Bitcoin Forum

What is the biggest issue nedded to be solved regards to bitcoin (the agenda can be different, but why and to what purpose do you mean it need to be resolved. It be a new service, security update and other).

If its regards to bitcoins main purpose, commercial like merchant tools, trading or other. I am eager to her your suggestions.

I like to hear your views  :o

I don't know nearly enough about the technical side of Bitcoin to comment on what needs to be changed there, so I won't attempt to.

I do think that Bitcoin needs to be seen/promoted more as a means of trade and less as an investment. The average consumer is probably more likely to shy away from Bitcoin if they view it as another tool of the wealthy as opposed to an alternative form of currency or payment. I think mainstream success will be very reliant on a higher number of merchant acceptance. A couple of big name retailers accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment will go a long way.

In this way, I'm sort of split on the recent IRS ruling for Bitcoin. On the one hand, the ruling does a lot of good for Bitcoin by giving it a form of official government recognition. Or maybe a sense of legitimacy would be a more appropriate way to describe it.

On the other hand, ruling Bitcoin as property and treating it as a capital gain, like an investment, serves more to downplay Bitcoin as a true alternative method of payment. I almost wonder if the ruling had some intent (whether in full or in part) to try to reduce the threat Bitcoin may have towards the U.S. dollar. Treat it like property, not payment, and people are more likely to respond in kind.

Centralization and Scalability issues I'd say.

Removal of the china factor.

After that, increasing the network's transaction thoroughput.

Then, POS integration employing bitcoin "debit cards" linked to a person's address.

adoption, but it only need time and current effort is enough

agree adoption, but think more could be done.

why should average person use bitcoin  ???

professionalism..
i do not mean corporatization or government controlled. i just mean that services dealing with other peoples wealth need to be managed by people who are not bums, social rejects, or unemployed basement dwellers. all of which are usually just in it to make themselves millionaires and will easily be tempted to cheat, steal or extort to do so.

transmission of bitcoins does not need third parties which is great. but when third party services are needed. there needs to be some transparency and trust.

EG exchanges that do not hide behind go-daddys domain privacy protections, etc.
exchanges where the owner has had financial/insurance/banking experience
exchanges that have equal collateral locked away to make it in their best interest to be ethical

and a mind set for all users. if you wont allow a distant cousin to use your debit card and pin number for all your fiat wealth, why suddenly trust a stranger that you have never met, who hides behind privacy settings.

non-technical but build-in/on-chain escrow

I would say a reliable exchange at the moment. No need to provide an exchange platform for many coins, just btc and ltc will do. Preferably accept usd, gbp, euro and jpy.

china is not a factor
ask yourself. do you have a bank account in china?
do you live in china?

if the answer to both is no, then look at the long term picture, do not make decisions on something that does not physically affect you, because it wont affect you.
by making a decision to sell at a loss based on something that doesnt affect you, is the only time it will affect you. in May, June. the china hype will be over... but your still left with a loss

i personally have not acted on any information based on china. i still have my wealth because i did not panic.
china did not cause the price drop on bitstamp/btc-e... europeans and americans caused the price drop, based on their emotions.

a prime example of another event is that smart people knew in december that mtgox shut its doors. they were quick enough to realise mtgox does not affect bitstamp or btc-e directly. so they did not sheep follow the price down to $100. (yes some dumb people did sell at a loss to cause a price drop of smaller preportions, but thats their loss)

just because one exchange dumps, there is no real reason to dump too, unless you are personally arbitraging them both and can see profit in doing so.. just remember the bigger picture.. the panic hype soon dies off, so why lose because of something that only lasts a couple months at most.

never sell at a loss..

+1

Centralization of mining.  Our current network is easily at the mercy of a government 51% attack.  It would take some global coordination, but it could probably be accomplished solely by seizing a handful of data centers.  Of course bitcoin would be forked in such a scenario and the concept of cryptocurrencies in general would live on, so I don't think the governments have a reason to do such a thing.  But if we accept that they could, then you have to ask yourself what is all the mining good for?  A high difficulty provides an easy way to verify that blocks came from the one and only bitcoin network, so some proof of work is essential.  But the cost of all the mining equipment is paid for by all bitcoin users and holders, so it is a reasonable question to ask ourselves how much hash power is enough?  Over 3 million new coins will come on to the network over the next 3 years.  At $1,000 per coin, that would be $3 billion of new value, so it would be reasonable to expect miners to spend, in aggregate, $3 billion to capture those coins.

