I think we are still reeling from the silk road stuff and other quasi-illegal/scamming stuff that has hit the presses.
Unfortunately I dont think we are going to hit mainstream for a very long time, we are just finding out that our main spokesperson very well may be a long time fraudster and bitcoin is his next target!!!
Topic: What are the major hurdles you feel BitCoin faces to mainstream acceptance? - page 2. (Read 2772 times)
August 30, 2011, 06:13:04 PM
August 30, 2011, 05:48:55 AM
Part of the problem with a currency that is suspected to gain value is that people are less willing to spend it. I think people would be more willing to accept it as a currency if it made some attempt to maintain a constant value instead of an increasing value.
Yeah, that's actually a major issue IMO, and the worst part of that problem is: it seems that a lot of people very involved in BTC think that this on the contrary is a strength. This can even be read it the FAQ (not with those words, but that seems to be the idea): "don't worry, there won't be inflation but rather deflation, it's a great thing". No, it's not. If BTCs keep gaining value, clinging to your BTCs instead of spending them is actually a profitable investment. Since I don't think anyone will put all their money or even the majority of their money into BTC, noone will be forced to spend them, ie it's possible that everyone just cling to their BTCs. How useful is a currency if noone is willing to spend it? Real world money keeps losing 1-2% value every year, and when you think about it, that's definitely a strong incentive to either spend it or invest it, and not to keep it dormant in your safe like you'd do with, say... gold? Which leaves to my next question: are you guys willing to create another currency or to create another gold?If you're willing to create another gold, then there's a problem: real gold actually has an intrinsic value, ie it is required to build some electronics components, and lots of
want jewelry made of gold. The same is not true of BTCs. BTCs serve no component-building purpose nor decorative purpose. If all the BTCs of the world end up in a forgotten stash on a forgotten hard drive, noone will miss it. At best maybe someone will create another BTC-like e-currency.I'm actually mining at the moment, but have no plan of selling or spending my BTCs any time soon...
Increasing value is a problem, but I can't think of any good way to solve it. They need to be percieved as limited in number because they have no value otherwise. Miners don't need both an increasing difficulty and decreasing value of thier product over time. I'm planning on selling games for SC/BTC, but i suspect I'll have to sell them for less than they're worth in those currencies because customers will factor in the currencies potential when deciding to exchange for goods. Still, I love the idea of cryptocurrency, so I'm going to give it a shot.
August 30, 2011, 02:46:48 AM
Part of the problem with a currency that is suspected to gain value is that people are less willing to spend it. I think people would be more willing to accept it as a currency if it made some attempt to maintain a constant value instead of an increasing value.
Yeah, that's actually a major issue IMO, and the worst part of that problem is: it seems that a lot of people very involved in BTC think that this on the contrary is a strength. This can even be read it the FAQ (not with those words, but that seems to be the idea): "don't worry, there won't be inflation but rather deflation, it's a great thing". No, it's not. If BTCs keep gaining value, clinging to your BTCs instead of spending them is actually a profitable investment. Since I don't think anyone will put all their money or even the majority of their money into BTC, noone will be forced to spend them, ie it's possible that everyone just cling to their BTCs. How useful is a currency if noone is willing to spend it? Real world money keeps losing 1-2% value every year, and when you think about it, that's definitely a strong incentive to either spend it or invest it, and not to keep it dormant in your safe like you'd do with, say... gold? Which leaves to my next question: are you guys willing to create another currency or to create another gold?If you're willing to create another gold, then there's a problem: real gold actually has an intrinsic value, ie it is required to build some electronics components, and lots of
want jewelry made of gold. The same is not true of BTCs. BTCs serve no component-building purpose nor decorative purpose. If all the BTCs of the world end up in a forgotten stash on a forgotten hard drive, noone will miss it. At best maybe someone will create another BTC-like e-currency.I'm actually mining at the moment, but have no plan of selling or spending my BTCs any time soon...
