4 ms·

I was really just commenting on the technical side. From a technical standpoint bitcoins are far more convenient than checks; which have been successful by any

by eof 15y ago

I was really just commenting on the technical side. From a technical standpoint bitcoins are far more convenient than checks; which have been successful by any measure. There is no reason there couldn't be a law that says "it is illegal to attempt to defraud merchants by trying to double spend bitcoin." From a technical standpoint, if you send me a payment and I have no reason to mistrust you (similar to my accepting a check for payment), seeing the payment show up in my account immediately is pretty satisfactory. Further if it becomes a problem, services similar to clearcoin could pop up; allowing users to 'store' coins in a trusted third party, like a generalized escrow-service that companies could trust. So unlike clearcoin which has coins transfered per-transaction, they might offer a service where you can just store your coins there, and business will trust unconfirmed transactions from clearcoin; thus they wouldn't have to trust you. Really though, I doubt it will become any more of a problem than bad checks are.

rprasad 15y ago
Which still brings us back to the fundamental flaw of bitcoin: it is a fiat currency without a fiat. If bitcoin transactions are only trustworthy in jurisdictions with laws governing such transactions (i.e., none), it is safer and more convenient to simply use the local currency. And of course, governments will not voluntarily protect transactions in competing currencies. Bad checks are an enormous problem. One of the reasons that merchants favor credit cards, despite the high transaction fees, is that the incidence of non-payment fraud is both lower and less costly. If Bitcoin is susceptable to nonpayment fraud, it is a non-starter as far as widespread adoption is concerned.
ceejayoz 15y ago
> There is no reason there couldn't be a law that says "it is illegal to attempt to defraud merchants by trying to double spend bitcoin." There's a big reason - government hostility to bitcoin.
caf 15y ago
For such a law to be operative, you would have to give up the anonymity that bitcoin transactions allow.

by eof 15y ago

rprasad 15y ago

Which still brings us back to the fundamental flaw of bitcoin: it is a fiat currency without a fiat. If bitcoin transactions are only trustworthy in jurisdictions with laws governing such transactions (i.e., none), it is safer and more convenient to simply use the local currency. And of course, governments will not voluntarily protect transactions in competing currencies. Bad checks are an enormous problem. One of the reasons that merchants favor credit cards, despite the high transaction fees, is that the incidence of non-payment fraud is both lower and less costly. If Bitcoin is susceptable to nonpayment fraud, it is a non-starter as far as widespread adoption is concerned.

ceejayoz 15y ago

> There is no reason there couldn't be a law that says "it is illegal to attempt to defraud merchants by trying to double spend bitcoin." There's a big reason - government hostility to bitcoin.

caf 15y ago

For such a law to be operative, you would have to give up the anonymity that bitcoin transactions allow.