Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 1045. (Read 3059020 times)
January 29, 2015, 06:43:54 PM
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
January 29, 2015, 05:47:32 PM
I don't see why a lack of transaction reversing in the wallet is a problem. Most reasons for people to reverse a transaction are not because of a flaw in the currency system, it's due to a flaw in human actions.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
I agree that paying someone the wrong amount or transferring to the wrong address is due to human error. However, I don't think that where it's possible to reduce or eliminate the human errors, that it shouldn't be done.
Often one payment method is chosen over another because it offers some form of protection or convenience, or complies with a regulation.
I think the important thing is to give someone an option to use a feature, not force it upon them.
I'd love to see a DigiByte wallet that offered the choice to make an ad hoc payment, as it does now, but also an option to setup a "verified address".
This "verified address" could be setup in the wallet using some sort of 2 way communication, possibly with signed messages with reference numbers and a small "dust transaction". This could then verify the identity of both parties, if they wanted or required it to transact. In addition during the setup the parties might specify whether or not they would allow transactions made to be reversed or not, and possibly the window allowed to reverse the transaction.
We could then have an additional "Verified Addresses" filter/tab perhaps with a different coloured checkmark next to each address to indicate if reversible transactions were allowed. Taking this a step further, if the data could be stored in an external database, it would then allow integration with point of sale or online payment systems.
A system like this would allow those who didn't care for it, or require it to ignore it and continue to transact anonymously. It may however get those who currently won't use cryptocurrency for transacting to consider it.
I think those are some excellent thoughts and ideas from both of you.
bogglor, I agree with everything you say except for the possibility of being able to sue since anonymity of transactions (adequate transaction documentation) would make that impossible - with cash you would ask for a receipt of some sort documenting having paid and that would not be possible with current digital currency technology.
AlexMc, your suggestion would go a very long way towards solving the problem I just mentioned above as both parties would be clearly identified and specifically tied to the transaction; moreover, if the option were given to the wallet owner to make the "verified addresses" setting a required default for all transactions, that would also go a long way towards making theft much more difficult (and whoever wants to ignore that additional security level would be free to do so . . . to each his own
). January 29, 2015, 05:35:43 PM
if that plan goes through imagine what would a happen, in the world of cryptocoins
Well, you never know what might happen. The governments and banks can just copy the open source codes and implement their own blockchain like coins and allow it to be exchanged it with FIAT, without publicly allowing exchange on their coin unless you dont create an official account on their banking system? And this way, all the minor coins die right away including some dark style coins... Maybe only BTC, LTC and PPC will survive in that case
Imagine all solid companies create their own coins ? Apple will have a coin named ICoin and company shares will be sold in ICoin or any other FIAT and you can use ICoin to buy Apple products or where ever it can be used.Or maybe the founders of the coin should officially create a company or banking system for its use if that is really worth it. Dont know... ?
If banks only copy the blockchain system, all existing coins may still have a great chance to die since there will be no need for them any more. Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbB01TkcelM
I've been saying this for months now - much of the time putting up with people ridiculing the idea - that the digital currency that GETS OUT IN FRONT OF THE CURVE will be the winner, and that means LEADING THE WAY IN TRANSPARENCY. Every coin must be clearly assigned to its rightful owner - if not, no-one but the riskiest will participate. And the irony of the matter is that sooner or later the surviving digital currencies (if they survive trying to swim upstream) will be forced to do that anyway! So why not leverage your foresight and get out in front of the curve while you can?
How can we use some of this guidance to continue having DGB lead the pack?
Source: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-digital-currency-can-help-the-poor-but-not-1682346647
This definitely highlights some serious potential for DigiByte in the arena. We are working on a strategy for the developing world for DigiByte.Quote
Kate Knibbs
Today 3:40pm
Bill Gates: Digital Currency Can Help the Poor, But Not Bitcoin
Bill Gates has high hopes for digital currency as an important banking tool for the poor. But Bitcoin isn't one of those currencies, he said in a Reddit AMA today. At least not in its current form.
Gates extolled the value of digital currency in his AMA last year as well, explaining that since many poor people in developing countries don't have access to traditional banking, it's not financially worth it for banks to put branches in areas where the amounts stored and transferred are so small, leaving the poor at a huge disadvantage when it comes to exchanging, saving, and accessing money.
Mobile banking costs almost nothing to process, so it actually is worthwhile for banks to provide the service. That means digital money offers an opportunity for mobile banking, and hence the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is so gung-ho about giving people more ways to store their money.
So why not Bitcoin? The billionaire philanthropist and redditor called it "an exciting new technology" in today's AMA, but he doesn't think it's a very good tool to make banking easier in emerging markets because it's so volatile and because it's anonymous:
We don't use bitcoin specifically for two reasons. One is that the poor shouldn't have a currency whose value goes up and down a lot compared to their local currency. Second is that if a mistake is made in who you pay then you need to be able to reverse it so anonymity wouldn't work.
Bitcoin has been touted as a potentially revolutionary banking tool for the poor, and it's likely Gates' remarks will rankle the community. But he did offer an alternative, highlighting the uses of local digital currency like Kenya's M-Pesa over anonymous cryptocurrencies:
The foundation is involved in digital money but unlike Bitcoin it would not be anonymous digital money. In Kenya M-pesa is being used for almost half of all transactions. Digital money has low transaction costs which is great for the poor because they need to do financial transactions with small amounts of money. Over the next 5 years I think digital money will catch on in India and parts of Africa and help the poorest a lot.
Today 3:40pm
Bill Gates: Digital Currency Can Help the Poor, But Not Bitcoin
Bill Gates has high hopes for digital currency as an important banking tool for the poor. But Bitcoin isn't one of those currencies, he said in a Reddit AMA today. At least not in its current form.
Gates extolled the value of digital currency in his AMA last year as well, explaining that since many poor people in developing countries don't have access to traditional banking, it's not financially worth it for banks to put branches in areas where the amounts stored and transferred are so small, leaving the poor at a huge disadvantage when it comes to exchanging, saving, and accessing money.
Mobile banking costs almost nothing to process, so it actually is worthwhile for banks to provide the service. That means digital money offers an opportunity for mobile banking, and hence the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is so gung-ho about giving people more ways to store their money.
So why not Bitcoin? The billionaire philanthropist and redditor called it "an exciting new technology" in today's AMA, but he doesn't think it's a very good tool to make banking easier in emerging markets because it's so volatile and because it's anonymous:
We don't use bitcoin specifically for two reasons. One is that the poor shouldn't have a currency whose value goes up and down a lot compared to their local currency. Second is that if a mistake is made in who you pay then you need to be able to reverse it so anonymity wouldn't work.
Bitcoin has been touted as a potentially revolutionary banking tool for the poor, and it's likely Gates' remarks will rankle the community. But he did offer an alternative, highlighting the uses of local digital currency like Kenya's M-Pesa over anonymous cryptocurrencies:
The foundation is involved in digital money but unlike Bitcoin it would not be anonymous digital money. In Kenya M-pesa is being used for almost half of all transactions. Digital money has low transaction costs which is great for the poor because they need to do financial transactions with small amounts of money. Over the next 5 years I think digital money will catch on in India and parts of Africa and help the poorest a lot.
Source: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-digital-currency-can-help-the-poor-but-not-1682346647
Don't take my word for it, hey the likes of Bill Gates says the exact same thing.
Oh, and there's the SMS, low cost, simple transaction thing we were talking about just a few short posts ago . . .
Jared, what about getting in touch with Bill Gates? Or his foundation anyway? I'm sure there's someone there who'd be willing to talk and you'd be expanding your contacts list if nothing else. You might start out with an introduction and then a lead-in to your possible interest in taking DigiByte in the same direction of Kenya's M-Pesa (doesn't mean you're going to do it, just that you're interested in sharing ideas, and I'll bet a ton of DGB that it'll open doors).
HR,
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
I know you're on it. It'd be just another possibiltiy to add to the many you've been working on, not the least of which are the connections you made at the 1st Digital Currencies convention for Bankers last summer!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8143117
January 29, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
There is the volume
Lets not go too fast here nice and slow and we go!
Lets not go too fast here nice and slow and we go!
January 29, 2015, 05:06:50 PM
Looks like we're going up again... very nice. This is imho a stable uptrend!
Just bought myself a nice birthday present 
great present!Not yet,not yet gehe couple of days. But thanks!
