NH’s Top Crypto Payments Platform Suspends Bitcoin (BTC), Calling it “Worthless for Payments”

Anypay Logo

Anypay Disables BTC Payments

As Bitcoin (BTC) is once again making headlines for crossing the $10,000 price point, the world’s premiere multi-cryptocurrency, real-life payments platform Anypay has announced they are disabling BTC from their system. Based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Anypay’s co-founder Steven Zeiler said in an announcement today that BTC was “worthless for payments”, now that transactions can be easily canceled.

Originally, when Bitcoin (BTC) launched in 2009, and for several years into its life, one of the major selling points that set it apart from other electronic payments like credit cards was that Bitcoin transactions were irreversible. Once the buyer hit send, there was no way for the buyer to undo it. There was no “authority” like a credit card company or bank that the buyer could contact to have them reverse the transaction. Business owners are very familiar with the concept of the dreaded “chargeback”, where a dishonest customer can use the credit card company’s ability to undo transactions to scam a merchant and receive money back AND keep the product. Chargebacks were impossible under Bitcoin (BTC) and this was a major reason why businesses wanted to accept BTC.

However, midway through its first decade, after its anonymous founder Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared and development was taken over by others who did not share Satoshi’s vision, the newer programmers introduced a “feature” called “Replace By Fee” or RBF. The purported reason for this was to allow a sender – after they’d already sent a transaction – to update the associated fee and help it get through the network faster. However, this also allowed them to cancel the transaction entirely, as long as the transaction had not yet received its first confirmation. This RBF “feature” broke one of the fundamental tenets of the original vision of Bitcoin – irreversible transactions.

Satoshi Nakamoto, Anonymous Creator of Bitcoin

Satoshi Nakamoto, Anonymous Creator of Bitcoin

For a while, this cancellation “feature” was only accessible through the “full node” Bitcoin Core software, which meant it was relatively tough to use in a real life payments situation. However, as shown by this video here, now more mobile wallets are incorporating the “feature”, which means that accepting Bitcoin (BTC) at point-of-sale is now highly dangerous and increases the risk of fraud. Hence, Anypay has announced they are no longer going to allow Bitcoin (BTC) payments on their platform.

In a video posted today, Zeiler announces that BTC has been disabled on the Anypay Cash Register app until further notice, as he’s had a “final revelation that it’s worthless for payments”. This, after having seen the new video that shows how easy it is now to commit fraud against real-life payment systems using BTC.

While some BTC-only fanatics will be disappointed by the news, the reality is most people don’t use BTC for payments via Anypay’s platform anyway, given BTC’s ridiculously high fees compared to other, more useful cryptos that were designed for payments like Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and DASH or even Bitcoin SV (BSV), which Anypay is now supporting. Plus, when paying with BCH or DASH on Anypay at a real-life business one will usually receive 10% back instantly thanks to Anypay’s “Bitcoin Cash-Back” and “DASH-Back” programs.

I think Anypay has made the right choice here to protect merchants from potential fraud. It’s too bad the Bitcoin (BTC) programmers forced Anypay’s hand, by making BTC less useful over time. Once upon a time Bitcoin was useful for payments, as it was originally intended. Sadly, those days are long gone. Bitcoin (BTC) may still be the king crypto, but if it’s not useful for payments, is it really a currency?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Any payment provider that doesn’t understand how cryptocurrencies work – “Proof of work” ensures that a truly decentralised ledger is synchronised worldwide by blocks issued every ca. 10 minutes – should close doors or now claim to support cryptocurrencies at all.

    Responsible payment systems supporting cryptocurrencies should

    a) support Lightning Network: super-cheap and quasi-instant transactions with finality
    b) instruct merchants that if they want to support ‘base layer’ transactions to wait at least for 1 confirmation (BTC) or 3+ confirmations (BCH, BCHSV) to assure correct settlement.

    But obviously, this is just FUD to push BCash anyway. By the way, BCash just tricks the – even longer – confirmation times by offering “0-conf” transactions – this leads to about 40 double spend attempts per day as the site https://doublespend.cash/ demonstrates.

  2. Your description of how 0 conf works and what merchants should do, displays a gross misunderstanding of how 0 conf works, which can be done in a secure manner.

    Instead you are advocating the lightning network….. which will end up pfully custodial, expensives to join, unless joining together in factory channels.