August 29, 2011, 09:40:56 PM
Need to get Walmart to accept btc and resell the ones they get. They could accept then online for purchases and giftcards (so you wouldn't have to wait for confirmations for your purchases in store)
August 29, 2011, 06:27:17 PM
Major problems include:
- The fact that transactions can be tracked by software
- Anonymity where you don't need it and lack of anonymity where you do
- Inability to instantly verify a transaction
- No strong infrastructure behind it, and when such infrastructure is in place, a lot of the the things which BitCoin is supposed to be that other currencies are not goes away
- BitCoin seems to be popular with the unscrupulous
- BitCoin policy seems to be mostly managed by a fringe political group
- BitCoin suffers from increasing uncertainty of its circulation over time, which results in decreased valuation
With all that said, BitCoin does have some viable opportunities in the third world if instant transactions can be developed for the cell phone market.
- The fact that transactions can be tracked by software
- Anonymity where you don't need it and lack of anonymity where you do
- Inability to instantly verify a transaction
- No strong infrastructure behind it, and when such infrastructure is in place, a lot of the the things which BitCoin is supposed to be that other currencies are not goes away
- BitCoin seems to be popular with the unscrupulous
- BitCoin policy seems to be mostly managed by a fringe political group
- BitCoin suffers from increasing uncertainty of its circulation over time, which results in decreased valuation
With all that said, BitCoin does have some viable opportunities in the third world if instant transactions can be developed for the cell phone market.
August 29, 2011, 05:37:56 PM
Part of the problem with a currency that is suspected to gain value is that people are less willing to spend it. I think people would be more willing to accept it as a currency if it made some attempt to maintain a constant value instead of an increasing value.
Also, the amount of time it can take for transactions isn't practical. So, between the awkward waiting persiods and forced scarcity I think people will find it hard to accept as a day to day currency.
Also, the amount of time it can take for transactions isn't practical. So, between the awkward waiting persiods and forced scarcity I think people will find it hard to accept as a day to day currency.
August 29, 2011, 06:09:20 AM
What happens when/if there's a mass adoption and, say, 100M transactions a day
There's no fundamental need for every single node to store the whole blockchain. That's what happens at the moment, however if the blockchain gets so large that this becomes unfeasable, then new clients can be written that allow some nodes to only have a small subset of the blockchain to fulfil their needs, and a smaller number of supernodes can deal with the whole blockchain.
August 29, 2011, 01:49:22 AM
I agree with the various problem already debated. I think there are also some other concerns (or rather, some questions), not just for mainstream acceptance but also for "computer people" acceptance. Maybe they are trivial and I shouldn't worry about those, but still I didn't find any crystal-clear answer to those:
1)
2) Is there someone or a few people controlling the core of the network? If no, then why does it seem so hard to set up a test network (I think I read about that in some developer/debugging thread)? If yes, who? and how do we know this won't stop running at some point?
NB: I know every Bitcoin ad I see says "no central authority", but they always forget to explain (even briefly) how it is possible to achieve this...
3) As far as I understood: blocks and all transactions are stored in the blockchain, which is duplicated on all clients. What happens when/if there's a mass adoption and, say, 100M transactions a day (yeah, not likely to happen any time soon, but that's what they said about year 2000 when they were happily storing dates in 2 digits in the 1980s). More generally, will that thing scale (very) well?
Sorry again if this looks like newbie questions (but hey that's the newbie section after all
), but I really think clear answers to those may help to convince more tech-aware people to try BTC (or not ^^), which is a first step before going for mainstream acceptance.
1)
Who or what resets the mining difficulty?
Looks like I'm not the only wondering this. As far as I understood the difficulty is adjusted given the hashrate power of the network, so adjusting it needs a measure of blockcount (every client has it, afaik) and time (potentially different from a client to another - needs some kind of a central authority - who is this?)2) Is there someone or a few people controlling the core of the network? If no, then why does it seem so hard to set up a test network (I think I read about that in some developer/debugging thread)? If yes, who? and how do we know this won't stop running at some point?
NB: I know every Bitcoin ad I see says "no central authority", but they always forget to explain (even briefly) how it is possible to achieve this...
