so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems. i'm just saying there's potential there.
At the risk of sounding dismissive: did you read the damn post at all?
Did you get to the chunk pointing out that subscription models are a superior option for both buyers and sellers?
Or did you just decide after reading the very first line what your response was going to be and ignore the rest? I mean, you quoted the first line of my last paragraph, completely disregarded the rest of it, and then delivered a kicking to an argument I hadn't actually made. Subscription models are everywhere because they're a far better option for businesses and for customers.
I don't think I can adequately explain how infuriating it is to have someone selectively misquote a subset of what I've written and then argue against something I've never said, so I'm just going to reproduce what I actually wrote and what you wrote in response:
"And on the subject of micropayments: it's entirely possible to build a micropayment system that's irreversible, by requiring customers to preload their accounts but allow for withdrawal of unused balances at any time. Then you simply pay the money instantly whenever a customer authorises a micropayment. Hey presto! But nobody does that, because nobody uses micropayments, because business after business after business has figured out that subscription models are superior. It's a more consistent revenue stream, the global nature of the internet allows companies to run a profit even on low subscription fees, customers paying a subscription are almost certainly less likely to stop using your service, and the act of paying for the subscription may actually drive usage (someone with a Netflix account may opt to watch more Netflix to make the most of their spending).
If you were starting an online company today, would you want to go for micropayments or a subscription model? Just about everyone in the market - from Netflix to the Wall Street Journal, from Dollar Shave Club to Spotify, from the Lancet to whatever particular flavour of online nudity you find most interesting - is using a subscription model, which is a pretty clear indicator. Even where subscription involves no actual payments - like on Youtube - you'll see reminders at the end of videos to subscribe to the channel, because the entire business model is built on subscribers. The subscription model is vastly preferable to both customers (a predictable and smooth cost for something from a consistently good source) and to sellers (a regular revenue stream with low turnover which enables far more detailed forward planning than day-to-day sales), and crypto isn't needed for subscriptions."
"so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems."...
Seriously: what is the point of engaging, if this is what comes back as a response? I wrote a clear and short explanation of why I believe companies have gone with a subscription model, added in an explanation of why I think it actually benefits consumers as well, and brought in supporting evidence that the subscription model is the best one available for businesses
even when the subscription is completely free. In return, I get...strawman arguments and selective and misleading quotations, and no effort to discuss what I actually said. It's incredibly frustrating.