Topic: How can we make Bitcoin simpler? (Read 810 times)

While it's technically built as a layer on the top of Bitcoin, it seems that in order to participate, users would either have to buy themselves in, or to clear the hurdle of getting into Bitcoin mining under today's difficulty conditions. No way to directly participate when already holding BTC. So it might miss an important opportunity of building upon Bitcoin, providing an easy path for the userbase. Having to buy in, it essentially has to compete with all the non-BTC smart contract platforms.

What use has a currency which one day is worth $100 000 and the next day 10 000? You need to be an adventurer or trader to love that. People grow older and tend to be more cautious. That apart, Bitcoin is slow and cannot acomplish similar simultanious payments transacctions as Visa. Bitcoin lacks a trusted central authority that validates transactions. Being decentral. 

#1: Yes agreed, they get into bitcoin when they learn about its value (as I said) meaning its utility (as you said). Also of course for appreciation in value. Nothing wrong with that. And generally appreciation in value is the reason they start to learn more about it. I got into Bitcoin to make money, and then eventually learned more and more about it and learned more about money and fiat and now I have a decent understanding of the whole subject, because I initially wanted to make money. Nothing wrong with most people getting in to make money. But they only stay in Bitcoin when they learn about its value, otherwise they just crash out during a bear market and get scared off for a few years.

#2: I mean everyone will always continue to use fiat. Bitcoin isn't going to replace fiat. Governments aren't going to stop issuing their own currencies just because Bitcoin becomes a popular alternative in the future. "Fiat users" don't care about using Bitcoin as a currency because they haven't learned about why it's valuable yet. Everyone is a "fiat user" as you are defining it, until they learn about Bitcoin's value, and that's when they get interested in using Bitcoin. It's not like people who are fine using fiat don't use Bitcoin because they are fine with fiat, they don't use Bitcoin because they don't know anything at all about Bitcoin. I'm fine using fiat, though I look forward to the day when I can also easily use my bitcoin as well. Fiat, whether bank money or stablecoins (which is fiat cuz its pegged to fiat) are useful for shorter term savings and payments because it is relatively stable in the short term. Bitcoin is useful for long term savings (which includes storing wealth) and for payments once you have been holding bitcoin for a while and are therefore in profit. Both will continue to exist side by side, Bitcoin will just get much more useful and some of fiat use will move over to bitcoin use. But its not like "fiat users" will never want bitcoin, it is just simply an education thing, they need to learn the value of bitcoin.

#3: Education, and making bitcoin simpler to use for the average person, are definitely the main things we need. Most of the reasons people are afraid to get into Bitcoin, or just don't want to get into Bitcoin (yet) are because they aren't educating on it, and secondly they don't know how to use it. Sure the idea of having to secure a private key is a small hurdle for those who don't want the responsibility of banking themselves, but that kinda goes with the whole education and ease of use thing, which are what need to be improved.

Bitcoin or any other crypto is not a bank, banks finance business' banks give credit.
A few whales have what makes them whales thru banks connections.
There are only a few crypto "Banks" which speaks volumes about the character of the holders.
Where is the bitcoin development bank? The Etherum Development bank, and so on?

It's even worse in Africa:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zvlzb4/togolese_human_rights_activist_explains_french/

When you give someone a few dollars, do you have to teach them about the US financial system first before they understand how to use their money? Of course not.

Basically, people only need to know the following two three things:

1- How to buy bitcoins using cash
2- How to sell bitcoins for cash
3- How to avoid getting robbed online and offline

Everything else should be handled by the wallet or whatever platform is holding the bitcoins. In particular, "buying things with bitcoins" should be so intuitive that nobody needs to explain how to do that. QR codes and bitcoin: URIs are really helping in that regard though.

Like BlackHatCoiner, I find Bitcoin easier to use, but I do agree with the responsibility factor. Therefore, I strongly believe that wallets (hardware and software) and most software around Bitcoin are already 'simple enough', but we may need to find a way to get people comfortable with it and to assume responsibility.
One way is simply education and help forums (like the Help section on Bitcointalk), however I'm also intrigued to have a closer look at the https://keys.casa/ service. It seems to me like they could take over the role of the 'bank lady' who you can call or visit to ask questions about your bank account, special transfer (e.g. when you need an international bank transfer) or other advice. Someone knowledgeable who gives you peace of mind and also reduces responsibility somewhat, since they can keep (and back up) one of your multisig keys.

I quite disagree on the convenience part. As someone belonging to this little group of people who got used to Bitcoin before they even create a bank account, I can assure you that I honestly found it difficult to adapt. Maybe my expectation that the banking sector would be more simple than Bitcoin did hype up the situation, but it wasn't very convenient to me.

Maybe it's just my e-banking app, but I see accounts, credit and debit cards, buttons for "New Payment" and "New Transfer" instead of just "New transaction", money boxes, savings, loans, investments, securities, amounts of money I have not reported to the taxman, then in "Transfers" I get the option to send to my banking account, to someone else's bank account of the same bank, to someone's bank account of another bank within the country's borders, to someone outside my country, or to someone just by giving a phone number (with IRIS). If I don't want to transfer via bank accounts, I need to withdraw some in my debit card, and thing goes on and on. There are statistics, profile stuff, and even an option to merge accounts and debit / credit cards that I don't yet understand what is all about.

And that's before I even mention the bureaucratic nonsense that costed me time when I had to go and get my debit card from the bank, and all these obscurities the banking sector is consisted of, like charging me 2 EUR for moving more than 15 EUR to another bank.

Revolut is much better, but I still don't find it more convenient than, say, Electrum.

Also convenience.  They want convenience.  Click a button and voila.  If something goes wrong, responsibility is put on some body else's shoulders.  So what the user is looking for is convenience and transfer of responsibility.

But are these two not also coming from a lack of education?  You can not be afraid if you have knowledge and are educated.  It is usually the unknown giving people so much fear.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

People get into Bitcoin either due to its utility as currency, or to have fiat gains. Unfortunately, we can all agree that the latter are overwhelmingly more.

For the sake of simplicity, I meant users who're fine at using fiat as currency. Fiat users who don't care about bitcoin as currency is the overwhelming majority of fiat users.

No. This is not enough, you're wrong. Education isn't the best, but it isn't what's missing. The real reason we don't have millions of users on board is that people are afraid of responsibility. They are satisfied in the feeling that in the current system, they have a third party to address to (even if they don't get the assistance they want). The extra responsibility bitcoin adds is unfortunately intimidating for the most.

What tromp probably referred to is the simplicity of the system design. Make sure to check this video [1] if you're interested in the topic.

If you read the content of the linked page, you can see separate functionalities being enumerated like consensus model, emission, blockchain format, sync format, supply audit, PoW Algo etc.
If we define these as vectors and define 0 to be the simplest solution that can theoretically exist then we can, with some bias, assign a value to each dimension.
This means a blockchain can be seen as a point in a multidimensional space where (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) is the theoretically simplest possible blockchain to exist.
Of course we don't know what that looks like. But from the systems I've seen, I would agree Grin is by far the closest to that origin point and thus the closest to the theoretical optima of blockchain system simplicity.
That said, Bitcoin is closer to origin point than most of the other chains, but it's quite a bit more complex than the design linked. With regards to making Bitcoin simpler, it can be made simpler to use, but system complexity is unlikely to go away because you'll need to support all the current functionality which includes its expressiveness (scripting).

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKtk3HCgTa8

I think Bitcoin Core was actually meant to be that way.  Complex as in, you have all the functions you need in one software.  There is the possibility to create a double faced Bitcoin Core.  Choose between Simple and Complex UI in the initial setup stage.  But by removing even part of the complexity, you are removing a possibly very useful feature.  How do you define basic or simple UI?  Have only Receive, Send and only use one Address?  That is a Privacy risk and it means removing a LOT of very important information.  If you agree it is important to show information such as Confirmations and Fees.  Then why is it not important to have RBF option.  If RBF is important to have.  Then why remove the Console.  And so on.

Some body who has no idea how Bitcoin works will not understand fees, why their receiving Address changes every time they receive some Bitcoin, what Inputs and Outputs are, what Confirmations are et cetera.  This is why Bitcoin is not for every body.  Unfortunately, this is technology.  Look at computers.  How many people understood how a computer works 20 years ago.  How many people understood how Smartphones work.  Still, even today, a lot of people do not understand how either work.  And this is not bad.  And we do not necessarily have to do something about it.

Here is how I see the situation you are describing.  Technology will progress.  Bitcoin will progress.  People, not always.  And not every single one of them.  Some will accept and adapt, others will stay behind.  We have to accept this and move on.  I do not know if this is fortunate or not but Bitcoin is complex although it is as simple as it can be.  You can not compare a Bank with Bitcoin.  Because Bank workers do a lot of things behind the scenes.  Banks are Centralized.  Remember the saying?  Bitcoin is being your OWN Bank.  You have to check every thing thoroughly.  And, any mistake is a thing you are responsible for.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Hardware wallets are becoming more popular and I think development will be prioritized to support hardware wallets instead of software wallets in the future. I think that would be a welcome development with all the people who lose their funds because they do not understand security. I was talking about Bitcoin Core when I made that post and I hope it does not get any more complex because I think people prefer to use Electrum because of its user interface.

Will do, thanks.

You should not have a Bitcoin wallet if you do not understand how to use it and it does require learning fees, double spend, confirmations and addresses. It is a lot different banks and to say it is not is not true. A lot of people struggle with ATM like the elderly and even more elderly people do not understand Bitcoin. I am what you an call elderly or getting old and a lot of my friends do not understand Bitcoin and are scared of the digital money era.

well, the white paper did describe "a p2p digital cash system"

and cash shares the description of your listed problems:

• initial investment required
• loss is often not recoverable

I've lost cash before. Not much, but it happened.

I don't think this is the right way to think. Because EVERYONE is a fiat user. If this is how the world worked then there would be zero bitcoin users. People get into Bitcoin when they learn about its value. To say "fiat users", which is everyone, don't have the slightest interest in Bitcoin is just plain wrong. There's already many millions of fiat users who have gotten into Bitcoin.

To get more people into bitcoin, and specifically bitcoin as a means of payment, we need to spread bitcoin education, stop the vast amount of misinformation that makes people have a negative view of bitcoin, make bitcoin easier and simply to get into and use, which also of course includes making the LN simpler and easier to use because that is where 99.9% of bitcoin payments will be done.

So yes making bitcoin simpler is a big part of getting more people using it. Though the most important part is better bitcoin education.

Sending Bitcoin and sending money using a bank's ATM which is simpler? Bitcoin is, and requires no prior knowledge to send or receive money, the wallets UI are user friendly such that anybody can send Bitcoin swiftly. The Bitcoin usage is not a reason why it's not been adopted. Fiat users prefer to have same balance in their account over fluctuations. Even the elderly people can operate an ATM so Bitcoin wouldn't be that difficult to them, reducing Bitcoin transaction process to anything other than what it's now I don't know if they'll be need for that.

Well said.

It's about interest, and I'm afraid that we hesitate to admit it; the title of this topic proves it. OP wants Bitcoin to become simpler so fiat users can adapt. But fiat users don't have the slightest interest in using Bitcoin as means of payment. My experience with real-world conversations about this has convinced me. I'd argue that the Gresham's law applies as well, among with this lack of interest.

Interest is a motivation to learn but if Bitcoin becomes the main currency then people will not be interested they will just need to use it. I think you can learn the basics in a day or 2 but you cannot learn security in that time and I think a lot of people will lose their Bitcoin because they are their own bank but do not know how to secure it.

Thought this was an issue too.  But realistically you only need around a day or two of research and you get the basics plus a few extras very well.  Bitcoin is not that hard to understand.  If anything, it is harder maybe to learn maths or a hobby than to learn basic functions of Bitcoin.

I think it is about interest.  People do not care and are not interested.  Who ever is interested learns quickly.  More over.  The more years pass, the more familiar people will be with Bitcoin so the easier it gets to learn about it.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

This won't achieve anything. If you try to send to an invalid address, the network will already reject your transaction. And if you are sending to a valid but malicious address, then simply checking the address exists won't save you.

Vanity generators can brute force 6 characters very easily. You should double check the entire address.

There exists malware which can alter the contents of a QR code. You should still double check everything manually.

Then either use your hardware wallet with Electrum and not with their native software, or buy a bitcoin only hardware wallet.

I hope that Core continues to make it more simple for users because I am concerned. Hardware wallets now are trying to accept as many shit coins as possible and it complicates the process of storing Bitcoin and a lot of hardware wallets have a exchange built in and I do not like that. I just want a hardware wallet that stores my Bitcoin without being advertised their exchange service.

here a idea in my head, maybe it is also available or it may not possible ,
idea :
anyone can build a software which will check they address by searching somewhere if it address exit or not,

2. cross checking will help lot of times, in my case copy pasting works better and i transacted many many times but not faced issue , i cross check 2 to 3 times ,
and double check first 3 and last 3 letter of address,

3. sending by scanning qr code is very easy and beginner friendly it never make mistakes ,

I agree that new users will not need to know the history of btc or what scripts were used in the past but do you think the software for Bitcoin will get more complex or user friendly? We should be aiming to make it as user friendly as possible.

This is a problem though right? The more complex we make Bitcoin the less people who will adopt it. I do not want to see Bitcoin become a currency only used by computer programmers or people with degrees I want it to be inclusive but most people are not willing to research new technology and prefer to be spoon fed and we might need to be prepared to spoon feed them if we want more adoption.

I agree with you, but most people don't. Most people have no interest in understanding that fiat banking is a giant scam - all they want is to type in their PIN and make the transaction. Most people have no interest in understanding the basics about car maintenance - they are quite happy to fork out a hundred bucks for a simple issue they could fix themselves at home in 15 minutes. Most people have no interest in understanding how to read the mempool or how to use RBF - they just want to make their transaction and be done with it.

I do of course think it is worthwhile learning about change addresses, RBF, proper wallet management, proper fee selection, and so on. But that is not the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is how to make bitcoin as simple as possible. And just as I can use a credit card without understanding the fees involved, the clearing process, the settlement process, and so on, someone can make a bitcoin transaction without understanding the fees involved, RBF, change addresses, and so on.

It's not the best method by any means, but it is certainly as simple as it can get. Paste an address, type in an amount, pay.