3) As far as I understood: blocks and all transactions are stored in the blockchain, which is duplicated on all clients. What happens when/if there's a mass adoption and, say, 100M transactions a day (yeah, not likely to happen any time soon, but that's what they said about year 2000 when they were happily storing dates in 2 digits in the 1980s). More generally, will that thing scale (very) well?
Sorry again if this looks like newbie questions (but hey that's the newbie section after all
), but I really think clear answers to those may help to convince more tech-aware people to try BTC (or not ^^), which is a first step before going for mainstream acceptance. August 29, 2011, 12:05:18 AM
There is a lot of good discussion back and forth on this thread and some good points too.
To my thinking there is just one main hurdle above all others:
Legal - Bernard von Nothaus was convicted of counterfeiting US money because he issued pure silver dollars that superficially 'looked' like US circulated coins. (How you can counterfeit something that's worth more than the real thing is beyond me.) What it boiled down to was competition from private currencies against the US Dollar from within the US. Once there is a large enough user base OR some random criminal is caught in some Bitcoin sting then you will see the media criticism ramp up and the attacks will begin against Bitcoin.
The current administration in Washington has made repeated statements, quite recently, that the President needs the ability to "shutdown" the internet. The President also has wide emergency powers. A President could be persuaded, perhaps by Treasury or Fed officials, that this Bitcoin is a threat to the economy. The President could declare it illegal and direct ISP's to filter, block and report all Bitcoin traffic.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario -- these are extreme times however. The fact remains: until we have a legal, competitive currency structure any virtual currency will face hurdles to mainstream acceptance.
To my thinking there is just one main hurdle above all others:
Legal - Bernard von Nothaus was convicted of counterfeiting US money because he issued pure silver dollars that superficially 'looked' like US circulated coins. (How you can counterfeit something that's worth more than the real thing is beyond me.) What it boiled down to was competition from private currencies against the US Dollar from within the US. Once there is a large enough user base OR some random criminal is caught in some Bitcoin sting then you will see the media criticism ramp up and the attacks will begin against Bitcoin.
The current administration in Washington has made repeated statements, quite recently, that the President needs the ability to "shutdown" the internet. The President also has wide emergency powers. A President could be persuaded, perhaps by Treasury or Fed officials, that this Bitcoin is a threat to the economy. The President could declare it illegal and direct ISP's to filter, block and report all Bitcoin traffic.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario -- these are extreme times however. The fact remains: until we have a legal, competitive currency structure any virtual currency will face hurdles to mainstream acceptance.
Do you think bitcoin being illegal would destroy it entirely? People do plenty of illegal things and there are plenty of people with the need for bitcoin. I guess it would hinder its acceptance into mass use though...
August 28, 2011, 06:00:32 PM
I think it will always be a niece market to some extent. It's never going to become a mainstream payment method for Joe Public.
Why do you think this?
The needs of the masses are already met by existing payment methods (cash, credit/debit cards, Paypal etc). Bitcoin is more complex than these methods which hill hamper adoption and it's only useful in niche circumstances (anonymous transfers, micropayments with little fees).
August 28, 2011, 01:31:35 PM
There is a lot of good discussion back and forth on this thread and some good points too.
To my thinking there is just one main hurdle above all others:
Legal - Bernard von Nothaus was convicted of counterfeiting US money because he issued pure silver dollars that superficially 'looked' like US circulated coins. (How you can counterfeit something that's worth more than the real thing is beyond me.) What it boiled down to was competition from private currencies against the US Dollar from within the US. Once there is a large enough user base OR some random criminal is caught in some Bitcoin sting then you will see the media criticism ramp up and the attacks will begin against Bitcoin.
The current administration in Washington has made repeated statements, quite recently, that the President needs the ability to "shutdown" the internet. The President also has wide emergency powers. A President could be persuaded, perhaps by Treasury or Fed officials, that this Bitcoin is a threat to the economy. The President could declare it illegal and direct ISP's to filter, block and report all Bitcoin traffic.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario -- these are extreme times however. The fact remains: until we have a legal, competitive currency structure any virtual currency will face hurdles to mainstream acceptance.