January 29, 2015, 05:05:57 PM
Looks like we're going up again... very nice. This is imho a stable uptrend!
Just bought myself a nice birthday present great present! January 29, 2015, 04:59:53 PM
Looks like we're going up again... very nice. This is imho a stable uptrend!
Just bought myself a nice birthday present January 29, 2015, 04:49:25 PM
Looks like we're going up again... very nice. This is imho a stable uptrend!
January 29, 2015, 04:38:22 PM
I don't see why a lack of transaction reversing in the wallet is a problem. Most reasons for people to reverse a transaction are not because of a flaw in the currency system, it's due to a flaw in human actions.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
+1000000
DITTO....3rd party services will always be needed with CASH 2.0!!!!!
...AND NOT NEEDED for people who are tech-minded/libertarian-minded
IMO the paradigm shift is not the blockchain, per se, but the fact that we have a choice to use a 3rd party or not when dealing with online/virtual transactions...this was not the case before
January 29, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
we are going to 30 sat right now! bought myself a nice chunk!
January 29, 2015, 03:42:01 PM
I don't see why a lack of transaction reversing in the wallet is a problem. Most reasons for people to reverse a transaction are not because of a flaw in the currency system, it's due to a flaw in human actions.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
I agree that paying someone the wrong amount or transferring to the wrong address is due to human error. However, I don't think that where it's possible to reduce or eliminate the human errors, that it shouldn't be done.
Often one payment method is chosen over another because it offers some form of protection or convenience, or complies with a regulation.
I think the important thing is to give someone an option to use a feature, not force it upon them.
I'd love to see a DigiByte wallet that offered the choice to make an ad hoc payment, as it does now, but also an option to setup a "verified address".
This "verified address" could be setup in the wallet using some sort of 2 way communication, possibly with signed messages with reference numbers and a small "dust transaction". This could then verify the identity of both parties, if they wanted or required it to transact. In addition during the setup the parties might specify whether or not they would allow transactions made to be reversed or not, and possibly the window allowed to reverse the transaction.
We could then have an additional "Verified Addresses" filter/tab perhaps with a different coloured checkmark next to each address to indicate if reversible transactions were allowed. Taking this a step further, if the data could be stored in an external database, it would then allow integration with point of sale or online payment systems.
A system like this would allow those who didn't care for it, or require it to ignore it and continue to transact anonymously. It may however get those who currently won't use cryptocurrency for transacting to consider it.
January 29, 2015, 03:39:36 PM
DGB moving again on Cryptsy! 28!
YC
YC
No volume also.... Mainly selling going on.. I don't see reason for panic buy let the sellers sell
January 29, 2015, 03:27:52 PM
DGB moving again on Cryptsy! 28!
YC
YC
January 29, 2015, 02:21:55 PM
I don't see why a lack of transaction reversing in the wallet is a problem. Most reasons for people to reverse a transaction are not because of a flaw in the currency system, it's due to a flaw in human actions.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
January 29, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
And automating the transaction callbacks can be very difficult thing to code/do/design.
Lots of open problems arise if there is no centralized authority for calling back a transaction. Even if there is, still some open problems. Someone can probably write a survey and tutorial paper on this in terms of the open problems and the security issues. Regards,
Lots of open problems arise if there is no centralized authority for calling back a transaction. Even if there is, still some open problems. Someone can probably write a survey and tutorial paper on this in terms of the open problems and the security issues. Regards,
Partially this is the reason why in my opinion there is no threat from large banks, insurance companies -at least this time around- because they can not afford to "sell" to their customers such an "immature" product. (not as if I would think on the blockchain technology as being immature)
January 29, 2015, 12:55:16 PM
More interesting information on adoption:
Source: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113381/how-bitcoin-will-achieve-mass-acceptance-op-ed
Quote
How Bitcoin Will Achieve Mass Acceptance (Op-Ed)
By Dwain Findlay
Note: The following article has been hand picked for being one of the standouts in the Ziftr article contest on the topic of what needs to happen for Bitcoin to enter the mainstream. Happy reading.
What will be the impetus of Bitcoin mass acceptance? There are basically three schools of thought on this topic, Merchant Adoption, Third World Unbanked, and Wall Street Investment.
