4 ms·

Quite frankly, this type of system is the future. Moreover, this type of system already almost exists in many places (consider, for example, how regular people

Quite frankly, this type of system is the future. Moreover, this type of system already almost exists in many places (consider, for example, how regular people can easily transmit money within SEPA, the Single European Payments Area). Bitcoin, by contrast, is interesting technology but with weaknesses that make it unsuitable as something that regular people interface with every day (security implications, mostly). It is also economically problematic (widespread use of Bitcoins would mean regressing back to gold-standard times). Ideally, though, Bitcoin can play a useful role by putting enough pressure on other payment systems to remove any remaining suckiness (mostly the fact that existing payment systems are very bad at international and cross-currency payments).

icebraining 12y ago
SEPA is nice, but it still takes too much time to transfer money. If I make the transfer on a Friday at 16h00, the recipient might only get in on Tuesday, despite the fact that the money was immediately written off my account. That's fine for paying my rent and such, but not for many use cases, especially w.r.t. commerce.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Slartibreakfast 12y ago
I like digital currency, and at the same time I am somewhat concerned about the idea of moving away from paper currency and over to an electronic system. My main concern is that once we can't buy something with coins or paper currency, it will be too easy for the government to suppress people by threatening their ability to perform even the smallest transaction.
- zanny 12y ago
  Then thats why bitcoin is a good thing. No one individual or group has control over it, and if it were adopted by a state it would have enough mining power to eclipse whatever 51% attack a state might attempt. The only thing a state could do is try to outlaw transacting with individual addresses, which is only as effective as trying to tell people not to do in person transactions with them. I guess the downside is that you can trace all payments, but with bitcoin you can easily generate new addresses and pad your money path to obscure who you are.
zanny 12y ago
> security implications Like what? I have a wallet with around $3000 in it and I feel my money is a lot safer there than in some bank, because I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable. You have to trust your bank, and at that trust your state to insure your deposits. I don't have to trust anyone with my wallet. > widespread use of Bitcoins would mean regressing back to gold-standard times The problem under the gold standard was that dollars were valued at fractions of gold and the US could not control the monetary base at all. With bitcoin they could hold a reserve to inject in or out of the economy to maintain consistent growth, and the rate of coin generation is incredibly predictable. I don't think that btc is the right currency to use in daily transactions. Something like doge makes a lot more sense, because doge is perpetually inflating with constant volume increase, which keeps monetary velocity high. BTC is naturally regressive, so it is a fantastic gold replacement, but disincentivizes spending as the rate of generation slows and coins are lost over time since the monetary base is shrinking. I would like to see someone try to implement a cryptocurrency where the generation algorithm is not as simple, that could take into account velocity in the economy to increase or decrease coin generation to attempt to maintain a healthy velocity (ie, not too much hoarding but not over-capacity spending like most fiat currencies are in right now, which I believe is one of the reasons 2008 happened, and why it will likely happen again soon).
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  I don't have to trust the bank very much to use an insured account. I'm trusting the state whether or not I use bitcoin, so I might as well take advantage of its insurance. I'm not cocky enough to assume I won't get hacked. >I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable The parts that are provable won't keep you safe. And control is a feel-good measure, not a safety measure. Consider the people scared of air travel despite how safe it is compared to automobile.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    >I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable >> The parts that are provable won't keep you safe. And control is a feel-good measure, not a safety measure. Consider the people scared of air travel despite how safe it is compared to automobile. Exactly. Why would I think _I'm_ better at security than professionals who have spent years getting good at it? The past year has shown us that even the professionsl who have spent years getting good at it make major mistakes -- but that doesn't mean I'll make fewer myself! To me, it means I'd never trust a significant portion of my wealth to computer security, with no recourse if the computer security fails. What's different about my money in a bank isn't just that it's professionals doing security (I dont' think bank IT is very good), it's that if it gets hacked, that's not the end of the story I'll probably be made good for it.

icebraining 12y ago

SEPA is nice, but it still takes too much time to transfer money. If I make the transfer on a Friday at 16h00, the recipient might only get in on Tuesday, despite the fact that the money was immediately written off my account. That's fine for paying my rent and such, but not for many use cases, especially w.r.t. commerce.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Slartibreakfast 12y ago

I like digital currency, and at the same time I am somewhat concerned about the idea of moving away from paper currency and over to an electronic system. My main concern is that once we can't buy something with coins or paper currency, it will be too easy for the government to suppress people by threatening their ability to perform even the smallest transaction.

zanny 12y ago
Then thats why bitcoin is a good thing. No one individual or group has control over it, and if it were adopted by a state it would have enough mining power to eclipse whatever 51% attack a state might attempt. The only thing a state could do is try to outlaw transacting with individual addresses, which is only as effective as trying to tell people not to do in person transactions with them. I guess the downside is that you can trace all payments, but with bitcoin you can easily generate new addresses and pad your money path to obscure who you are.

zanny 12y ago

> security implications Like what? I have a wallet with around $3000 in it and I feel my money is a lot safer there than in some bank, because I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable. You have to trust your bank, and at that trust your state to insure your deposits. I don't have to trust anyone with my wallet. > widespread use of Bitcoins would mean regressing back to gold-standard times The problem under the gold standard was that dollars were valued at fractions of gold and the US could not control the monetary base at all. With bitcoin they could hold a reserve to inject in or out of the economy to maintain consistent growth, and the rate of coin generation is incredibly predictable. I don't think that btc is the right currency to use in daily transactions. Something like doge makes a lot more sense, because doge is perpetually inflating with constant volume increase, which keeps monetary velocity high. BTC is naturally regressive, so it is a fantastic gold replacement, but disincentivizes spending as the rate of generation slows and coins are lost over time since the monetary base is shrinking. I would like to see someone try to implement a cryptocurrency where the generation algorithm is not as simple, that could take into account velocity in the economy to increase or decrease coin generation to attempt to maintain a healthy velocity (ie, not too much hoarding but not over-capacity spending like most fiat currencies are in right now, which I believe is one of the reasons 2008 happened, and why it will likely happen again soon).

Dylan16807 12y ago
I don't have to trust the bank very much to use an insured account. I'm trusting the state whether or not I use bitcoin, so I might as well take advantage of its insurance. I'm not cocky enough to assume I won't get hacked. >I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable The parts that are provable won't keep you safe. And control is a feel-good measure, not a safety measure. Consider the people scared of air travel despite how safe it is compared to automobile.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  >I control the security, and it is all mathematically provable >> The parts that are provable won't keep you safe. And control is a feel-good measure, not a safety measure. Consider the people scared of air travel despite how safe it is compared to automobile. Exactly. Why would I think _I'm_ better at security than professionals who have spent years getting good at it? The past year has shown us that even the professionsl who have spent years getting good at it make major mistakes -- but that doesn't mean I'll make fewer myself! To me, it means I'd never trust a significant portion of my wealth to computer security, with no recourse if the computer security fails. What's different about my money in a bank isn't just that it's professionals doing security (I dont' think bank IT is very good), it's that if it gets hacked, that's not the end of the story I'll probably be made good for it.