    The whole thing is so complex they have no idea where it will stop scaling, they don’t even know if lightning nodes are legal, when it is clear the lightning network hides transactions.
    Besides that it sits like a parasite on top of BTC removing tx fee reward away from the mainchain, making it unsustainable for the future as block subsidy reward dies out.

    Whilst chains that do scale onchain and allow unbounded utility, blocksize will eventually win the protocol war as it’s frictionless, a free market and allows thousands of usecases to be done, that drive massive volumes of microtransaction reward.
    As soon as there is enterprised adoption which already is happening, BTC is fundamentally dead in the water.

    BTC is an altcoin, that through trickery and lies, hijacked the protocol, gave Satoshi the middlefinger and kept the Bitcoin name!

  3. There is a solution to this problem, the payment protocol outline in Bitcoin improvement proposal 70. That protocol helps ensure BTC payments are not potentially fraudulent and conform to all merchant requirements.

    Unfortunately for BTC their core developers removed support for the payment protocol this year and other wallets followed suit.

  4. Rob A sounds painfully invested in a coin that stinks for payments.

    Heavy bags keeping your eyes shut bro?

  5. Sounds like Rob A is painfully invested in a coin that stinks for payments.

    How heavy are those bags over your eyes bro?

  6. It should be up to the merchant whether or not they accept BTC.

  7. @Horn Solo, This isn’t about stopping anyone accepting BTC. This is about a service not willingly helping scammers.

  8. Jumping Jacks, you lying wuss. That article wasn’t any good at all. Octavio Blanco is a hack who loves the smell of his own farts. You’re a tool just for posting his crap.

    Now here’s an article worth reading: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/336840.

    It’s by Eric “ERock” Christopher. Hell yeah! This is a a guy who really knows his shit! Now set aside 10 minutes and get reading! And you’d better have questions ready for me afterwards or I’ll be coming for you, tough guy!

  9. obama69 – Wow, your childish rants and threats just don’t support your case. The article you posted is nothing but opinions and empty platitudes. Nothing was of real value. I know you are the one who continually posts ridiculous statements to start a confrontation. Changing your name over and over is just silly at best. There was a “person” who used to do this all the time so I have a handle about who you are.

    “Now set aside 10 minutes and get reading! And you’d better have questions ready for me afterwards or I’ll be coming for you, tough guy”!

    Sounds like a threat to me. By the way, I don’t take orders from someone who has no class or real self worth. If you want to find me, then look. But as you and I know, you cannot because your ignorant statements are just that. Just farts in the wind.

    My article still stands. The real problems with bitcoin are still the same today as they were when bitcoin was first introduced.

  10. I voted for Pete Buttigieg

  11. Holy shit, Jumping Jacks! Now you know how to party! So what is it you’re on right now? Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Hey, I like to party too! When you come down, care to clue me in on your dealer, tough guy?

  12. Jane you ignorant slut!

  13. obama69 – You are truly the one on illegal drugs. Your little rant means nothing as usual and, has nothing to do with the article. . Yawn…………………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  14. Echoing me, Jumping Jacks? You giant wuss!

    I’m giving you one do-over, lama lama dingdong! Better not screw this thing up again or you’re really gonna piss me off!

  15. obama69 – I’m done talking with you. You are a couple of shrimp short of a Gump. Yawn……zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  16. That’s the ticket, tough guy! Now take a hike before I take an axe handle to your colon!

  17. Since this story was written BTC has been re-enabled by Anypay! I may not be a fan of BTC, but it’s not something that should be outright disabled when there are solutions to the problems presented. Temporarily disable? Maybe. While I get that its usage in the real world is wayyy down it’s still widely used online outside of NH and a few other regions where crypto is more widely accepted thanks in part to Anypay.

  18. kk – “I may not be a fan of BTC, but it’s not something that should be outright disabled when there are solutions to the problems presented”.

    What solutions are you referring to?

  19. Back again, Jumping Jacks? I just told you to hit the road! Are you trying to piss me off, tough guy?

  20. I’m glad I found this web site, I couldn’t find any knowledge on this matter prior to. Also, operate a site and if you are ever interested in doing some visitor writing for me if possible feel free to let me know, I’m always looking for people to check out my web site.

  21. Jumping Jacks: If you really care to know go ask the Anypay developers. They’re the ones implementing the solution(s).

  22. Non-confirmed transactions are NOT supposed to be “irreversible”… if they were why would you even need confirmations?…

Care to comment?