All three of these avenues to mass acceptance are compelling reasons for the spread of Bitcoin and all of them will play role in world wide acceptance of the digital currency but I believe that Wall Street investment will be the initial and primary impulsion that moves Bitcoin out of the esoteric world of technology enthusiasts and internet back alleys like Silk Road and into the mainstream of finance and commerce.
Let us first examine merchant adoption. The conventional wisdom says when a significant percentage of merchants start accepting Bitcoin, it will facilitate mass acceptance by consumers. The problem is that wider merchant adoption has not thus far translated into an increase in consumer demand for the currency. This is evident from the recent 30% price decline despite bitcoin acceptance from major online retailers such as Dell, Overstock and even Microsoft. Although merchants have an incentive to accept bitcoin (since they save 2%-3% in processing fees and they don’t have to worry about charge backs), consumers are offered no compelling reason to use bitcoin for purchases instead of a credit card.
But what about bitcoin’s potential in the third world market? Yes, Bitcoin has a huge potential for the over 2.5 billion unbanked people in developing countries. The problem is that most people receiving Bitcoin from relatives in the United States or Europe will need to convert them to their local currency, thus dumping their bitcoins back on the market.
Also they will need access to a Bitcoin ATM or open a bank account in order to convert their bitcoin into the local fiat. Unfortunately it is still far too early in the currency’s evolutionary process to penetrate those markets since there are few if any Bitcoin ATMs or cryptocurrency exchanges in those countries.
Now let’s take a look at the last scenario: Wall Street investment. The emergence of Bitcoin investment trusts could be a game changer for the mass acceptance of the Cryptocurrency. Once investment firms begin purchasing large quantities of the currency, it should ignite a price surge that will take it to new heights. At a recent government auction, one investment firm purchased 40,000 bitcoins but since these coins were not purchased from a cryptocurrency exchange, it had no effect on the price. That will soon change when institutional investors such as insurance companies and retirement funds start to invest. This large influx of capital will drive the price of bitcoin far beyond the US$1,100 high of one year ago.
But how will this lead to mass acceptance? Well, it is the bandwagon effect: when the price goes up dramatically Bitcoin gets a lot of attention from the news media. This is precisely what happened a year ago when the price was at an all time high. Media hype creates awareness and curiosity in the minds of consumers. Soon these people jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon by purchasing some bitcoin.
Retailers begin to notice that a significant number of consumers own bitcoin and worry that if they don’t accept the currency they will be at a competitive disadvantage to the retailers who do. This leads to mass adoption by retailers that are trying to avoid being left behind in the new cryptocurrency revolution. This is how I believe mass acceptance will come about.
By Dwain Findlay
Note: The following article has been hand picked for being one of the standouts in the Ziftr article contest on the topic of what needs to happen for Bitcoin to enter the mainstream. Happy reading.
What will be the impetus of Bitcoin mass acceptance? There are basically three schools of thought on this topic, Merchant Adoption, Third World Unbanked, and Wall Street Investment.
All three of these avenues to mass acceptance are compelling reasons for the spread of Bitcoin and all of them will play role in world wide acceptance of the digital currency but I believe that Wall Street investment will be the initial and primary impulsion that moves Bitcoin out of the esoteric world of technology enthusiasts and internet back alleys like Silk Road and into the mainstream of finance and commerce.
Let us first examine merchant adoption. The conventional wisdom says when a significant percentage of merchants start accepting Bitcoin, it will facilitate mass acceptance by consumers. The problem is that wider merchant adoption has not thus far translated into an increase in consumer demand for the currency. This is evident from the recent 30% price decline despite bitcoin acceptance from major online retailers such as Dell, Overstock and even Microsoft. Although merchants have an incentive to accept bitcoin (since they save 2%-3% in processing fees and they don’t have to worry about charge backs), consumers are offered no compelling reason to use bitcoin for purchases instead of a credit card.
But what about bitcoin’s potential in the third world market? Yes, Bitcoin has a huge potential for the over 2.5 billion unbanked people in developing countries. The problem is that most people receiving Bitcoin from relatives in the United States or Europe will need to convert them to their local currency, thus dumping their bitcoins back on the market.
Also they will need access to a Bitcoin ATM or open a bank account in order to convert their bitcoin into the local fiat. Unfortunately it is still far too early in the currency’s evolutionary process to penetrate those markets since there are few if any Bitcoin ATMs or cryptocurrency exchanges in those countries.
Now let’s take a look at the last scenario: Wall Street investment. The emergence of Bitcoin investment trusts could be a game changer for the mass acceptance of the Cryptocurrency. Once investment firms begin purchasing large quantities of the currency, it should ignite a price surge that will take it to new heights. At a recent government auction, one investment firm purchased 40,000 bitcoins but since these coins were not purchased from a cryptocurrency exchange, it had no effect on the price. That will soon change when institutional investors such as insurance companies and retirement funds start to invest. This large influx of capital will drive the price of bitcoin far beyond the US$1,100 high of one year ago.
But how will this lead to mass acceptance? Well, it is the bandwagon effect: when the price goes up dramatically Bitcoin gets a lot of attention from the news media. This is precisely what happened a year ago when the price was at an all time high. Media hype creates awareness and curiosity in the minds of consumers. Soon these people jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon by purchasing some bitcoin.
Retailers begin to notice that a significant number of consumers own bitcoin and worry that if they don’t accept the currency they will be at a competitive disadvantage to the retailers who do. This leads to mass adoption by retailers that are trying to avoid being left behind in the new cryptocurrency revolution. This is how I believe mass acceptance will come about.
Source: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113381/how-bitcoin-will-achieve-mass-acceptance-op-ed
January 29, 2015, 12:54:36 PM
HR,
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
Yes it's a great idea but he said:
“When you talk about a domestic economy, [you must have] the idea of attributed transactions, where if you sent it to the wrong person you can actually get the transaction reversed. [And a traditional system] doesn’t have this huge fluctuation where the value of your account is going up and down by a factor of two.”
This is a problem, no?
Also:
“There’s a lot that bitcoin or Ripple and variants can do to make moving money between countries easier and getting fees down pretty dramatically. But bitcoin won’t be the dominant system.”
Of course Digibyte can be improved, so maybe.
We can develop such thing for DGB;
1) If the transaction is sent to the wrong party, it can be reversible, how?
a) Let the receiving party to accept it, otherwise the amount stays in the senders account at all time.
2) How about if you send it to a wrong address and nothing can be reversible?
1.(a) still applies, since nobody yet accepted it.
3) What if you send it to a person wrongly, he/she accepted it and you want it back?
a) 1 and 2 are no more a solution here. We need a force (centralized party, DGB wallet manager, Jared!) who can send it back to us with a request form;
b) How can you know the person requested it, normally paid for a service or goods and want (steal) his money back even though it is not his any more. It is easy to trick the central party in this case.
Solution for 3) We need a complicated block chain design with a transparent database, which a transaction can be called back within a few minutes/hours/days? Therefore wallet attributes should be redesigned and modified. Nobody can spend any coins until the callback duration is expired, which is a problem. And automating the transaction callbacks can be very difficult thing to code/do/design.
Lots of open problems arise if there is no centralized authority for calling back a transaction. Even if there is, still some open problems. Someone can probably write a survey and tutorial paper on this in terms of the open problems and the security issues. Regards,
January 29, 2015, 12:28:44 PM
I'm hearing a lot of noise about Bitcoin's "flaw" regarding no reversible transactions. This is both a good and bad feature in the protocol depending on what the transaction is for. Perhaps, a solution would be to change the code so the transaction IS reversible for some period of time or, until the receiving party physically accepts it. Thoughts?
January 29, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
Looking For
P2P Skein DGB Pool
Please msg here direct or in forum
Thank You
January 29, 2015, 11:54:58 AM
HR,
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
Yes it's a great idea but he said:
“When you talk about a domestic economy, [you must have] the idea of attributed transactions, where if you sent it to the wrong person you can actually get the transaction reversed. [And a traditional system] doesn’t have this huge fluctuation where the value of your account is going up and down by a factor of two.”
This is a problem, no?
Also:
“There’s a lot that bitcoin or Ripple and variants can do to make moving money between countries easier and getting fees down pretty dramatically. But bitcoin won’t be the dominant system.”
Of course Digibyte can be improved, so maybe.
Jump to: