Wouldn't your valet example be even easier with venmo? Or is it because the money has a QR code instead of the account - that could easily be done with venmo, but isn't, it's true.
With crypto I worry about the transaction costs dwarfing the utility of something like this. Without a central exchange avoiding fees for the tiny movement of crypto, you'd lose too much in transaction costs when setting up a new wallet to give away. But if you have a central exchange running it anyways why not just expose this UX over an existing cnetralized payment system like venmo?
With Venmo, I still need to ask for their username. A two way transfer of information still has to occur. Same with current wallet-to-wallet transactions. Even if we are in the same app, I need to know your wallet username or address to send you money.
With cash, you can leave a tip in a tip jar, with no “end destination wallet” if you will.
This would aim to solve that issue. The key pair would be contained in whatever the handoff mechanism is (QR code?) so that only a one-way information transfer needs to occur, ie giving someone the QR code or handing them a gift card representation of it. The funds would be locked up in this handoff state until that person were to transfer the funds off or claim ownership another way.
As for the fees, I covered this in my other comment, but basically there would be no on-chain transaction. The funds would never switch wallets.
With venmo you can just scan their account QR code to send them money, which is easily accessible in the app. I even have a card from them with my qr code printed on it. It requires them to have an account, but this seems no more onerous than understanding how to spend the new wallet you just got the keys to.
When you create the wallet, and put money in it however, there have to be fees right? I understand transferring the wallet is not going to cost anything because you are just sharing a private key, but you still have to fill the wallet. And now the recipient also has to move the money out of the wallet on the blockchain to use it, paying transaction fees. (Worse, they have to do so before you do, since you made the wallet you still have the private key! This needs another centralized service to prevent you from spending money you tipped)
I think the crypto angle is a red herring, what is really important to your idea is the QR-code flow that doesn't require the recipient to have done any setup. That's a good idea.
You still have to ask them if they have Venmo, ask them for their QR code, scan it, create the transaction, and then send it, and then make sure you sent it to the right person.
The loading wallet/unloading wallet concern is definitely warranted. I’d imagine that this would have to become a new special type of wallet, that the private keys are never accessible to the end-user. You could verify funds in the wallet per the blockchain as normal etc but the administrative account permissions would have to be abstracted to a more centralized system of control unfortunately.
If you spent the funds directly from these temp/“cash” wallets, you wouldn’t need to pay fees on the way out either, right. Furthermore, if you could pay directly with these types of cash wallets, businesses could just utilize the direct transfer themselves and never cash them out when customers use them to purchase from them.
Right, what you have described requires a central authority to 1) manage access to the funds (instead of trusting the tipper not to spend the funds he gave the tippee), and 2) avoid blockchain overhead by spending from accounts directly. Double spending then is prevented by trust in the central authority in both cases. The only useful part of the crypto currency left is the account-less nature of it, which can be done off the blockchain (has to be really here per number 2).
It's a UX problem in the payments space, which is not really a problem crypto helps with is my point. Definitely see the problem, just don't see the crypto angle.
Well said, I agree with that, although I do think there is a difference between trusting a central authority to maintain an opaque system vs merely being a regulatory figure maintaining a transparent system. If that’s even possible :)
We are currently still trusting places like Coinbase as much as we would need to already, to implement this sort of system. Why? Because you’re right - it’s a current UX problem of payments, not something crypto inherently solves.
