search

teambtcmap / btcmap-general

General repo for all non-code stuff
https://btcmap.org
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
3 stars 2 forks source link

Differentiate level of BTC adoption #16

Open lkz-de opened 7 months ago

lkz-de commented 7 months ago

Triggered by the recent deletion of a barbershop I had surveyed just the week before (and similar past experiences), I would like to suggest differentiating the degree of bitcoin adoption of a business. Bitcoin adoption is an ongoing process, and ensuring constant bitcoin acceptance by all staff is a struggle for businesses, in particular in light of the very few bitcoin payments most businesses currently receive (Ben de Waal had a great talk on the subject at last year's Adopting Bitcoin). If a business is deleted from BTC Map altogether based on one negative episode, this does not help bitcoin adoption. I therefore propose to add a new tag "payment:btcacceptance" (or similar), with the following values:

  1. full: Fully institutionalised adoption, business accepts BTC at all times, has PoS etc in place (probably what is currently considered the requirement for a business to remain on BTC Map);
  2. sometimes: Business might accept BTC, eg if the owner/someone else with a wallet is there (this should be the downgrade on BTC Map in cases like the above, instead of the outright deletion of the business; it could however also become the default initial value in cases of a very brief, more casual 'orangepilling');
  3. individual_staff: Someone in the business might accept BTC, and settle the bill for you in cash ('Silent Bitcoiners', as Ben would call them).

Instead of leading to frustration for both taggers and later visitors to a business, such a more nuanced approach would encourage bitcoin adoption, particularly in businesses that are currently on the edge of fully adopting it as a payment option. Some BTC Map users might even see it as a challenge to take up, specifically targeting such businesses and trying to get them from level 2 or 3 to 1.

stackingsaunter commented 7 months ago

I'm against it, it adds lots of complexity

bubelov commented 7 months ago

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

Every place is supposed to be verifiable by anyone at any time, so "sometimes" and "individual_staff" are basically forbidden, for a good reason.

https://wiki.btcmap.org/general/merchant-best-practices

It's a chicken and egg problem. If they aren't willing to commit, they won't get the new clients. If they don't get the new clients, they start whining about not having enough clients, and they also frustrate BTC Map users by lying to them and wasting their time. We don't need any of that.

Those "places" might be listed on a local bitcoiner community website, here is an example:

https://www.bitcoineaqui.com.br/estabelecimentos

They certainly don't qualify for OSM or BTC Map inclusion, but we are happy to list those community websites on BTC Map community pages.