5 ms·

Which is essentially saying BTC will never become more than a semi-serious play thing for the tech community. How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to

Which is essentially saying BTC will never become more than a semi-serious play thing for the tech community. How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to use this with anywhere near level of trust/safety they do with current traditional currencies. Hell, a lot of my tech friends can't keep their computer secure/clean, not to mention backed-up, so how are Joe and Jane Average? Or, alternatively BTC embraces the same banking industry setup it is trying to get away from. That said, I don't disagree with what you are saying (and upvoted) - just pointing out some implications.

cadetzero 14y ago
> How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to use this with anywhere near level of trust/safety they do with current traditional currencies. Near everyone I know, regardless of age, does their banking online. I don't see how this is any different than a username/password being stored on some banking server, and getting stolen. Best case? You boot to a clean ISO, make a wallet, generate an address, write down the public/private key, transfer all your btc to it, and call it a day. There is no digital trace, and you have a paper wallet.
- polemic 14y ago
  This is wrong in so many ways. If your bank is hacked you as the user are not liable for the loss. Online transactions are traceable and reversible. Banks are heavily regulated and the legal regime is well defined. Etc etc etc. Having your online banking hacked is a bit like being mugged on the way out of the bank. Having an online wallet service hacked is like someone driving in a truck, emptying the vault and leaving without a trace.
  - ccrabb 14y ago
    And then the mugger shows up the next day and gives you your money back.
- TylerE 14y ago
  It's different because FDIC.
wereHamster 14y ago
Those who want to trust BTC banks can do so. But now people have the choice not to trust them and instead manage their wallet themselves. You don't have that choice in the current banking system.
- itcmcgrath 14y ago
  When I moved to the US, I spent a week+ living on cash until I had my bank account set up. Being able to buy pre-paid VISA cards for cash at retailers solves the part of the online issue as well. You can be a 'mattress' banker with cash if you wish, securing your house just like you would secure your computer. Not sure there is as big as a difference between BTC and the current as people would lead you to believe. Emphasis on as since there obviously are differences - at least until new laws get thought up and passed.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    > Not sure there is as big as a difference between BTC and the current as people would lead you to believe 1) The value of your card is unlikely to be stolen by a hacker, unless you make an online purchase. 2) If someone spends the value of your card, you have recourse 3) Bitcoin is used to store much large amounts of money than you likely had on your VISA card
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  You're presenting it as a choice between two equally viable options, but the point is that you really have to manage it yourself.
  - wereHamster 14y ago
    Yes, right now using these online wallets is not really an option if you are at all concerned about your bitcoins. But it will be in the future. Because online wallets are not less secure than an E-Banking account at a conventional bank. The difference is that banks spend a lot more money on security than the current online wallet operators (think penetration testing, code review, dedicated security staff, option to have two-factor authentication etc).
polemic 14y ago
> "How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to use this with anywhere near level of trust/safety they do with current traditional currencies." Insurance.
- itcmcgrath 14y ago
  Insurance isn't a magic word. Insurance works on risk profiles. Insurance also works by limiting exactly what situations they do and do not cover (see: All the people who 'thought' they had flood insurance over the years). Something tells me insurance is going to be a lot more expensive for BTC, which can have a range of impacts that will make it unpalatable for the average consumer, if they or online services can even get (try insuring a Audi R8 under an 18 year old's name...)
  - polemic 14y ago
    That's all true. It's also the only way anyone is going to trust an online bitcoin wallet. Why is it surprising that it would be expensive?
    - itcmcgrath 14y ago
      Not surprising; 'Insurance' is less likely to have the impact people are saying it will - either it will be incredibly hard to get insurance in the first place (making it more of a non-factor), and/or it will not provide the same level of coverage/safety-net as you get with a Bank, and hence BTC will never get to the same level of trust. Either case, I don't think 'Insurance' is going to be the magic thing that will make BTC as viable as traditional currencies.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Nobody in their right mind would insure Bitcoins.
  - polemic 14y ago
    Probably not for the reason you think. Actuaries happen to be quite good an quantifying risk. If the price is right, someone will be willing to insure it. An insurer with a specialist background in systems and security could do well. The actual problem is the implications of underwriting a fiat currency with a "real" currency.

cadetzero 14y ago

> How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to use this with anywhere near level of trust/safety they do with current traditional currencies. Near everyone I know, regardless of age, does their banking online. I don't see how this is any different than a username/password being stored on some banking server, and getting stolen. Best case? You boot to a clean ISO, make a wallet, generate an address, write down the public/private key, transfer all your btc to it, and call it a day. There is no digital trace, and you have a paper wallet.

polemic 14y ago
This is wrong in so many ways. If your bank is hacked you as the user are not liable for the loss. Online transactions are traceable and reversible. Banks are heavily regulated and the legal regime is well defined. Etc etc etc. Having your online banking hacked is a bit like being mugged on the way out of the bank. Having an online wallet service hacked is like someone driving in a truck, emptying the vault and leaving without a trace.
- ccrabb 14y ago
  And then the mugger shows up the next day and gives you your money back.
TylerE 14y ago
It's different because FDIC.

wereHamster 14y ago

Those who want to trust BTC banks can do so. But now people have the choice not to trust them and instead manage their wallet themselves. You don't have that choice in the current banking system.

itcmcgrath 14y ago
When I moved to the US, I spent a week+ living on cash until I had my bank account set up. Being able to buy pre-paid VISA cards for cash at retailers solves the part of the online issue as well. You can be a 'mattress' banker with cash if you wish, securing your house just like you would secure your computer. Not sure there is as big as a difference between BTC and the current as people would lead you to believe. Emphasis on as since there obviously are differences - at least until new laws get thought up and passed.
- aneth4 14y ago
  > Not sure there is as big as a difference between BTC and the current as people would lead you to believe 1) The value of your card is unlikely to be stolen by a hacker, unless you make an online purchase. 2) If someone spends the value of your card, you have recourse 3) Bitcoin is used to store much large amounts of money than you likely had on your VISA card
fusiongyro 14y ago
You're presenting it as a choice between two equally viable options, but the point is that you really have to manage it yourself.
- wereHamster 14y ago
  Yes, right now using these online wallets is not really an option if you are at all concerned about your bitcoins. But it will be in the future. Because online wallets are not less secure than an E-Banking account at a conventional bank. The difference is that banks spend a lot more money on security than the current online wallet operators (think penetration testing, code review, dedicated security staff, option to have two-factor authentication etc).

polemic 14y ago

> "How is the non-tech user ever going to be able to use this with anywhere near level of trust/safety they do with current traditional currencies." Insurance.

itcmcgrath 14y ago
Insurance isn't a magic word. Insurance works on risk profiles. Insurance also works by limiting exactly what situations they do and do not cover (see: All the people who 'thought' they had flood insurance over the years). Something tells me insurance is going to be a lot more expensive for BTC, which can have a range of impacts that will make it unpalatable for the average consumer, if they or online services can even get (try insuring a Audi R8 under an 18 year old's name...)
- polemic 14y ago
  That's all true. It's also the only way anyone is going to trust an online bitcoin wallet. Why is it surprising that it would be expensive?
  - itcmcgrath 14y ago
    Not surprising; 'Insurance' is less likely to have the impact people are saying it will - either it will be incredibly hard to get insurance in the first place (making it more of a non-factor), and/or it will not provide the same level of coverage/safety-net as you get with a Bank, and hence BTC will never get to the same level of trust. Either case, I don't think 'Insurance' is going to be the magic thing that will make BTC as viable as traditional currencies.
astrodust 14y ago
Nobody in their right mind would insure Bitcoins.
- polemic 14y ago
  Probably not for the reason you think. Actuaries happen to be quite good an quantifying risk. If the price is right, someone will be willing to insure it. An insurer with a specialist background in systems and security could do well. The actual problem is the implications of underwriting a fiat currency with a "real" currency.