To my thinking there is just one main hurdle above all others:
Legal - Bernard von Nothaus was convicted of counterfeiting US money because he issued pure silver dollars that superficially 'looked' like US circulated coins. (How you can counterfeit something that's worth more than the real thing is beyond me.) What it boiled down to was competition from private currencies against the US Dollar from within the US. Once there is a large enough user base OR some random criminal is caught in some Bitcoin sting then you will see the media criticism ramp up and the attacks will begin against Bitcoin.
The current administration in Washington has made repeated statements, quite recently, that the President needs the ability to "shutdown" the internet. The President also has wide emergency powers. A President could be persuaded, perhaps by Treasury or Fed officials, that this Bitcoin is a threat to the economy. The President could declare it illegal and direct ISP's to filter, block and report all Bitcoin traffic.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario -- these are extreme times however. The fact remains: until we have a legal, competitive currency structure any virtual currency will face hurdles to mainstream acceptance.
August 28, 2011, 01:34:15 AM
Oh - and in the thread you linked re: point 3 you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. You're talking about "price" - whereas I was referring to "value".
To quote your thread:
"As an example, let's say you wanted to stabilize the price (ratio) at 1$:1BTC for all eternity - they would simply place a $21,000,000 bid at 1$ on MtGox. As a result the price cannot go below 1$."
Your conclusion (price cannot go below $1) is correct - but totally meaningless. It's VALUE that matters.
And your earlier point that it would stabilize the price at $1:1BTC is just plain wrong. It would keep the price at or above $1:1.
If everyone else in the world believed bitcoins were worth less than $1 then yes - they'd never trade below $1. But you'd end up owning every accessible bitcoin with noone willing to buy them back from you: as value requires both a buyer AND a seller (whereas price just needs a seller). So ultimately you'd achieve the "goal" of bitcoins never falling below $1 - at the cost of you ending up out of pockey by (up to) $21m and holding a wallet full of bitcoins that noone would buy (unless .you dropped your price - but if you did that then you'd not have achieved anything at all).
Value != Price
To quote your thread:
"As an example, let's say you wanted to stabilize the price (ratio) at 1$:1BTC for all eternity - they would simply place a $21,000,000 bid at 1$ on MtGox. As a result the price cannot go below 1$."
Your conclusion (price cannot go below $1) is correct - but totally meaningless. It's VALUE that matters.
And your earlier point that it would stabilize the price at $1:1BTC is just plain wrong. It would keep the price at or above $1:1.
If everyone else in the world believed bitcoins were worth less than $1 then yes - they'd never trade below $1. But you'd end up owning every accessible bitcoin with noone willing to buy them back from you: as value requires both a buyer AND a seller (whereas price just needs a seller). So ultimately you'd achieve the "goal" of bitcoins never falling below $1 - at the cost of you ending up out of pockey by (up to) $21m and holding a wallet full of bitcoins that noone would buy (unless .you dropped your price - but if you did that then you'd not have achieved anything at all).
Value != Price
Sorry, I should have phrased that better - there is no way to regulate value unless you can regulate the value of all existing currencies with 100% accuracy, and that is probably impossible.
August 28, 2011, 01:10:53 AM
Oh - and in the thread you linked re: point 3 you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. You're talking about "price" - whereas I was referring to "value".
To quote your thread:
"As an example, let's say you wanted to stabilize the price (ratio) at 1$:1BTC for all eternity - they would simply place a $21,000,000 bid at 1$ on MtGox. As a result the price cannot go below 1$."
Your conclusion (price cannot go below $1) is correct - but totally meaningless. It's VALUE that matters.
And your earlier point that it would stabilize the price at $1:1BTC is just plain wrong. It would keep the price at or above $1:1.