It's not nearly as complicated as you might think, because it's just that there is an option to increase (bump) the fee for your transaction in case you set too low a fee and the transaction got stuck because the mempool found itself under a much higher load than it was that was the case when you sent the transaction. In that case, you will simply select RBF (replace by fee), enter a new fee and broadcast your transaction - and the miners will confirm the new transaction before the old one, which becomes worthless.

---

I am more in favor of the approach that if you want to do something, do it the right way, because you will save yourself a lot of time later. Many times using Electrum, I experienced that the wallet itself offers a fee that is not quite in line with what mempool shows, and I think there was also a discussion on that topic in the Electrum board. That's where you're in trouble, because if you made a transaction with a low fee and you don't know about RBF, you'll think that Bitcoin is slow or you'll panic and come to the forum to ask why the transaction got stuck.

I may have an approach that is not the simplest, but some people later thanked me because they understood much better how Bitcoin works and of course they pass that knowledge on to others.

Explaining those terms to someone close to us is more like a discussion class. They can throw such easy questions often, which can be explained to them without wasting much time or referring them to an article that can distill the term down to their understanding. Even though the person cannot read to understand, carrying out the actions practically in front of them can ease their stress. Unless the person is far away then it may not be necessary, just follow the normal routine as you pointed out. But, if he's a neighbor, family member (old), or flatmate; those we have daily facial interaction with, explaining those terms is indeed simple and necessary.

You don't need to explain most of those things. A person does not need to know what a change address is - a good wallet will take care of this for them. They should have some awareness of the fee, but again, a good wallet will pick an appropriate fee. They definitely don't need to know what RBF is, and many people still don't. Sure, it is good to learn about all these things, but if you are looking to keep things as simple as possible then they are not absolutely necessary in order to make a transaction. Paste in an address, double check it, choose how much you want to send, confirm. That's all that is absolutely necessary in order to make a transaction.

There are a couple of merchants I use who offer a discount of a few percent (the highest goes up to 10%) for paying with bitcoin, presumably exactly because they can avoid the credit card company taking a cut of every transaction.

Interesting concept.


I partially agree. You could still deprecate complexity that can be implemented in a separate layer and make it invalid after a certain block depth. Older blocks still need to be verifiable, but the removed complexity will be static at this point, so the logic needed to verify it doesn't need to have a first-class seat in the codebase. Not an incredibly aesthetic approach, but maybe better than having to start a completely new blockchain.


Yes, although exciting things are being done on Ethereum, the seemingly lacking sense of proportion when it comes to adding complexity is one of the things that makes me sceptical about it. Apart from the decision to remove the consensus algorithm.


Exactly. It's a pity that there don't seem to be any legit smart contract platforms layered on the top of Bitcoin.

Make it an official currency, so that people will be attracted to it, then it will be easier, I think

I think you understand. Bitcoin is alien to every one when they 1st start and because it is difficult and not like a normal bank they could be put off by it and not use Bitcoin. I do not think addresses are a good way of explaining something because when I 1st used Btc I thought it was a location or it was stored somewhere. I have explained it to friends that thought the same and were confused that it is like a bank account number and they understood better. RBF is very hard to understand and I am not sure I understand it all now.

I think there are a lot of complicated things in Bitcoin that are not in normal money systems and it can lead to less adoption because people are scared that it is complex and they have to host their own money and not be protected by a bank. I think if we can make it simpler it would increase adoption and decrease the worries new people have.

Another obstacle is fees. People don't realize fees in electronic fiat in the same way they do in Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, fees are direct. You make a transaction, you set the fee, you have a pretty clear understanding of where this fee goes, and the like. In fiat, there is usually no fee projected. The merchant has agreed with the credit card company to pay the fee, but this fee isn't apparent from a customer's point of view. The average customer doesn't know that there is a fee, but there is. And the funny part is that whether you pay with credit card or with cash the price is the same; obviously, it's not in favor of the merchant to have different prices with different payment methods, so it gets more complicated, and cash users pay part of that extra credit company cost too.

Backup is only part of what we are talking about, and that part is of course not too demanding, unless you are going to explain to someone how those 12 or 24 words have a backup function at all - because 99% of people think that words are just words, and yet it is a visual presentation of something much more complex.

On the other hand, try to put yourself in the position of someone who installed a wallet, had a backup and now wants to learn how to make transactions. You have to explain to that person what a public address is, what a change address is, what clipboard malware is, what a fee is and how to set it up correctly, what RBF is and how to use it in case the transaction gets stuck... In addition, if the wallet is not localized in a language that the person understands, you only have one more problem on top of everything else.

I don't see how using Bitcoin can be simpler than it is now, but let's be honest, it's not for anyone no matter how hard we try to make it.

This is the simplest explanation of the discussion of this topic. Indeed, if a person knows how to read, given that he understands what he reads, knows how to be attentive and accurate, and is not a user who has just discovered the Internet but knows how to surf the net in order to find the right information, difficulties in mastering information about bitcoin and its storage should not be an issue.
If we talk about the elderly, then it is somewhat more complicated, given their age, memory, attention, and again, their ability to use digital devices. Well, we can say that attention and responsibility should always be present in our lives, so it will not be a problem for older people if they have someone nearby who can explain everything to them in an accessible and understandable way.

What about Bitcoin do you think that it could get more complex and that could be the down side for Bitcoin which stunts growth? Altcoins tend to put worthless features in a lot that make it more complex and not adding much to the functionality. Bitcoin does not do that and only adds features which revolutionize the currency like segwit etc.

I think BlackHatCoiner is onto something. Accessibility is probably what we lack, trying to get started into Bitcoin is pretty hard because a quick search via your favourite search engine could send you to an array of different sources, all varying in terms of accuracy.

Obviously, we have some decent documentation out there, however I don't think it's dominating the search results too much, and it's usually news, and sensationalist websites about Bitcoin that actually occupy the top spots, which is a little troublesome.

Given enough time, Bitcoin is probably just as easy as fiat currencies, it's starting off that is the problem. Whereas, fiat currencies are taught in school; Bitcoin is pretty much self learnt. Even if the documentation is readily available, and somewhat easy to find it's then the difficulty of convincing people to self learn something.

You have to define what's simple. Bitcoin is very simple to me. You download a lightweight wallet, generate a seed phrase, write it down, and you can now send money overseas via the Internet, with an easily accessible backup. The backup isn't even some complex series of numbers, it's just 12 words. It literally doesn't go more simple than that.

What you're trying to figure out is how we make Bitcoin more accessible. In my opinion, more responsibility and education is all we need.

The only coin focussed on simplicity seems to be Grin [1].

The biggest simplification relative to Bitcoin is the absence of script. Yet nearly all commonly used script functionality is still available through "scriptless scripts".

The problem with complexity in the consensus model is that once you have accumulated some, you can never get rid of it, as it will always be needed to verify past history. So a blockchain's complexity can only increase over time. In that sense no blockchain can be made simpler.

Odds are that something like Ethereum will be so complex in a century that no-one can understand all of it (some would argue that's already the case right now:-).

That also means that the best way to improve functionality is outside of the consensus model. Lightning is a great example of that.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/kyhgcv/are_there_any_public_cryptocurrencyblockchain

I would actually think that Bitcoin's big advantage when compared to other cryptocurrencies _is_ it's simplicity of design. Most projects that strive to compete merely add a lot of obscurity (e.g. to hide the fact that they removed important components like a working consensus mechanism).

That being said, it might be interesting to research what bells and whistles could be removed from Bitcoin, while still keeping the main mechanism and its potential to layer all the complexity on the top of it.

The older generation will need to learn how to use digital devices or they get left behind the world is changing and even the dollar will not be physical in 10 or 20 years instead we are moving onto a digital currency which should encourage people to convert to Bitcoin because people will learn more about security because it will be forced if they want to keep it safe. Evolution happens because you NEED to adapt.

In those cases; no, probably not. The simplest way to use bitcoin, while still maintaining some amount of safety and self custody and not just relying on a centralized custodial (which after all is the whole point), is to download a good wallet app on your smartphone, write down the 12 or 24 words it gives you, and generate a receiving address. It can't really get much simpler than that. If, however, we are talking about people who have never learned how to use a smartphone at all, then no, they cannot use bitcoin, just as they cannot use digital banking, Google Pay, PayPal, or any other electronic fiat app.

It is worth pointing out that such people are in the minority, and without being too macabre, that minority is rapidly shrinking. In developed nations where smartphones are ubiquitous and have been for years, then as time goes on the elderly population which have never used them shrinks, while the number of people who have exposed to them pretty much from birth grows. With the technology getting cheaper and with more and more old and second hand devices being sold, then in developing nations they are becoming much more common as well. As time goes on, the number of people in the category you are referring to will continue to shrink.

You simply can't use a digital currency without some ability to use a digital device.

Don't you know any older and non-techie people that use Bitcoin? (I assume that a smartphone skill is not enough to fall into the techie category.) Moreover, there are services for computer illeterate people so they can use Bitcoin just like they do their "banking physically", e.g. brick-and-mortar Bitcoin exchanges https://www.bitcoin-store.net/_next/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.bitcoin-store.net%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2021%2F10%2Fthe_cover_of_the_wall_street_journal_article_about_brick_and_mortar_cryptocurrency_exchanges.png&w=1080&q=100

If these people who have problems with technology and struggle with anything digital is what you had in mind when you asked "How can we make Bitcoin simpler?" then the answer is we can't. There is nothing we could do and things can not get simple enough for such people, they will continue struggling with "digital" bitcoin.

Ok maybe I was wrong saying that every one understands the dollar but do we think Bitcoin is ready for adoption by the least technical people possible? I am thinking old people who did not grow up with computers who struggle to use banking software and do most of their banking physically. How can Bitcoin help convert that generation to Bitcoin or are we going to accept that these people will never adopt Bitcoin and we should look to attract the younger generations?

Cryptography is difficult to debunk, be it tech or secret codes, and it's the unswerving foundation of the bitcoin network. Distilling a simple bitcoin technology down to simpler form can be detrimental to its existence. Aside the development aspect of bitcoin the use case is understandable and people who find it difficult can seek help. Like others said, the reason for lesser adoption is the time range or young existence of bitcoin. Fiat has been around for years with the central bank attached to the Government, which controls the citizens. Bitcoin is at war with world leaders, and top bank officials who express to the masses how nefarious bitcoin can be to their life savings. Bankers can give customers bad instances of bitcoin to help retain compound interest customers on their nest, because they're people that actually need bitcoin.

Inflation has drifted out the profits compound interest should have presented to investor, but they're far from the truth. The bank officials make more money off their savings. We wouldn't be having this conversation, if only, such people had few hours trust for bitcoin and studied the this and that accompanying bitcoin growth; and how it can yield profits on the long run more than compound interest can do for them Since its a battle between the bank and bitcoin, the adoption would be tough, bankers can as well pump and dump the market to chase away potential bitcoin investors back to the bank. Yet that doesn't mean bitcoin should become ABC, that will take away trusted and firm users of bitcoin even more. As the process goes bitcoin will become stronger enough to attract more users.

You are only partly right. People are interested of bitcoin because of its price going up rapidly. This being said, many just keep their coins at exchanges without knowing nor caring about the wallets and whether it's easy or not to use them.

Now, about the wallets. It can be made easier, actually afaik some custodian wallets use/used to be pretty easy. But yeah, custodian plus made by some developers paid by that company.
I kept saying some months and years ago that easier to use wallets should be a plus. It should have been, but that time frame has closed.

Now we need safer wallets, then, if possible, easier. And since some hardware wallets makers are going to the direction of making them like credit cards, your wish may come true faster than you'd think. It won't be the wallets people will advise because you won't have the control the established wallets provide, but for some that's OK. You won't reach the safety of the hardware wallets that have their own screen, but again, for some that's not a biggie.
So it won't be perfect, but may be something.

I really don't think we need to make Bitcoin even simpler to use. The easier it is to buy Bitcoin the easier it will be to lose it. Some learning curve is necessary, if you have to use your brain to buy Bitcoin, you will also use your brain to not lose it. I got to know Bitcoin back in 2010 and for me Bitcoin is as easy as FIAT. Even easier in fact. I suspect that people don't want to buy Bitcoin not because they don't know how or they don't want to learn but because they don't want change. Change is frightening, change is uncomfortable. You get used to things, get stuck inside your comfort zone. And no hardware wallet or reversible tx will fix this.

There is the assumption that Bitcoin is not simple and therefore newcommers make errors and lose their money (bitcoin). I can't find any argument supporting it in your comment above. In my opinion Bitcoin is fairly simple. In the end, an owner can only keep/store it (a.k.a. HODL) and transfer just like ubiquitous so-called "digital assets",  money, tokens, secrets etc. I think that irresponsibility (pride and sloth - "ceasing to utilize the seven gifts of grace" or the "brain power") is the predominant cause of loss of bitcoin/errors by people. The current state of software and hardware tools seem to be of secondary importance and improve with time.

People only understand the very basics of fiat currencies. The actual process is quite complicated behind the scenes. I've said it in the past, but I believe Bitcoin's biggest problem is it's complexity, and jargon. When new users are asked questions, they're bombarded with jargon which isn't helpful at all as it adds time onto their learning. Bitcoin probably does need to simplify for the end user if we want mass adoption, not because Bitcoin is massively more complex than fiat, but because fiat has already been established, and thus it's taught in schools, universities, and basically right from a young age. Bitcoin isn't, and at the moment there's no real use to teaching young people about Bitcoin, since it's likely not going to be their primary concern.

I think wallet UI/UX has already achieved a pretty good standard. Hardware wallets are pretty easy to use. The idea of seed backup might seem alien at first, but is pretty easy to explain, and understand. Security is a big issue, whenever you have the users themselves looking after their security, who don't understand a whole lot about security then that's a problem. However, users are also absolutely awful at fiat security, and the only real backup they have is the banks can reverse any fraudulent activity. Although, the banks can also plain stop you from making transactions, so there's that.


Most wallet software adjusts the fee accordingly these days, so there's no real need to manually work it out, unless you want to save as much as possible since they do tend to overestimate. There's a little bit of knowledge required when waiting for confirmations, but that's pretty easy to grasp. I think the main problem is securing your seed, but people have been securing other things for decades. It should be pretty easy for most people.

When you start delving under the hood of Bitcoin, then yeah I'd agree it's very complex, but so is fiat currencies. The thing is most people don't really need to delve into it that far, and they don't with fiat currencies.

It's a noble goal, but it reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/927/

As you say, there are a lot of beginner resources out there already. People will have different preferences. I personally recommend https://learnmeabitcoin.com/ quite frequently as a great beginners' resource. But I don't think it should be the only beginners' resource out there, and other people will prefer different sites and different guides. The fact is that bitcoin is too big a topic to be covered by one guide. Someone could write a great beginners' guide about how to set up and use Electrum, and someone else could come along and decide that Electrum is the wrong wallet for newbies and they should be using Sparrow instead, for example. There will never be complete consensus about the contents of such a resource, and so alternative resources will continue to exist, as they already do.

I think it's also a good thing to use a multitude of resources. You don't want to be in the situation where you are taking 100% of your knowledge, instructions, or advice from a single source.

There was news during the last few years that some banks offered this very service, but if you ask me personally, it's a bad idea because in most cases the bank will not provide anything more than an exchange/custodial service, and that means a potentially worse situation than what we have with CEX. The advantages of banks becoming crypto exchanges would be that clients would not have to do additional KYC with various private companies, and that in banks Bitcoin would be secured in case of hacking, as is the case with deposits in savings accounts which (at least in the EU) are insured by the state in the amount of EUR 100 000.

But that kind of approach to owning Bitcoin would be completely wrong for me, because if you don't own your private keys, you don't actually own anything. Therefore, it might be better to leave banks aside, because as much as it seems that banks would be a system that would allow Bitcoin to become available in a simple and easy way, let's not forget that one of the reasons why Bitcoin exists is precisely to bypass banks.

Electrum is safe and very simple. I used it for a long time with never had a problem. I don't know why we should buy if have some safe free application out there like electrum?.

It depends on your mindset, brain, and thinking bro. Many bitcoin wallets are very easy to operate than a hardware wallets. If you 1st think a wallet is complicated, then it will be complicated next and difficult to implement it even if very easy to use beginners.

I disagree.
People don't really understand a lot of things they are using including fiat. Nobody knows how "dollar" works, majority of people don't even know the difference between money and currency or the fact that dollar is not money.
The thing is, what people refer to "understanding" is just being used to something. You may not know how your computer works but you are still using it to post here.

It's the same with bitcoin. Under the hood it is complicated but for the end user it is actually pretty easy and straight forward to use. The only thing is that bitcoin is different from what people are used to and they all want to understand it at technical level.
For example you don't really see people ask about the cryptography used in the credit/debit card most people use every day, yet they use it. But you always see them question how 256-bit elliptic curve is secure when it comes to bitcoin!

Some good points.

I think the keys thing makes it seem harder because you can't just remember what you key is and you have to worry about losing it. And then in terms of Lightning there is probably a technical hurdle for most people that makes it a good bit harder than just going to a bank and opening up a bank account.

I think we really just need like a standardized education. A few resources that quickly explain things and everyone knows where to go to learn. Instead people have to just google around trying to figure out how things work and hope they are doing things correctly. Basically Bitcoin usage education just needs to enter the common domain where itrs very straightforward to learn how to use it and new people aren't worried about screwing things up. I mean just a few years ago a friend of mine asked me how I get bitcoin and if I can just sell it when I want and I was like what yeah of course i just open up the exchange and can buy or sell at any point. So even just the basics of like hey there are online markets operating 24/7 isn't even well understood by the general public.

We need a base level of common knowledge about how to get bitcoin, how to use keys and setup new keys, how bitcoin is stored, how to get on lightning (for the future, not needed yet), how to secure your keys and how to use wallet software. All of (other than maybe setting up lightning) could be taught to someone in 30 minutes, less time than it takes to go to the bank to set up an account. But there just isn't a sense of common knowledge around Bitcoin because there is no single place to go figure it out like say showing up at a bank and they walk you through setting up an account. We need a standardized resource of knowledge that everyone knows about so that when people want to get into Bitcoin they can just go to a website or something and in 30 minutes understand everything they need to know.

Bitcoin keys have 256 bits in size, but their security level has only 128 bits, see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoins-public-key-security-level-2859033

I would point out that almost nobody actually understands how the fiat banking system works, how loans work, and how new money is created. And almost nobody understands how their online banking account is secured, how money is actually transferred, or how credit cards work. And yet almost everyone uses these things every day. You do not need a deep underlying knowledge of something in order to use it.

I would also point out that fiat is only easy to get in to because it is the default that everyone is exposed to from birth. So by the time they become an adolescent and start using the fiat system, they have already had a decade or more of exposure to it. If you were presented with the two systems, and had zero prior experience or knowledge of either of them, then I firmly believe that bitcoin is easier to understand. You own a wallet, you receive bitcoin to an address, you send it to someone else's address. Easy. You open an account with a third party bank, they receive money on your behalf and credit it to your account, you open a credit card account with another third party, you use that credit card to pay someone else except it's not really them you are paying but yet another third party, your third party credit card issuer transfers some money to this other third party but actually it won't really be transferred for 3-5 business days, you then tell your third party bank to pay your third party credit card issuer to clear the debt on your credit card... Not easy at all.

If you can operate a fiat bank account and a credit card, then you can operate a light bitcoin wallet. It's not a question of complexity; it's a question of desire to learn.

After 7 years I managed to explain 2^256 bit security range for bitcoin keys to my family, they just realized the level of security, other things they understood 7 years ago. For them it was the complicated stuff that made them understand how the bitcoin keys are safe.

Anyone who could read and learns how to use a mobile phone can also learn how to use BTC wallet. It's not rocket science. The majority of the population has phones, and each person in India even has two phones. They don't have to buy a hardware wallet for they can already use thier phones with an app wallet. 

I didn't make it complicated for my sister to learn to use BTC. Only receiving and sending BTC using the app wallet was enough for her. But of course I remind not to share the Priv key.

That means you have to be online to receive a payment. And then you can use LN, then you will have that guarantee, because you need to sign channel closing transaction first.

Would it help if payment required the receiver to first prove their ability to spend the funds-to-be-received, before they could actually receive them?

I don't think that this is the reason they don't try it out. Most people don't understand the dollar & economics in general, either and still use the fiat system.

That's a different question. I'd say it depends heavily on the wallet choice. There are more 'complicated' and feature-complete wallets and simpler, very easy to use ones out there.
I invite you to try out Passport Batch 2 or maybe watch through the unboxing and setup process video guide by them, which takes less than an hour in total. ^[1]

There are definitely very easy to use software wallets; in fact, software wallets are easier to use than hardware wallets, because those still require software. It's an extra step. Which ones have you tried? I believe using Breez (Lightning) is the easiest way to privately use Bitcoin. No setup, no UTXO management, does not require CoinJoin or mixing, but don't use it for thousands of $ worth of BTC.

No, this is impossible. It is a core feature of Bitcoin.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLacNs-EplMhZ7PCqpzUmX3oNxJwjaL0Kn

Better UI/UX for wallet software.

Standardized education on how Bitcoin works and the few things you need to know to use it so people can get educated on how to use Bitcoin in say 5 minutes and that 5min education is easily spread around.

Honestly if there was a way to have named Bitcoin addresses that point to actual Bitcoin addresses (like Ethereum Name Service does) that would clear up a lot of the complexity because it'd just be much simpler to transact if you could use intelligible names instead of cryptographic public addresses. I don't know if that is possible...like some sort of 2nd layer?

Also I think once banks start allowing bitcoin exchanging like directly on their website that would be huge. If people no longer have to sign up for a crypto exchange but can transfer fiat into Bitcoin straight on their bank account that would really grease the wheels of adoption. I mean obviously hopefully people would have the bitcoin education to then know that they need to transfer the Bitcoin to their own wallets. But like if you don't want to be trading or buying random altcoins you don't need a crypto exchange, if banks just had Bitcoin buying straight from your checking/savings account that would be a really seamless experience for most people.

Based on explanation on your thread, i believe the question should be "How can we make Bitcoin wallet simpler?".


You may see this lazy answer, but it's not that different from being responsible adult and have decent digital/security literacy.


Short answer: Better UI and UX. For example, Electrum show warning for high transaction fee.

Without getting into how unintelligent someone is or isn't, I don't think Bitcoin is so complicated that an average person with at least a high school diploma can't figure it out in a very short period of time. By that I mean maybe 2-3 hours of lectures, with the condition that the person teaching knows what he is talking about and knows how to make a presentation, because pictures sometimes speak a lot more than words.

From my personal experience, I didn't conclude that people can't understand Bitcoin because it's too complicated, but because the idea itself is quite meaningless to them, considering that they are too deep in a system that suits them (most of them). Being your own bank is not something most people want, or better said, people don't want that risk or responsibility.

I would therefore conclude that we don't need a simpler Bitcoin, but we need people who think outside the generally set frameworks, and there are very few of them in the world, to be honest. For such a drastic change in thinking, children should be taught from the moment they start elementary school - but it is hard to expect the authorities to work against themselves and suggest to anyone that Bitcoin is something better than what they represent.

A lot of people who would be interested in Bitcoin are not adopting it because they do not understand how Bitcoin works with the dollar it is taught in schools but it is also easy to get into without any major risk. Bitcoin you are your own bank but how do people get the knowledge required for that responsibility?

I thought hardware wallets are a answer but they require a purchase and a lot of people who are trying Bitcoin will not want to use something that they have to purchase. I think this is a major obstacle for a lot of people buying Bitcoin they buy Bitcoin and they make a mistake and because of how Bitcoin is designed they can not reverse the mistake and lose their coins. I am not suggesting we allow Bitcoin to be reversible but how can we help people avoid losing their money through error?

Can we solve this with software or are we going to need to develop cheaper to buy hardware wallets that allow people to use it without a lot of brain power and do not have to worry about a lot of the security because it is already done but just be viligant and make sure you are sending to the correct address and not falling for scams.