[jedunnigan]

Critiques of Bitcoin like this baffle me. First of all, the whole point of a decentralized protocol is such that whoever follows the rules can transact accordingly. Plain and simple.

People are going to scam, they are going to swindle, they are going to get hacked. Its not Bitcoin or it's blockchain's duty to do your due diligence. It simply can't. There will always be a need for trusted entities if someone doesn't want to store the coin themselves. It's a function of vetting those players.

But I agree with you: the level of professionalism needs to be upped in Bitcoin, there is no question about that. But somehow blaming the protocol for the bad actors in the space? Come on....

[vectorpush]

But somehow blaming the protocol for the bad actors in the space? Come on....

I didn't blame the protocol for anything.

Critiques of Bitcoin like this baffle me.

It's not a critique of bitcoin, it's a critique of the increasing reliance on centralized merchant services. All these companies accepting bitcoin payments only do so by the grace of a few centralized parties that will quickly become "too big to fail" as they continue to aggregate more and more clients. I shouldn't have to rely on coinbase to provide a path to actually spend my decentralized currency.

[aianus]

If Bitcoin becomes big and stable, there's no reason large companies couldn't open BTC accounts at Chase or Wells Fargo and accept them directly. Amazon doesn't convert your CAD into USD immediately when you shop on Amazon.ca.

At least with Bitcoin, anyone can compete as a payment processor because there's no central authority with onerous licensing requirements like Visa/Mastercard.

[kaonashi]

>there's no reason large companies couldn't open BTC accounts at Chase or Wells Fargo and accept them directly

That strikes me as a rather extraordinary claim.