If everyone else in the world believed bitcoins were worth less than $1 then yes - they'd never trade below $1. But you'd end up owning every accessible bitcoin with noone willing to buy them back from you: as value requires both a buyer AND a seller (whereas price just needs a seller). So ultimately you'd achieve the "goal" of bitcoins never falling below $1 - at the cost of you ending up out of pockey by (up to) $21m and holding a wallet full of bitcoins that noone would buy (unless .you dropped your price - but if you did that then you'd not have achieved anything at all).
Value != Price
To quote your thread:
"As an example, let's say you wanted to stabilize the price (ratio) at 1$:1BTC for all eternity - they would simply place a $21,000,000 bid at 1$ on MtGox. As a result the price cannot go below 1$."
Your conclusion (price cannot go below $1) is correct - but totally meaningless. It's VALUE that matters.
And your earlier point that it would stabilize the price at $1:1BTC is just plain wrong. It would keep the price at or above $1:1.
If everyone else in the world believed bitcoins were worth less than $1 then yes - they'd never trade below $1. But you'd end up owning every accessible bitcoin with noone willing to buy them back from you: as value requires both a buyer AND a seller (whereas price just needs a seller). So ultimately you'd achieve the "goal" of bitcoins never falling below $1 - at the cost of you ending up out of pockey by (up to) $21m and holding a wallet full of bitcoins that noone would buy (unless .you dropped your price - but if you did that then you'd not have achieved anything at all).
Value != Price
August 28, 2011, 01:01:02 AM
1. Lack of accessibility. Any time you want to use it you have to install software and download the whole block-chain. Thin clients/online wallets may ease this - but going the wallet route just makes it a bit like an amateurish Paypal where you don't get seller protection AND there's a decent chance of the wallet stealing your money.
For now the best practice solution is to run a full-fledged client on a trusted machine you control physical access to, and remotely VNC to it over the Internet as securely as possible. While (even perfect) online wallets are a solution, they are inelegant and contrarian to the decentralized/low-overhead goals of the protocol. After I post, I'll start a thread on using VNC as an alternative near-universal mobile client from a smartphone or laptop.
2. A (somewhat deserved) reputation for most services being scammers or amateur. Not a show-stopper and, as more reliable services become available, this will become less of an issue.
This can be simply overcome by creating more legitimate businesses using BTC. While this isn't a short-term solution, in the long-term it outweighs the scammers in terms of public opinion. Pushing for immediate growth in the legitimate sector will go far on this front to expedite the process. Invest in businesses that use BitCoins well and promote them through their affiliate programs. This is an area we can and should move aggressively on when possible.
3. Lack of stability in value. The mainstream doesn't want a currency which has 20%+ swings in value in a day. This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation - as it becomes more mainstream it'll become more stable.
This problem is will be addressed via distributed bot that acts as a price bloc. Please read and comment on my thread at:
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39792.msg485421#msg485421
4. Difficult to transfer to/from fiat currency without paying hefty margins and/or having lengthy delays.
This problem will potentially be self-correcting as more individuals are in a position to trade BitCoins with people they know in real life. Many BitCoin users now only know of people online to trade them with.
5. The perception that anyone can make a currency like bit-coin (see ixcoin etc). This is a false perception imo (anyone can make a currency but getting it used and having value is nothing like so simple).
I'm not sure this is an actual hurdle to BitCoin - there's a strong argument to be made that acceptance of one crypto-currency (at least partially) supports acceptance of all crypto-currencies.
1. We're talking about mainstream acceptance. That's not gonna come if everyone has to:
a) Have an always on computer running VNC or similar on a permanent connection.
b) Have that computer solely used by them - leaving an unencrypted wallet on a running machine used by others wouldn't be smart.
c) Either carry around another device with VNC installed AND internet connectivity or somehow be able to use VNC on other people's machines.
I'm not knocking it as a work-around for some of us - but it's not a mainstream solution. There ARE mainstream solutions -but what you propose isn't one.
2. We're in agreement this is an issue - but not one which can be overcome. To an extent this issue is actually the result of other ones.
3. Read your thread. Seems to be suggesting tieing up about 15% of the value of all BTC in existence with zero return - with them only ever being used if BTC totally crashes at which point that US$ could well be significantly devalued.
