6 ms·

It's worse than that; there is no compelling reason to use it for the vast majority of people. It's a strictly worse experience in nearly all respects compared

It's worse than that; there is no compelling reason to use it for the vast majority of people. It's a strictly worse experience in nearly all respects compared to centralized options except in the case of dark net commerce where it's the only option.

beatgammit 8y ago
It could be easier for tourism, online transactions, and person to person transactions. However, it's not, largely because of a chicken and egg problem similar to that which plagues Linux. People don't use Bitcoin because it's complicated and unstable. It's complicated and unstable because the types of people that use it want to speculate with it or use it for illegal purposes. Just making it more approachable won't fix the stability issues, so it likely won't increase the number of users in a meaningful enough way to get it to take off. The same is true for desktop Linux. And installing Linux is often easier than installing another OS (Windows or macOS). Take Ubuntu or Mint, for example. They're the most popular among users new to Linux, and installation is as easy or easier than Windows since drivers come preinstalled and the user is prompted if proprietary drivers are available. The problems arise when trying to use software not deigned for Linux (e.g. MS Office), and this is getting better all the time with investment into the Windows compatibility layer by Valve. However, the chicken and egg problem will always be there. A decentralized system like Bitcoin can't really be saved by investment from a third party since it can't solve the volatility problem without centralization. For this reason, I think looking at centralized, but not government run, systems is interesting. For example, GNU Taler is a centralized cryptocurrency that can be used for anything (one example was currency used at conferences) with incredibly low transaction costs. I think it's interesting because it gets people used to using something digital (and not government provided/managed) to make transactions, but without having to deal with volatility inherent in cryptocurrencies, and once cryptocurrencies stabilize, perhaps they can be a drop-in replacement. I really want decentralized currencies to work out (largely to make traveling less of a pain), but nothing I've seen is worth making more user-friendly.
- mikeash 8y ago
  How can it get any easier than one of the 87 different mobile apps that let you send money to another person with a few taps?
  - GreenJelloShot 8y ago
    The fact alone that are 87 different mobile apps makes it difficult. Which one do you use? Is there a difference? Having one single, well-branded app is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      > Having one single, well-branded app is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps. But there's no need for this to be a cryptocurrency app, that's the point. These amazing things that cryptocurrency enthusiasts tell us could be made possible using their magic beans - millions of people are already doing them just fine.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      While this is true, Bitcoin does nothing to solve that problem. It just adds even more choices to the pile.
    - gjs278 8y ago
      The fact alone that are 87 different banks makes it difficult. Which one do you use? Is there a difference? Having one single, well-branded bank is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps.
    - walterstucco 8y ago
      It's called "Your bank's app"
  - sparkie 8y ago
    It's easier because it doesn't require any sign-up. You simply download some compatible software and you're ready to run. Every other of the 87 services requires sign-up, which means filling out forms and uploading photos of ID. If you're lucky to be in a well-developed country with proper ID, you might be able to get an account!
LiquidSky 8y ago
>centralized options This seems to be the crux of all of these discussions and why they inevitably go nowhere. For a small but passionate core of libertarian-minded crypto/Bitcoin boosters, decentralization is a good unto itself. All other issues caused by it are irrelevant. Hard for normal people to use? But it's decentralized! Not useful for anything normal people want to do? But it's decentralized! Massive price fluctuations render it largely unusable? But it's decentralized! Rife with scams and fraud? But it's decentralized! This makes it impossible to discuss because this small group's focus is so different from everyone else's. Unfortunately, this small group also has outsize influence in the crypto scene so the concerns of users will probably never get addressed, since they don't matter from that POV.
- AgentME 8y ago
  >This makes it impossible to discuss because this small group's focus is so different from everyone else's. Well, if people don't value decentralization, there's not much need for them to use Bitcoin. There's a lot of problems that come with decentralization. I feel this is like comparing car seating to couches. Car seat fans only seem to care about going places! Car seats are small and don't let you lie down? But it gets places! They need a seat buckle and don't let you sit freely? But it gets places! They shake a bit and are usually surrounded by noise? But it gets places! Some of the complaints can have some incremental improvements, but they're unlikely to be solvable and the fact that someone might rate the complaints highly relative to the goal implies that they're not in the target market for the thing and its large trade-offs. /overly general point. Some specific responses: Some of the goals you mention (not useful, massive price fluctuations) are generally only solvable with more people using it. If there were easier more direct solutions, people would've done them. >Hard for normal people to use? Most wallet software I've used was super easy. If you want to receive money, you give someone one of your addresses. If you want to send some money, you put in their address. (A billion times easier than figuring out what banking numbers you have to put in to your bank's website to send someone money, and then them worrying about whether that lets you withdraw from their account too.) The main problem is that some wallet clients are full clients that need to download the whole blockchain first, but being patient or switching to a lightweight client solves that. It was a bit hard to first get bitcoin, but that's because of the hoops companies have to jump through to deal with the banking system. I'm not sure how an open decentralized system can make this part easier. That's up to the exchanges and banks. It doesn't make much sense to blame crypto-enthusiasts for being close-minded and ignoring issues they could work on.

