.

The problems with crypto-currencies being widely adopted are the same as the benefits. While people who understand the benefits like it, the same could be said for cash, which is widely going away and had far better adoption.

1. Loss aversion - You lose your bitcoin wallet you lose everything. You can't have that with large amounts of money or you'll bankrupt people.

2. Anonymity - Thieves can steal money, and to get it back you have to expose yourself and claim the money, if you're lucky enough to get it back at all. Governments can also very easily track users.

3. Decentralized - You have no one single person to punish when things go wrong, or seek help from. You're alone just like everyone else.

I would rather see a nationalized service, maybe offered through postal banking, for fee-free instant money transfer. Banking, for such basic purposes, should be treated as a utility. It isn't sexy, it isn't flash, it's roads for money. Nothing more.

> I would rather see a nationalized service

And how is that going to help with the OP problem, I wonder?

Gov't says your business ain't what we like, payment can't happen, business is dead.

Interestingly, a state monopoly could actually be more tolerant on some types of business, because of the legalities associated. As an arm of the state, it's subject to the state's obligations for equal access and service.

If their policies were anything less than "we support any legal business", they'd be spending decades in the courts.

Conversely, a lot of private payment processors are beholden to the tastes of their clients and investors. Even if you have all the right metrics and tech about fraud, chargebacks, customer satisfaction, see how many processors close their doors if you say you're selling rifles or porn.

Ideally that would only happen if the business was illegal or found guilty of serious crimes. In those cases society has an interest in killing it.

> fee-free instant money transfer. Banking, for such basic purposes, should be treated as a utility.

You're making it sound as though "being a utility" means "no fees". I cannot name any utility that is fee-free.

Sounds a bit like SEPA to me. At least that's how most donations and similar are handled here. AFAICT there's no need to have a special processor just to accept payments.