Plus my point was about stablity - your thread is about guaranteeing some minimum value which would do nothing to encourage stability at higher exchange rates. Fundamentally you can only prop up a currency's value by taking a loss - I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you weren't actually offering to tie up $21m of your own. Artificial manipulation of bitcoin value by (what would be in effect) some central reserve bank is totally against the whole principles seperating bitcoin from fiat currencies. The correct way for stability to arrive is by increasing bitcoin trade such that speculation and scams are no longer the main drivers in the market.
4. I agree in theory. Right now there's few reasons associated with legitimate businesses to want bitcoins rather than US$ (speculation, trading and Silkroad spring to mind as amongst those few). For bitcoins to go mainstream there need to be reasons why buying with them is better than with fiat. There's no real incentive whilst many merchant who take bitcoins are just selling at a prive that's higher than fiat (by the margin they pay to get the BTC straight back into fiat on MtGox).
5. I agree this isn't much of an issue to you or me - but to the mainstream it's not so obvious why bitcoins can have value when anyone can just make their own similar currency up overnight.
August 27, 2011, 11:30:02 PM
1. Lack of accessibility. Any time you want to use it you have to install software and download the whole block-chain. Thin clients/online wallets may ease this - but going the wallet route just makes it a bit like an amateurish Paypal where you don't get seller protection AND there's a decent chance of the wallet stealing your money.
For now the best practice solution is to run a full-fledged client on a trusted machine you control physical access to, and remotely VNC to it over the Internet as securely as possible. While (even perfect) online wallets are a solution, they are inelegant and contrarian to the decentralized/low-overhead goals of the protocol. After I post, I'll start a thread on using VNC as an alternative near-universal mobile client from a smartphone or laptop.
2. A (somewhat deserved) reputation for most services being scammers or amateur. Not a show-stopper and, as more reliable services become available, this will become less of an issue.
This can be simply overcome by creating more legitimate businesses using BTC. While this isn't a short-term solution, in the long-term it outweighs the scammers in terms of public opinion. Pushing for immediate growth in the legitimate sector will go far on this front to expedite the process. Invest in businesses that use BitCoins well and promote them through their affiliate programs. This is an area we can and should move aggressively on when possible.
3. Lack of stability in value. The mainstream doesn't want a currency which has 20%+ swings in value in a day. This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation - as it becomes more mainstream it'll become more stable.
This problem is will be addressed via distributed bot that acts as a price bloc. Please read and comment on my thread at:
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39792.msg485421#msg485421
4. Difficult to transfer to/from fiat currency without paying hefty margins and/or having lengthy delays.
This problem will potentially be self-correcting as more individuals are in a position to trade BitCoins with people they know in real life. Many BitCoin users now only know of people online to trade them with.
5. The perception that anyone can make a currency like bit-coin (see ixcoin etc). This is a false perception imo (anyone can make a currency but getting it used and having value is nothing like so simple).
I'm not sure this is an actual hurdle to BitCoin - there's a strong argument to be made that acceptance of one crypto-currency (at least partially) supports acceptance of all crypto-currencies.
August 27, 2011, 10:25:36 PM
Bunch of reasons why it'll struggle for mainstream acceptance (which isn't necessarily to say it'll never get there):
1. Lack of accessibility. Any time you want to use it you have to install software and download the whole block-chain. Thin clients/online wallets may ease this - but going the wallet route just makes it a bit like an amateurish Paypal where you don't get seller protection AND there's a decent chance of the wallet stealing your money.
2. A (somewhat deserved) reputation for most services being scammers or amateur. Not a show-stopper and, as more reliable services become available, this will become less of an issue.
3. Lack of stability in value. The mainstream doesn't want a currency which has 20%+ swings in value in a day. This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation - as it becomes more mainstream it'll become more stable.
4. Difficult to transfer to/from fiat currency without paying hefty margins and/or having lengthy delays.
5. The perception that anyone can make a currency like bit-coin (see ixcoin etc). This is a false perception imo (anyone can make a currency but getting it used and having value is nothing like so simple).
