Pages:
Author

Topic: If I cared about Bitcoin I would do this (Read 2334 times)

legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
November 28, 2011, 09:37:29 PM
#25
After viewing a few of those Money=Debt videos on YouTube, I'm 100% against any central bank ideas in regards to Bitcoin. At the moment, I'm not against the exchanges, though my mind is still trying to wrap around that idea. My Opinion: Bank=No; Exchanges=On the Fence.


Don't confuse central banks with banks as a service. A "proper" bank just means a safe place to store money - nothing wrong with that. A central bank, on the other hand, has the power to print and manipulate currency, control interest rates (the price of money), and often regulate other banks. Central banks are terrible, and only exist with government protection. In a free and open market, you'd never have a "central bank" but you'd likely have many banks all competing for customers and it's everyone's voluntary decision if they wish to partake of those services.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
November 28, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
#24
After viewing a few of those Money=Debt videos on YouTube, I'm 100% against any central bank ideas in regards to Bitcoin. At the moment, I'm not against the exchanges, though my mind is still trying to wrap around that idea. My Opinion: Bank=No; Exchanges=On the Fence.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
November 28, 2011, 05:23:33 PM
#23
Isnt this exactly what Flexcoin actually is?

Yes, by becoming a U.S. corporation and with focus on security FlexCoin provides the two crucial elements of trust and responsibility any bank should have. The only thing more I'd ask is guaranteeing some level of coin loss, but they currently don't and state this clearly which is fine to start.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
November 28, 2011, 04:55:15 PM
#22
... Every Bitcoin user gets to set his own risk/convenience threshold and act accordingly.

+1 Yep.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
November 28, 2011, 04:47:56 PM
#21

I don't understand this sentiment - the allure of Bitcoin isn't that it is always decentralized, it's that it can be if you want it to. You decide the level of trust you want to have. If you trust almost no one, you run a full Bitcoin client connected to a few trusted nodes. A step up from that, you're running a chain-less client that has to trust wherever it gets it's balances from. Continue up the ladder until you reach whatever Bitcoin will eventually call banks.


+100  Thank you elggawf! I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that crucial point! Bitcoin's prime strength is that it is decentralized by default, but naturally (and thankfully) businesses will be created around which Bitcoin coagulates. This does not diminish the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, because there is never a point where one MUST surrender control to a centralized entity. This distinction is crucial.

Long-term, there will absolutely be Bitcoin banks with user accounts. Every Bitcoin user gets to set his own risk/convenience threshold and act accordingly.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
November 28, 2011, 04:22:06 PM
#20
I have zero interest in a bank to manage my bitcoins for the same reason I don't want a bank to manage my gold bars, I don't need it.
I guess it's a good thing you don't care, because I think you would have lost money on your idea.
sr. member
Activity: 369
Merit: 250
November 28, 2011, 04:15:40 PM
#19
Isnt this exactly what Flexcoin actually is?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
November 28, 2011, 03:18:27 PM
#18
FWIW, I've posted similar thoughts to the OP.

Green addresses can handle the instant transfer issue nicely, but only as a default or minimum part of the infrastructure, sort of like the client.

I don't think most eventual Bitcoin users (over 90%) should ever need to bother with the client. I feel two things should exist above the base infrastructure: 1. banks 2. a person-to-person payment service (Bitcoin PayPal - pay/receive with just an email address). I'm encouraged there seems to be progress in both areas.

FlexCoin (flexcoin.com) - is the first dedicated Bitcoin Bank. It appears they are transitioning the entity to become an independent U.S. corporation. They mention clearly that they are not ultimately responsible for Bitcoin loss, which is fine as a start. Ideally, a later version will provide some minimum level of guarantee (say 500 BTC), even if they need to charge fees.

SafeBit - I think will fulfill the role as a simple Bitcoin PayPal. (http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/24/the-business-of-bitcoin-entrepreneurs-see-opportunities-in-alternative-currencies/)
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
November 28, 2011, 03:05:03 PM
#17
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.

Yes they do. Ask any merchant if those "low value" transactions need confirmation. Many companies rely on those "low value" transactions so they want to be damn sure they take place.
It would be *extremely* difficult to pull off a double spend, and would simply not be worth even trying for a low value transaction.

So why does Mt Gox and everybody else wait at least 10mins and normaly 30mins even for "low value" transactions.

if you have to ask ?  Roll Eyes

maybe you should stick with politics.
 Undecided
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
November 28, 2011, 02:05:56 PM
#16
MM ok I've read it. This is very similar to green address. Well then it's solved.
hero member
Activity: 602
Merit: 502
November 28, 2011, 01:28:02 PM
#15
That's basically where we are headed: partial centralization (well, right now is mostly a monopoly because 80% of the money goes through MtGox...).
 
Anyway, you described green addresses. The rest of it will naturally happen. When laws are made, exchanges will need to get additional paperwork done which will increase trust from users. When the network volume grows, there will probably be "supernodes".
Centralization is much more simple to people, I can understand that. But the underlying protocol will still be open and somewhat decentralized.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 102
Bitcoin!
November 28, 2011, 01:24:54 PM
#14
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.

Yes they do. Ask any merchant if those "low value" transactions need confirmation. Many companies rely on those "low value" transactions so they want to be damn sure they take place.
It would be *extremely* difficult to pull off a double spend, and would simply not be worth even trying for a low value transaction.

So why does Mt Gox and everybody else wait at least 10mins and normaly 30mins even for "low value" transactions.

1. They probably wouldn't have to (they could wait for 1 conf. instead of 6 or Cool
2. Online transactions would be a lot more conducive to attempting a double spend than in-person, brick-and-mortar purchases, due to the logistics.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
November 28, 2011, 01:22:26 PM
#13
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.

Yes they do. Ask any merchant if those "low value" transactions need confirmation. Many companies rely on those "low value" transactions so they want to be damn sure they take place.
It would be *extremely* difficult to pull off a double spend, and would simply not be worth even trying for a low value transaction.

So why does Mt Gox and everybody else wait at least 10mins and normaly 30mins even for "low value" transactions.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 102
Bitcoin!
November 28, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
#12
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.

Yes they do. Ask any merchant if those "low value" transactions need confirmation. Many companies rely on those "low value" transactions so they want to be damn sure they take place.
It would be *extremely* difficult to pull off a double spend, and would simply not be worth even trying for a low value transaction.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
November 28, 2011, 01:18:49 PM
#11
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.

Yes they do. Ask any merchant if those "low value" transactions need confirmation. Many companies rely on those "low value" transactions so they want to be damn sure they take place.

Ask Mt Gox if they'll accept instant transactions for "low value" figures.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
November 28, 2011, 01:02:07 PM
#10
Also, you need to be able to do instant transfers between banks.

Good grief, from my experience you'd be extremely lucky to get transfer same day in Australia. I've even had a couple of days for a transfer within the same bank.
Bitcoin's 10 minutes is lightning by comparison.

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
November 28, 2011, 12:58:21 PM
#9

Because bitcoins work well if what you want to do is something like bank transactions. But waiting 10 minutes is just too much if you want it to work as if it was cash.

SNIP


Please read before replying.

There really is no need for confirmations on low value transactions assuming the merchant (either directly or via a service) has a large number of connections to the network.  Double spends are very difficult, even more difficult in the physical world (where risk of caught, losing coins, and timing all become more critical).

Any revocable transaction doesn't require any confirmations.
Any low value physical transaction doesn't require any confirmations.
Any mail order transaction (or other longer timeframe transaction) takes longer than a confirmation anyways.
I know these claims are Heresy to the "church of the 6 confirmations and protection from double spends" but not everything needs a confirmation.  Not everything is affected by the "delay" in confirmations.

Some things need confirmations.  High value irreversible anonymous transactions that must be completed rapidly.  Honestly those are a tiny minority of economic activity but a solution already exists called green-addresses.


Building giant expensive banks with intra bank networks defeats the entire purpose of Bitcoin is a solution in search of a problem.

Simple solution ... just use a bank.  Why even use Bitcoin?
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
November 28, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
#8
I don't understand this sentiment - the allure of Bitcoin isn't that it is always decentralized, it's that it can be if you want it to. You decide the level of trust you want to have. If you trust almost no one, you run a full Bitcoin client connected to a few trusted nodes. A step up from that, you're running a chain-less client that has to trust wherever it gets it's balances from. Continue up the ladder until you reach whatever Bitcoin will eventually call banks.

Many of us see no reason to go that far up the ladder.  Those banks will have regulatory and insurance costs.  Cost that will need to be borne by higher fees.  If the fees get high enough why even use Bitcoin just use Paypal and optionally hedge your exposure to inflation.

The proposal is an "old world" way of thinking.  Green addresses solve the problems indicated by the OP and honestly for most transactions the confirmation delay is a non-issue.  There is no need to wait for confirmations on revokable transactions and double spends in meatspace are essentially impossible for a well designed merchant system.

So
revokable transactions & low value physical world transactions - confirmations a non-issue.
longer time frame transactions - confirmation delay a non-issue.
high value realtime transactions - use a green addreess.

Why do I need a bank (w/ never ending and always growing bank fees) again?

Because bitcoins work well if what you want to do is something like bank transactions. But waiting 10 minutes is just too much if you want it to work as if it was cash. Credit cards and cash are way better than bitcoins because the money goes from one hand to another instantly.

The lay man won't accept waiting for 10 minutes, not even 1 minute to be able to pay -in a physical shop- in bitcoins when you can just pay in USD cash or USD credit cards. Until you solve that problem, bitcoins just won't get mainstream.

And if you don't accept that fact, well then you'll have to deal with the fact that bitcoins will not become mainstream.

So if you want bitcoins to become mainstream, you want to be able to use bitcoin cash. And for that you need a trusted third party that will guarantee to the seller that the transaction will take place. And the name of such a thing is a bank by definition. So you need banks.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
November 28, 2011, 12:42:54 PM
#7
We Bitcoin users are our own bank. We hold the bitcoins more securely ourselves, and we can make absolutely trustable money transfers instantly. We also can choose to tell the law about our money. Banksters are obsoleted.

But if you get mugged on the street by a common criminal you can only lose the cash in your wallet and the largest daily ATM withdrawal that you can make. If you get mugged on the street by someone with a smartphone who knows you keep your money in Bitcoin, they could coerce you to hand over your entire life savings. There is a legitimate reason to not want to have instant access to all of your money at any time.

If that ever became an issue a deterministic plausible-deniability wallet is certainly a possibility.  Enter one passphrase and it generates one (low value wallet).  Enter a second (or third or nth) passphrase and generates a higher value wallet.

Still even today a bank isn't required to ensure non-access to all of ones funds.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
November 28, 2011, 12:36:43 PM
#6
I don't understand this sentiment - the allure of Bitcoin isn't that it is always decentralized, it's that it can be if you want it to. You decide the level of trust you want to have. If you trust almost no one, you run a full Bitcoin client connected to a few trusted nodes. A step up from that, you're running a chain-less client that has to trust wherever it gets it's balances from. Continue up the ladder until you reach whatever Bitcoin will eventually call banks.

Many of us see no reason to go that far up the ladder.  Those banks will have regulatory and insurance costs.  Cost that will need to be borne by higher fees.  If the fees get high enough why even use Bitcoin just use Paypal and optionally hedge your exposure to inflation.

The proposal is an "old world" way of thinking.  Green addresses solve the problems indicated by the OP and honestly for most transactions the confirmation delay is a non-issue.  There is no need to wait for confirmations on revokable transactions and double spends in meatspace are essentially impossible for a well designed merchant system.

So
revokable transactions & low value physical world transactions - confirmations a non-issue.
longer time frame transactions - confirmation delay a non-issue.
high value realtime transactions - use a green addreess.

Why do I need a bank (w/ never ending and always growing bank fees) again?
Pages:
Jump to: