[Loughla]

And this, this statement is why I believe that Bitcoin or really any cryptocurrency will never have more than a fraction of a fraction of 1% of any transactions, and will never take off in the mainstream.

The reason that people use fiat currencies is because they can trust the institution/government backing them. They can trust that if they are handed a dollar by a business, it's a dollar, no questions asked.

If folks have to worry about whether or not the person they're exchanging with is being legit, and whether or not the institution handling the transaction will be as well, they're going to be turned off.

Like it or not, most people are lazy; adding one more layer of headache to financial transactions will be a MAJOR turn-off for a vast majority of people.

[Xdes]

>The reason that people use fiat currencies is because they can trust the institution/government backing them.

Bitcoin is a fiat currency and I trust the Bitcoin specification a lot more than I'll trust any central bank. They're notorious for usury, secret bailouts, and inflation.

>They can trust that if they are handed a dollar by a business, it's a dollar, no questions asked.

Well you can trust that if you're sent a Bitcoin then it will end up in your wallet.

>the person they're exchanging with is being legit

This is the same thing that happened with online shopping at the end of the '90 and early '00s. Consumers got used to using their credit cards online and they will get used to the notion of owning, transferring, and protecting digital property.

>adding one more layer of headache to financial transactions

There is no such headache. The software will improve and the banking infrastructure will grow. I expect to see banks that hold their reserves in Bitcoin and give out lines of credit denominated in Bitcoin. Infrastructure will solve this problem, but first capital is needed to meet current regulatory compliance with the archaic legacy system that is currently in place.

[Loughla]

>Bitcoin is a fiat currency and I trust the Bitcoin specification a lot more than I'll trust any central bank. They're notorious for usury, secret bailouts, and inflation.

That's great for you. What about the average consumer?

>This is the same thing that happened with online shopping at the end of the '90 and early '00s. Consumers got used to using their credit cards online and they will get used to the notion of owning, transferring, and protecting digital property.

Except with the vast difference that credit card companies were already well established in mainstream life, and people trust them (right or wrong) to keep their information safe. Pair that with a massive PR campaign on the part of credit card companies, and you've got something.

>There is no such headache. The software will improve and the banking infrastructure will grow. I expect to see banks that hold their reserves in Bitcoin and give out lines of credit denominated in Bitcoin. Infrastructure will solve this problem, but first capital is needed to meet current regulatory compliance with the archaic legacy system that is currently in place.

Yes, yes there is. Imagine, again, being an average suburban housewife. Now, try to cash out your bitcoin. Try to wrap your head around the volatility of the currency.

I genuinely believe you're being a bit too optimistic about how banks and bitcoin will interact. After consulting with large and small banks alike, I've learned they are incredibly risk averse. Something as volatile as bitcoin, and as out of their control, is a red flag from day one. There may come a day when banks exchange in bitcoin, with heavy fees, but I'm not certain that they will hold their reserves in it, or extend lines of credit in it, either.

There's more to this than having a secure currency. There is a lot of politics. There is quite a bit of control that banks want to have. They, generally, want to make sure that any bets they make can be insured. Can they do that with bitcoin?

Cryptocurrency in general, but Bitcoin and dogecoin especially strike me as being marketed as the next big get rich quick scheme, and I'm leery of that, regardless of the technology behind it.

Maybe I'm wrong, who knows; I'm just fascinated to see this develop, and am generally as cynical as possible.

[Xdes]

>am generally as cynical as possible

Then Bitcoin really isn't for you. Bitcoin requires faith in mathematics and humanity.

[dragontamer]

There are rumors of an SEC-approved BTC exchange coming up. Once that happens, it will become possible to trade BTCs with the same level of confidence as trading Stocks, Currencies, or Commodities.

Somewhat unrelated: the Winkelvoss Twins are making an ETF for Bitcoins, and its going through the SEC right now. http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/01/17/lawyer-for-winkelv...

So at very least, SEC approved BTC funds are beginning to be set up. Its only a matter of time before a startup goes for full SEC approval in the BTC Exchange world.

Integration into US Society and Regulations is a good thing, and will give much confidence to the rather scary world that BTC currently is.

[sp332]

What does "legit" mean exactly? You can cryptographically verify every transaction.

[Loughla]

In this instance, it has nothing to do with being able to cryptographically verify anything. It has everything to do with appearances. Take the average suburban housewife; do you believe that she cares that PinkyPie69 can cryptographically verify anything, or will she care that this person is a full grown human who loves a children's show?

Small-mindedness will usually trump technological ability.