Just a few quick thoughts on it.
1. Lack of accessibility. Any time you want to use it you have to install software and download the whole block-chain. Thin clients/online wallets may ease this - but going the wallet route just makes it a bit like an amateurish Paypal where you don't get seller protection AND there's a decent chance of the wallet stealing your money.
2. A (somewhat deserved) reputation for most services being scammers or amateur. Not a show-stopper and, as more reliable services become available, this will become less of an issue.
3. Lack of stability in value. The mainstream doesn't want a currency which has 20%+ swings in value in a day. This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation - as it becomes more mainstream it'll become more stable.
4. Difficult to transfer to/from fiat currency without paying hefty margins and/or having lengthy delays.
5. The perception that anyone can make a currency like bit-coin (see ixcoin etc). This is a false perception imo (anyone can make a currency but getting it used and having value is nothing like so simple).
Just a few quick thoughts on it.
August 27, 2011, 08:55:43 PM
It's very difficult to go from cash to bitcoin. The "common man" has no patience for this. Hash, blocks, all this nonsense...normal people simply don't care.
August 27, 2011, 05:23:49 PM
Lol +1 for being funny. Picture someone trying to explain Bitcoin to the average guy on the street, it isn't going to work.
I have tried explaining what bitcoin is and how it works to my friends a numerous amount of times, and I find it near impossible, even though I am such a well-spoken and smart person. The only way I can explain bitcoins to anyone that I know is by dumbing it down to the point where it doesn't even seem interesting.
Yep I get the same puzzled looks.. and the older crowd is like 'but its not money you cant hold it' - And to other poster I am all for spreading the word , and do so - going to pitch the idea to small business association locally some time soon, but really you don't need mainstream appeal to be successful. To me its a small gamble, always have multiple horses int he race they say...
Look at gold .. 90 to 95% (maybe higher) US citizen has no idea that gold is money, even after this run from 250 to 1900 .. there just isn't wide mainstream appeal, but hey I would say that isn't such a bad thing it has worked out very well for me. i fell bitcoin may be similar as time goes on.
Kinda like the apple stock holder arguments to me "i'm up 400%!!!" ..but yeah everything you buy costs 500% more.. you lost, after taxes, well lets not even go there such deep thoughts lol
August 27, 2011, 04:24:58 PM
And realize this is just the surface
I just had a conversation with someone who runs a consumer-to-consumer used-auto listing service.
Normally there are all kinds of problems with trust for both sides of the process.
The seller takes a big risk in letting the potential buyer test drive the car, for instance. I suggested that bitcoins could be used to help increase the likelihood that the potential buyer returns with the vehicle. Having an escrow agent, such as BTCrow.com in the middle, for instance would help to protect both parties.
Additionally, showing up with a pocketful of cash to a location of the seller's choosing makes many buyers uneasy. With bitcoin and a smartphone the buyer needn't carry cash at all. If everything checks out, the buyer can complete the purchase on-the-spot.
These are two examples of niche uses for bitcoin that aid certain types of commerce. They are examples that show how Bitcoin can help improve our lives.
These two examples are, to reiterate your statement, "just the surface".
August 27, 2011, 02:08:10 PM
I think it will always be a niece market to some extent. It's never going to become a mainstream payment method for Joe Public.
Why do you think this?
However, there's still massive opportunity for increased adoption. Right now Bitcoin really is a geeky thing. Nobody outside techie circles has heard of it.
That's certainly a hurdle, but I don't think it's insurmountable.
It's slowly starting to permeate the mainstream financial news and as press coverage increases, we can expect much more growth as investors with a penchant for high risk / high gain investments put their money into it.
Agreed. But what indicators point to the this being a finite point before mass adoption? What prevents BitCoin from becoming a "real" (so to speak) currency? As more investors show exposure to BitCoin, why would it not eventually reach a critical mass of sorts and cascade into mainstream adoption?
Jump to: