And adoption + ANON coins are going to be a problem.
Is this not obvious ?
It all depends on what "adoption" means to you. I have the impression that you are, like so many, a crypto "investor", that is to say, someone that is gambling in a zero-sum game with the hope of getting more out of it than he put into it, which comes down to ripping off others (that's the nature of a zero sum game, and getting out more).
As such, for you, the demand for "adoption" is understandable: adoption = influx of greater fools. You don't want them to do anything with those coins except generating demand for it, and have them pay high prices for it, so that you can "make money" at their expense.
If that is the case, then I perfectly understand why:
1) you don't want any smear in its name
2) you want it perfectly compliant so that you can legally use the money you ripped out of the pockets of others
3) you are probably even wanting to pay taxes on that money, if there are sufficient others and the gains are big enough
But this is nothing else but "greater fool theory". People "invest" in bitcoin, because they think that "adoption" will lead to "more and greater fools".
But let us assume that bitcoin has reached maturity. That in 2025, the bitcoin price is still $600. Would you be happy ?
After all, for most of the "adopters", that's what they will experience: maybe they bought bitcoin at $100 000, but 10 years later, the price of bitcoin is still $100 000. Sooner or later, "adoption" will reach maturity, and prices will not increase any more.
So what is the advantage of having, say, 5 bitcoin, over having a bank account with $ 500 000 on it ?
(don't come in about taxes and so on, it will all be perfectly legal, known, and regulated as you like it).
What's the f*cking use of bitcoin, if it is just to hold money like a bank account, but with all the hassle and the fear of having your keys stolen ? Why not have it on a bloody bank account ? What's the difference ?
So adding even optional anon features is going to hamper adoption.
This is not a step forward but a step backward in my view.
We don't care about "investor" adoption, do we ?
@Dinofelis
I don't think your retorts are of very good quality this time around sorry.
With no anon Bitcoin would be and is vulnerable ?
Yup.. so what ?
It is not "vulnerable" as in "cracking", it is vulnerable in as "tax agencies may find out and your buying history may be uncovered rather easily by law enforcement".
I guess there is two roads you can go down.. the legit route with some level of compliance or the dark side.
You can't have it both ways people.. you can't go down both paths.
THERE, we agree perfectly, and my point is that crypto has NO USE in the first case, fiat is better. Apart for the "greater fool game" of "crypto investors", which sooner or later will come to an end, when "maturity" is reached.
I personally will not even Google search the word "Silk Road"
My god. I have trackmenot running, which searches for those evil words every minute. At my office and at home
So i sure as hell will not be using crap like that.. i want NOTHING to do with it all.
And i am willing to bet your average users out there not crypto-nerds will feel the same way.
..when they are told XYZ coin is used on Dark Markets for illegal activities.
Then what are you doing here ? Ripping legally off newcomers ?