Keeping in mind that with centralized mining, no amount of hash power will protect us from the government, is spending $3 billion necessary to protect the network from hackers?  Maybe, $3b does not seem totally unreasonable.  But lets say bitcoin goes to $5,000 per coin before this year is over.  Then we are talking about a $15 billion investment in mining equipment.  If our network's structure calls for an unnecessarily large investment in security, bitcoin would become vulnerable to a coin with a more economically efficient design.

Scalability.  I actually see this as more of a political issue.  The cost of transmitting, processing and storing bits will continue to fall as time goes on.  That should mean the number of transactions the bitcoin network can process per minute should increase as well, at least for a given cost.  Or put another way, the real costs per transaction should continually fall.  Eventually, micro transactions should be able happen on-chain.  Off-chain solutions will continue to exist, but those aren't really bitcoin offering a solution.  The more powerful off-chain systems become, the less reliant on bitcoin they will be.  As a bitcoin investor and holder, I want people to find use of bitcoin itself easy, cheap and irresistible.  If off-chain solutions come to dominate usage of bitcoin, not only will btc become less valuable, but there is even a greater risk that those off-chain providers switch to some other chain entirely.

I say it's a political issue because of the blocksize limit.

Do panic sellers count as an 'issue'?

well i hope panic sellers lose out so many times by panicking everyday, that their wealth becomes less then 1BTC each. then future panics by these naive people wont put a dent in the price as much. so i am glad they are panicking and losing bitcoins. as it dilutes the "power" they have to move markets in the future.

no.

In general. What future developements could bitcoin benefit from regards to the mainstream. I mean more what hands on could be developed by bitcoin team and other providers. It could be integration to the blockchain, add ons or other third parties services. Some mention creditcard services, and other. But this is a new currency, is it possible that there would be new "services" that not the off-line world currency market not has yet.

Why? They are a great source of cheap coins  ;D

Not so great when they continue to lose value on the back of every whiff of bad news.

That would be cool, and I've read elsewhere it's perfectly possible.

It would be cool, but how would it work? Any links to further info?

No links, saw it in a shoutbox on other forum.

Would still need real 3rd party middle-man to hold and release funds.

Escrow transaction and details enter blockchain.

Basically miners could place bids on escrow jobs, escrow amount they can handle proportional to their total hashrate and rating.

Miners doing this escrow work get rated by buyers/sellers.

Many jobs will not need miner to get involved, because the recipient of the items purchased for coin also have ability to release the coin.

If buyer/seller disagree then the contracted miner gets involved; and then needs to work as current escrow agents do; talking with both sides, check proof of delivery etc. before releasing coin to seller.

Basically coins can be "locked" into the blockchain, the buyer of the goods and a contracted miner both have the key to release the coins to the seller, after which the transaction is written properly into a new block and appears as a new transaction.

I don't know the nitty gritty of what needs to be altered/added in bitcoin code.

The 1MB block size limit.

+100

thought about daniel larimers idea of lending into existence yesterday for a long time. Even though I do not like his worldview that much, this is by far the best idea for mass adoption. Kudos to him.

Just imagine every bitcoin would behave like a small overly-collateralized (central) bank and could lend digital dollars (or every other asset) into existence. From an economics perspective it is quite complicated to invent a mechanism which would lead to parity between digital dollars and "real" dollars.

I assume with sidechains we see this mechanism become reality. It is like the best of both worlds.

Security of the network and protocol should be reviewed by experts. May a hakaton. 

+1000

First is too hard for non-tech people to store safely and spend, second is slow confirmations on transactions (ok for websites and cheap stuff when nobody cares, but for high value stuff over the counter it's too slow)

The biggest issue facing bitcoin is its small market cap.  The greater bitcoin's market cap becomes, the more useful it is as a store of value.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578286.0

We have a "Trustless" escrow at https://anark.it based on the open source "Casascius Escrow" written by Mike Caldwell. Is this what you mean?

Security. Seriously, that's the biggest issue.

Well... education about security, maybe. 

i.e.  It's not very secure if you give it to a complete stranger on the internet to look after it for you.  Stop leaving your money in exchanges and web wallets and you'll find "security" isn't actually that big a problem at all.