I don't think so - but you can now find links in BTCC to inject funds from banks (which has not been possible since the boom in 2013).

This is the way that things are done in China (never really officially endorsed but without a doubt the central government is 100% aware of it).

If the government gets "spooked" by another massive bubble then I'd expect those funding links will disappear (as they did in 2013).

Bitcoin is not suited to "micro-transactions" at all (hence all the arguments about fees and block sizes).

It is suitable for sending all over the world very quickly though (the remittance market being one that I've mentioned before it should already be playing a leading role in but unfortunately isn't).

If it was just math then it wouldn't need an internet (maybe you have fundamentally misunderstood it).

With 0% interest becoming prevalent I don't know if sticking your fiat into an account is still such a good option.
 

I don't think so - gold will still be there when the internet is not (in fact gold will still be there when we cease to exist as a species).

You can't be 100% certain of a Bitcoin tx until a "checkpoint" has been published (which unfortunately is a centralised thing controlled by the devs).

A blockchain "re-org" (where a better chain replaces the current one) can actually go as far back as the last checkpoint (which could be thousands of blocks).

It is extremely unlikely that such a "re-org" could happen (and has never happened so far) but re-orgs of more than 3 blocks have occurred before (the worst such problem was around 6 blocks from memory).

So you basically have to decide upon the risk you want to take in accordance to the amount you are risking.

The "blockchain" is the genius of Bitcoin (not the currency).

Interestingly enough Satoshi basically invented nothing (even the blockchain concept had been documented before Bitcoin).

What he (or they) did was simply put together a bunch of ideas into a practical and working piece of P2P software.

Basically the volumes should be ignored - they can be faked even if trading fees apply because if the exchange owns the accounts then the trading fees simply go back to the exchange.

Exchanges don't let you inquire about the balances of accounts - so they could create their own accounts and simply credit them back the fees to equal zero fees anyway (the Chinese approach is actually more *honest* as you directly know that the volume can't be trusted).

That is a common misconception (that Adam Back has mentioned several times) - you have to trust the network (if all your nodes are feeding you a fork then as far as you know that is the correct blockchain).

Yes - it is very easy to validate a signature provided you have the "banks" public key (which I presume each merchant would have or could get).

If you are familiar with the "message signing" in Bitcoin Core then basically that's the method.

Simplest way to secure your future is to buy two (or more) houses.

You rent out the other houses to pay for all your expenses for your primary house (it is not likely that rental return will ever be zero nor is it likely that rental return will be much less than the expenses needed to maintain an equivalent house).

Your only problem with multiple properties will be taxation (as eventually I think all governments are going to tax properties as things like "income tax" are going to become defunct in the future).

So even if you buy multiple houses - keep some BTC for the taxes!

I think "voucher" is much better actually - and fits in with things like "green addresses" that have come before.

Assuming that the "bank" issues the cheque then it should be trivial for it to "sign it" (I'm not sure exactly how much your concept is trying to emulate traditional cheques).

I am assuming that the workflow is like this:

1) User wants to buy something.

2) User creates a cheque (which is actually created by their "bank" for them under the covers).

3) User sends the cheque to the merchant (who can immediately verify the signature before even bothering to contact the "bank").

If step 2 doesn't exist (in the way I've described it) then merchants could be attacked with fake cheques which would also become an indirect attack on the "banks" that are trying to verify the cheques for them.

It's hard to know if it will have potential but your thinking is not without merit (the two problems of confirmation timing and tx reversal are what really prevents Bitcoin from being used as any sort of replacement for traditional payment systems).

EDIT: I would reconsider the term "cheque" as I think that cheques are nearing obsolescence.

Indexing UTXOs by address is not complex at all - and is exactly what projects like Electrum already do (clearly you are not very aware).

As it requires an enormous amount of RAM to even run (unless it has dramatically changed design recently) I certainly don't think you could ever classify it as a "lite wallet".

I think the "cheque standard" (http://bitcoincheque.org/standards/bitcoin-cheque-standard/) should probably include a digital signature to reduce potential DoS attacks from "fake cheques" (without a digital signature presumably you'd have to contact the "bank" to verify the cheque).

Unfortunately the problem is UTXO indexing (by address) which is not done by Bitcoin Core (except for its own wallet).

Personally I think it's a pity this feature isn't added into Bitcoin Core as it makes sense for it to be able to provide this information (rather than having to add another server like Electrum on top of it).

I don't know what the core devs reason is for not implementing this (beyond it not being a high priority) and would actually help out if lack of developer time was the only issue (am guessing that it isn't though).

Huh?

The restrictions were for putting money *in* (since the 2013 boom until recently that has been very hard to do) and those are the ones that have (at least for now) disappeared (there was never any restrictions on taking funds out).

Don't confuse the currency controls that are put in place for Chinese moving funds overseas with those of Bitcoin exchanges.

The reason is that you can now buy BTC with RMB from banks (supposedly not possible since 2013).

If you understand the issues of "capital control" it is not hard to see why this would push the value of BTC up.

(the real question is how long until they "ban purchasing" again)