beatgammit 8y ago

It could be easier for tourism, online transactions, and person to person transactions. However, it's not, largely because of a chicken and egg problem similar to that which plagues Linux. People don't use Bitcoin because it's complicated and unstable. It's complicated and unstable because the types of people that use it want to speculate with it or use it for illegal purposes. Just making it more approachable won't fix the stability issues, so it likely won't increase the number of users in a meaningful enough way to get it to take off. The same is true for desktop Linux. And installing Linux is often easier than installing another OS (Windows or macOS). Take Ubuntu or Mint, for example. They're the most popular among users new to Linux, and installation is as easy or easier than Windows since drivers come preinstalled and the user is prompted if proprietary drivers are available. The problems arise when trying to use software not deigned for Linux (e.g. MS Office), and this is getting better all the time with investment into the Windows compatibility layer by Valve. However, the chicken and egg problem will always be there. A decentralized system like Bitcoin can't really be saved by investment from a third party since it can't solve the volatility problem without centralization. For this reason, I think looking at centralized, but not government run, systems is interesting. For example, GNU Taler is a centralized cryptocurrency that can be used for anything (one example was currency used at conferences) with incredibly low transaction costs. I think it's interesting because it gets people used to using something digital (and not government provided/managed) to make transactions, but without having to deal with volatility inherent in cryptocurrencies, and once cryptocurrencies stabilize, perhaps they can be a drop-in replacement. I really want decentralized currencies to work out (largely to make traveling less of a pain), but nothing I've seen is worth making more user-friendly.

mikeash 8y ago
How can it get any easier than one of the 87 different mobile apps that let you send money to another person with a few taps?
- GreenJelloShot 8y ago
  The fact alone that are 87 different mobile apps makes it difficult. Which one do you use? Is there a difference? Having one single, well-branded app is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    > Having one single, well-branded app is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps. But there's no need for this to be a cryptocurrency app, that's the point. These amazing things that cryptocurrency enthusiasts tell us could be made possible using their magic beans - millions of people are already doing them just fine.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    While this is true, Bitcoin does nothing to solve that problem. It just adds even more choices to the pile.
  - gjs278 8y ago
    The fact alone that are 87 different banks makes it difficult. Which one do you use? Is there a difference? Having one single, well-branded bank is easier to use than 87 random no-name apps.
  - walterstucco 8y ago
    It's called "Your bank's app"
- sparkie 8y ago
  It's easier because it doesn't require any sign-up. You simply download some compatible software and you're ready to run. Every other of the 87 services requires sign-up, which means filling out forms and uploading photos of ID. If you're lucky to be in a well-developed country with proper ID, you might be able to get an account!

LiquidSky 8y ago

>centralized options This seems to be the crux of all of these discussions and why they inevitably go nowhere. For a small but passionate core of libertarian-minded crypto/Bitcoin boosters, decentralization is a good unto itself. All other issues caused by it are irrelevant. Hard for normal people to use? But it's decentralized! Not useful for anything normal people want to do? But it's decentralized! Massive price fluctuations render it largely unusable? But it's decentralized! Rife with scams and fraud? But it's decentralized! This makes it impossible to discuss because this small group's focus is so different from everyone else's. Unfortunately, this small group also has outsize influence in the crypto scene so the concerns of users will probably never get addressed, since they don't matter from that POV.

AgentME 8y ago
>This makes it impossible to discuss because this small group's focus is so different from everyone else's. Well, if people don't value decentralization, there's not much need for them to use Bitcoin. There's a lot of problems that come with decentralization. I feel this is like comparing car seating to couches. Car seat fans only seem to care about going places! Car seats are small and don't let you lie down? But it gets places! They need a seat buckle and don't let you sit freely? But it gets places! They shake a bit and are usually surrounded by noise? But it gets places! Some of the complaints can have some incremental improvements, but they're unlikely to be solvable and the fact that someone might rate the complaints highly relative to the goal implies that they're not in the target market for the thing and its large trade-offs. /overly general point. Some specific responses: Some of the goals you mention (not useful, massive price fluctuations) are generally only solvable with more people using it. If there were easier more direct solutions, people would've done them. >Hard for normal people to use? Most wallet software I've used was super easy. If you want to receive money, you give someone one of your addresses. If you want to send some money, you put in their address. (A billion times easier than figuring out what banking numbers you have to put in to your bank's website to send someone money, and then them worrying about whether that lets you withdraw from their account too.) The main problem is that some wallet clients are full clients that need to download the whole blockchain first, but being patient or switching to a lightweight client solves that. It was a bit hard to first get bitcoin, but that's because of the hoops companies have to jump through to deal with the banking system. I'm not sure how an open decentralized system can make this part easier. That's up to the exchanges and banks. It doesn't make much sense to blame crypto-enthusiasts for being close-minded and ignoring issues they could work on.