Topic: Is this what's preventing wide-spread adoption? - page 3. (Read 556 times)
It could be. The anonymity is just an option in blockchain of course it can be taken out if not necessary. The government can actually use a lot of blockchain even the ETH network, its open for all. They would have to rely to some other government who uses it and for now I don't see any government that actually uses like for electoral process or government IDs. Non of them will try to act like a genie pig for this technology.
One of the reasons why blockchain technology is not being widely used in the government and business sector is because of its anonymity.
I think you are mixing up Blockchain technology with Cryptocurrencies. Blockchain technology has already been recognised by most of the countries while Cryptocurrency remain in the grey area. Even for cryptocurrency, I don't think anonymity is the major concern, because most of the cryptocurrencies aren't anonymous. The idea of decentralised network is what the Government fears, if you ask me, as it may destabilise the central authority which the Government holds now.
A corrupt system will not want to see a decentralized cryptocurrency strive in their system because they know they would lose the power to control and acquire or wealth and power to themselves. WHich is why some of the countries that have adopted the technology (blockchain), are planning to create their own centralized cryptocurrency, which they would be able to control. A typical example of that is China.
If governance can be clean, I see no reason why adopting total decentralization should be a problem. They do not just want the people they control to be free and be on their own.
I think your average joe does not really care about whether it is anonymous or not. The biggest impediment to widespread adoption is that it requires too much of a learning curve. Once sending crypto becomes as easy as sending a tweet then you will see the mass audience and not just the technologically savvy adopt it.
But how it can be any easier than what already is? If you want to install a bitcoin wallet the only thing that you need to do is to download it and install it like any other software, and if you want to send money you can copy and paste the address where you want to send your money, introduce the amount that you want to send and then you just have to confirm your transaction, I do not really see the complexity in it because those are the very same steps that you need to take if you want to make use of online banking. 
One of the reasons why blockchain technology is not being widely used in the government and business sector is because of its anonymity.
I think you are mixing up Blockchain technology with Cryptocurrencies. Blockchain technology has already been recognised by most of the countries while Cryptocurrency remain in the grey area. Even for cryptocurrency, I don't think anonymity is the major concern, because most of the cryptocurrencies aren't anonymous. The idea of decentralised network is what the Government fears, if you ask me, as it may destabilise the central authority which the Government holds now.
It's one of a few that make the general public view shy away from cryptocurrency, sure. I think because cryptocurrency threatens and undermines the government's authority and banking system that preventing widespread adoption of cryptocurrency.
Crypto currencies are hated by the government, of course BITCOIN, they hate because Bitcoin will be a threat, but the positive side is that Bitcoin cannot be regulated, like the government is against the community. just relax Bitcoin will live forever if the internet still exists 
It's one of a few that make the general public view shy away from cryptocurrency, sure. I think because cryptocurrency threatens and undermines the government's authority and banking system that preventing widespread adoption of cryptocurrency.
Yes, this is the main reason that prevents it.
Imagine that you come to a store and buy a chocolate bar there for example. Then you eat it at home and suddenly you have a stomach ache - you are poisoned.
You want to write an angry review on the Internet about this or even go to complain to a hypermarket - but look at the packaging from the chocolate bar... There's nothing on it. It is clean as a white sheet and there is not even a production date. Are you happy? I wouldn't be happy if I had no one to complain about the chocolate bar.
And now imagine that all the chocolate in the country is like this - this is what the state does not want to allow. One of its goals is to oversee everything and stop bad things. And bad things can't be stopped if you don't know who's doing them.
Imagine that you come to a store and buy a chocolate bar there for example. Then you eat it at home and suddenly you have a stomach ache - you are poisoned.
You want to write an angry review on the Internet about this or even go to complain to a hypermarket - but look at the packaging from the chocolate bar... There's nothing on it. It is clean as a white sheet and there is not even a production date. Are you happy? I wouldn't be happy if I had no one to complain about the chocolate bar.
And now imagine that all the chocolate in the country is like this - this is what the state does not want to allow. One of its goals is to oversee everything and stop bad things. And bad things can't be stopped if you don't know who's doing them.
One of the reasons why blockchain technology is not being widely used in the government and business sector is because of its anonymity. Guys just don't know who's doing what and people are scared about it. Blockchain is still an unfamiliar technology when it comes to regulation. We trust the cryptography, the protocols, the software, the computers, and the network, but this trust must be embedded in larger governance systems.
What do you mean that guys dont know who is doing what? Problem of transparent ledger crpytocurrerncies is that whole world can see what are you doing. If I go to bank and deposit $1 million. Who will know I deposited it? Only me and the bank will know. If I buy for $1 million of Bitcoin and then use it. Who will know that I have $1 million of Bitcoin? Me, the exchange and everyone I traded with. And everyone of them can give information that that wallet belongs to me. Sell that information or just simply give it away.
Transparent ledger crpytocurrencies are way less anonymous as the current banking system we have.
I think your average joe does not really care about whether it is anonymous or not. The biggest impediment to widespread adoption is that it requires too much of a learning curve. Once sending crypto becomes as easy as sending a tweet then you will see the mass audience and not just the technologically savvy adopt it.
I partially agree with this. I think it is easy enough already, however we have too many scams around.
There are too many bitcoin cash, bitcoin sv, bitcoin gold etc... which is confusing for newcomers. There are also too many scam tokens around, w hich are really problematic to newcomer which may lose money and that taints bitcoin reputation.
Additionally, there aren't still many things we can buy with it, neither proper tools for traditional investors (such as an ETF).
I think your average joe does not really care about whether it is anonymous or not. The biggest impediment to widespread adoption is that it requires too much of a learning curve. Once sending crypto becomes as easy as sending a tweet then you will see the mass audience and not just the technologically savvy adopt it.
You are right, the current obstacle is that crypto transactions using the blockchain network are still very much affected by the transaction traffic that occurs. because it can affect the speed of the transaction. the bad thing at this time is that it still takes less time to make a transaction. that's what makes crypto still difficult to be used as a means of payment.
Crypto currency is still gray sector of law and there are not so many users of them actually. Thats two main reasons
I guess you are mixing up blockchain technology and crypto currencies in this case. I mean, where is the problem with blockchain and the government? You are saying "anonymity" is the cause why government and others are not using blockchain. You are wrong over here. Blockchain is being used by many companies. We don't use blockchain just for crypto currencies. They also have various applications too.
Most crypto currencies being pseudonymous and anonymous is what preventing the government from adopting it. Other than that, the technology itself is doing good.
Most crypto currencies being pseudonymous and anonymous is what preventing the government from adopting it. Other than that, the technology itself is doing good.
I think your average joe does not really care about whether it is anonymous or not. The biggest impediment to widespread adoption is that it requires too much of a learning curve. Once sending crypto becomes as easy as sending a tweet then you will see the mass audience and not just the technologically savvy adopt it.
I don't think that's preventing the adoption of blockchain technology. The government's concern about anonymity is more being applied with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies rather than with blockchain technology. The blockchain technology is just a distributed ledger, database or record which can be used by any enterprise. I don't see any reason for them to look at it just the way they look at cryptocurrencies. It's the technology behind bitcoin but it can also be used for businesses that can see this technology being helpful to their productivity.
One of the reasons why blockchain technology is not being widely used in the government and business sector is because of its anonymity. Guys just don't know who's doing what and people are scared about it.
It is not people who are scared about it but those who will use it in their company or whatever service they want.
We are talking about blockchain and not bitcoin here.
You could take out some of its incentives and produce something new.
The consumers or the "people" will just have to obey about the agreement. (We don't even read that anymore)
As long as you present something good, then everything will just follow.
I'm sorry to say that you don't understand the freedom that crypto gives its users, we are safe from government interference because of crypto anonymity, I'm able to have some money without the government knowing how much my worth is, I'm not scared of the technology like you claimed and I'm happy that Nakamoto created bitcoin
I think what OP means is about the government purely accepting blockchain technology. The fact that they're scared of using it which prevents regulations is a major blocker for adoption. Once they see a platform that they can trust, and that they can see people without the need of being anonymous, then they may start at it.
The public wants to be anonymous, the government sector won't in its areas.
Your worries bit shallow and I can understand that. But none of bitconers or crypto enthusiast will be under the supervision of some corrupt and selfish people. Cryptocurrency is given free and has shared privileged to use freely. I cant argue with haters that crypto is being bullied by those aspect of centralization but does concern the effect in market. Trust me, even with the current situation crypto will progress with or without these hassle that becomes hindrance to its negative view.
I'm sorry to say that you don't understand the freedom that crypto gives its users, we are safe from government interference because of crypto anonymity, I'm able to have some money without the government knowing how much my worth is, I'm not scared of the technology like you claimed and I'm happy that Nakamoto created bitcoin
One of the reasons why blockchain technology is not being widely used in the government and business sector is because of its anonymity. Guys just don't know who's doing what and people are scared about it. Blockchain is still an unfamiliar technology when it comes to regulation. We trust the cryptography, the protocols, the software, the computers, and the network, but this trust must be embedded in larger governance systems.
Existing major enterprise solutions are neither distributed (Hyperledger + Corda) nor have a focus on privacy. There is little to no progress here and these solutions are essentially just glorified databases.
Is this what's preventing wide-spread adoption and will a platform with a regulatory compliant identity layer be a solution? I think once governments start using this, they'll understand the technology more and the rest should follow.
Existing major enterprise solutions are neither distributed (Hyperledger + Corda) nor have a focus on privacy. There is little to no progress here and these solutions are essentially just glorified databases.
Is this what's preventing wide-spread adoption and will a platform with a regulatory compliant identity layer be a solution? I think once governments start using this, they'll understand the technology more and the rest should follow.
Jump to: