the reason bitcoin is safe, is because the only thing transmitted to a retailer is a UNIQUE tx which has a unique signature..

going to a store and handing them your dna/retina for a scrambler to then sign a tx is stupid. as the scanner then holds your dna.
this is the same foolishness as credit cards. you are handing over your identity with the 'hope' your details wont be re-used.

sorry but finger pricking blood sampling at a retailer is bad, not just for the reason above but also for hygiene, convenience..
we are in a day of 'touchless technology' yet the op wants to think putting a finger inside a scanner thousands of people touch daily is a innovation?.. um nope

an innovation is a mobile wallet that stores only 11 of the 12 passphrase seed and the user types in the last passphrase as a confirmation password. a tx is then signed and the unique tx is sent to the retailer.

biometrics has been discussed at length before. humans only have a limited amount of bio data which lasts them for life. (much like a social security number lasts for life) once compromised.. their screwed

its time some people stop looking at the 8year old philosophy and start looking at the reality.. starting with the arrogant and centralised push for 'lightning'

lightning network is where people need to deposit funds into an address that is DUAL MANAGED!!
meaning you have to link to a counter party and have them agree/say yes to a transaction you want to perform.

current tests/concepts have found that distributed 'spokes' do not work. and centralised 'hubs' are the only efficient way for the route functions.. this in non buzzworded terms is banks(the hubs) managing your transactions.. hense people shouting out that lightning is ultimately banking2.0

hav you seen blockstream lately..
they OWN the github and control what happens
the "you and me" you talk about have tried to do bips to upgrade the network and within 24 hours a blockstream employee has closed the bip/issue.

its time you get your head out of the sand thinking bitcoin code is not controlled and the gateways in and out of bitcoin are not controlled.

it already exists

http://dcg.co/portfolio/

they have blockstream, bloq and many others as the IT department

coinbase, bitpay, bitflyer, bitoasis, bitpasa, bitso, kraken, coinsetter and soo many more as their 'local bank branches'

they even have their own media outlet, coindesk to control what they want people to know.
stil dont believe it? well check out all the debates over the last 3 years, if its not managed by guys funded by DCG, it gets REKT

segwit is a failure. take for instance btcc, the biggest supporter of blockstreams segwit1x

they cant even bring themselves round to actually deposit their blockrewards into segwit keypairs.
yep they pretended to fully support the blockstream code for 2 years and scream that its safe, yet are not using it themselves

check them out
https://blockchain.info/blocks/BTCC%20Pool

even funnier ever since 2 days ago they even stopped doing blocks above the 1mb WEIGHT

as for the reasons the koreans dislike x2 here are some details they forget
1. its the blockstream devs that are making x2 controversial by implementing NON-consensus ban hammer code to force an altcoin rather than allowing a community consensus upgrade to succeed or fail
2. the ban hammer code blockstream devs put into core means that instead of consensus, an altcoin will be formed and as such replay protection is needed.. which blockstream devs should code into core, because core are causing the split.. not the other way round

but all this drama is just that.. drama.
the bscartel control bitcoin and pretend its decentralised when infact its just distributed (there is a difference)
pick bscartelx1 to ass kiss or bscartelx2 to ass kiss but ultimately your still kissing ass of the bscartel
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
x1: btcc, blockstream
x2: bitpay, bloq
all under the same puppetstrings. thus choice is the illusion presented by the cartel

while bitcoin devs are doing shady crap stalling bitcoins utility.. they are secretly helping hyperledger succeed.

so to answer the OP's question

bitcoin vs hyperledger

lol i laughed at cointelegraphs wishy washy attempt to glaze over reality.
seems people are trying to preach to the converted, not realising that anyone reading this stuff already knows bitcoin isnt as free as the preacher (cointelegraph) makes out.


sorry but bitcoin has an exchange rate too, where the bitcoin receiver would add on a few percent to cover their side of the swap back to fiat. and the customer would lose a few percent getting their brazilian fiat into bitcoin.. thus 5%+ loss is usual due to variances between buys/sells(spread) and the fee's of the trades and the fee's of deposit/withdrawal..


also trying to make the gift card discounts a 'deal' of bitcoin is stupid. people can buy discounted giftcards with fiat too.. so the example of buying a $100 item for only $85 is not somethin only bitcoin offers. its something even fiat offers.

how about people admit that bitcoin has problems
EG exchange limits, fee's, AML/KYC headaches
EG fee wars
EG no longer decentralised (sarcastically thanking blockstream) and is becoming only 'distributed' instead

once people man up instead of sucking up. then things can get solved. but while people just glaze over bitcoins issues nothing will change and it just gets handed over to the bscartel and sandboxed into a 'failed experiment' while they move onto hyperledger.

the devs dont care about bitcoin being usd to purchase goods, they have admitted they prefer bitcoin to be a reserve currency not a payment currency. they also admit they dont care if bitcoin survives, even now 8 years on they call it an 'experiment'

its time people wise up and try to bash the devs, not the general public that may or may not want to use bitcoin.

if anyone wants to pay for a street sign like this.. atleast make it worthy.
otherwise you might aswell just get a graffiti artist to just write "$ dollar" on a wall.
 
for instance have a location that is a regular bitcoin meetup where people can discuss and also face to face exchange bitcoin. make a list of local merchants/stores that accept bitcoin.. and then put that information on the advert. so that people have some direction as to what bitcoin information and utility is available locally to the advert, when they see the advert.

otherwise if people see the sign with no info/context, when they google it they will just be shown the r/bitcoin reddit and all the news about prominent people saying bitcoin is losing its utility.

so if you want to do some advertising, put some effort into it by showing locals what can actually be done

firstly the only reason 2mb was chosen is because core devs declined any other amount such as 16mb, 8mb, 4mb.. so 2mb was compromised in the hopes the core devs would finally agree and stop blockading growth.

..
but now even with just 2mb the core devs are still blockading growth. yep core devs are the ones causing the controversy by literally writing in code to ban nodes that are not core. banning nodes that dont fit the blockstream roadmap of turning bitcoin into a blockstream elements altcoin.

yep blockstream devs have done all they can to avoid using consensus to sort these matters out and instead gone for the human/social governance model of a dictatorship.

just look how fast the blockstream devs closed off any chance of core being part of upgrading the blocksize.. under 24 hours
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11128 - closd by blockstream employee sipa on the same day it was opened.. yep not allowing community to decide..

but hey, bitcoin will drop being used by merchants. and become just some reserve currency no one can spend directly onchain but have to hand over into a smart contract of counterparty control.. yep LN is cheap to transact but like banks/paypal needs a stranger to sign off/agree to your spending decisions.

oh, and blockstream want to bloat up onchain transactions with Confidential payment codes and other stuff.. while also removing the security of validation by pruning. making the blockchain just junk data that cant be validated and expensive to transact on.... (facepalm)

but again hey. no one cares about the real utility of bitcoin, the ethos and need of its original invention. all they care about is the ponzi element of buy cheap from one person and sell expensive to the next and then run back to fiat.

see what i mean about the sheep re-bleeting out the segwit propaganda.. to defend blockstream + their partners
they care more about protecting blockstream then they care about bitcoins utility


check the blockchain i even linked it!!! the evidence is in the blockchain and its immutable!

as for lauda's account of the 2x part.. either lauda is dumb or he is part of it..
2x was always a bait and switch.. bait the community with a chance of 2x by getting the community to naively accept segwit first using the bait of segwit2x.. then switch back to trying to get people to hate the 2x part.. even though the community only accepted segwit recently due to the agreement of the 2x being part of the deal

if the community was so strongly desiring just segwit it would have activated by christmas2016.. rather than lingering at 25-30%

if you dont believe me that segwit2x was just a bait and switch to give blockstream their segwit altcoin features into the bitcoin network.. just check out blockstream listed as part of silberts portfolio along with jgarzics bloq company
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

but hey lets see lauda scream "liar" without linking anything to oppose this topic... its funny

im still laughing at the segwit supporters.. yea the sheep are re-bleeting out the segwit propaganda.. but when it comes to the pools that pushed for it.. the pools themself are too afraid to even use segwit transactions themselves

check out BTCC
not using segwit address to receive the coinbase(block reward)
https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000088f4c787292ba94088977df200bd36ff4c6789c377f460

then when they move funds from multiple block rewards into a more structured stash.. that address too is legacy not segwit
https://blockchain.info/tx/932082ade49edd35973e80fd88f4bf51abe1b69687643a9f887b88a09b5bca44

im laughing soo hard. BTCC was the biggest pool mouthpiece supporting segwit but cant even admit they fear using segwit transactions for their own stash.

people really need to stop reading the reddit promo propaganda and instead start thinking for real and asking the real questions

if you mean a third party.. treat them like someone that walks passed you on the street.. would you seriously hand them your savings /income without knowing them?

if your talking about a company. do due diligence. check out their company registration details then google map/streetview their address. make sure it does not lead to a po box/drop box/virtual mailbox address..

in short if you cant find enough information to slap them with a wet fish/court order should they do you wrong. dont trade with them.

even then be careful. after all butterfly labs had company registration details and an office, and product papers and business plans etc, yet they still ended up being scammy, same with MTGox

most people dont trust third parties/internet companies with anything more then the customer is willing to lose. most people only trade/spend amounts that can equate to some disposable income amount of a evening takeout meal, that wont hurt much if lost

the real reason is simple.. UK / Euro wire transfers are instant and free.. bitcoin isnt
so the features of bitcoin as a payment method didnt excite people because they could move money without bitcoin, easier than with bitcoin

now people only think of bitcoin for investment purposes, not payment/remit purposes

segwit is an altcoin.. hense why people call it segwit and not bitcoin..
but because segwit (2014 blockstream elements coin) has been trojan horsed into bitcoin, the bs fanboys think its their right to think its ok to promote segwit in the main bitcoin forum for years before it even got trojan horsed in....(bs devs admitted they backdoored it in)
however other projects that actually use consensus and do not have altcoin creating code get pushed to altcoin category.. all because the bs devs themselves put code into their segwit2.0 to ban anything not segwit roadmapped

kakmakr, its worth you researching more and defending the bscartel less

my examples were pure bitcoin based, so yea 'smart' is limited.. but hey your on a forum about bitcoin so the answers were based on such.

if your talking about real smart contracts/property, the sky's the limit
for instance the car manufacturing 'triggers' can be done as tx code rather than a separate app monitoring bitcoin's chain via api's

in my eye even ethereum is limited in the potential of smart contracts/property. and that soo much more can be possible

again if people used things like CLTV and CSV they can put their own time delay and chargeback conditions on payment thus protect themselves without middlemen.

but seems devs and other people want average users to prefer middlemen and counterparty control (banks) which then voids the whole point of bitcoin.
CLTV and CSV as a feature of onchain transactions has utility. but ignoring self control and instead HOPING a third party will protect them is just a waste
EG promoting CLTV and CSV as a feature of only LN is stupid. LN is banking 2.0 due to counter party requirement to dual sign, its much better to just use CLTV and CSV as a feature of onchain bitcoin transactions that peopl can self administer

alot of people already monitor known compromised keys. and have a app that autosends the funds to another address, even with a huge fee markup to ensure their tx gets confirmed. after all if you put a 50% of funds fee.. 50% of something is better than 1% of nothing.

usually legitimate owners that accidently funded a compromised address would waste alot of time panicing and searching and crying and its too late to ask for help because the funds were moved in seconds.

also some exchanges outputs (people making a tx to withdraw) the funds dont actually come from the users 'balance' but from a mixed address/vault where returning coins wont 'credit' the user. but then just be free coin for the exchange. so its not really a guarantee/help

one idea is for people to use CLTV and CSV to lock(mature date) funds(CLTV) and have a refund/chargeback clause(CSV) where they can force funds to return to a certain address. thus people can make their own smart payment be protected without needing a middleman/service

many have tried different things

one person i remember had a pawn shop and had a few customers who would put a few sats on an address and a 'ascii' output in the form of a ticket number.
then if (within time period) the person wanted to claim their goods back they would sign a message using their original key to prove ownership. thus they didnt need to provide ID or need to hold onto paper tickets to prove ownership/claim.

-
one person had a system set up that monitored the blockchain. if a certain address got funded. it triggered an app to do a task. this was then expanded to cause the payment to move to other addresses to trigger other tasks. the idea was a prototype that if, for instance someone wanted to buy a car the dealership would fund  certain address linked to a specific vehicle specification. and the result would be a manufacturer would see the 'order' (in the form of the payment. and the payment would trigger the ordering of the car parts to then manufacture the vehicle based on the programming of subsequent payments to addresses linked to parts. thus automating the car ordering/manufacturing process. as i said it was a prototype idea/template

-

one person had it where they had appointments. and when they clicked 'client arrived' it sent a payment to the consultants address thus the consultant got paid per client that arrived. the idea was to automate payroll based on work done rather than salary just for the consultant being there

the second idea (car manufacturing) could be used for anything, like healthcare. EG patient needs surgury, hospital pays a 'heart bypass address' and that triggers a app to book an operation date, and then move funds to pay the surgeon, nurses, order the sterile equipment, etc. to ensure its all there and paid for ready for the operation.

as for proper smart contracts. well thats stuff other altcoins have done because a few of them allow if/else statements, which would bloat up bitcoin if bitcoin started to have lots of 'code' within a tx

just to butt in
BCH was an intentional altcoin that was never suppose to be a bitcoin upgrade. it was not suppose to rely on consensus to form a decision on the route of bitcoins future

btc1 however 'was' under the pretense of the 2015 and 2017 agreements of a consensus utilising plan to hopefully upgrade bitcoins network. meaning it would not need replay protection because there would only be one network. which bitcoins consensus mechanism would take care of and leave a minority stuck unable to sync. thus would not matter. (yes core could then altcoin their minority but then core would themselves need to make their own replay protection)

but blockstream employes now want to backtrack their consensus promises and instead make core avoid consensus by core coding out any chance of using consensus for an upgrade... yes CORE ban/blacklist and avoid bitcoins consensus mechanism, thus its CORE creating the altcoin. and thus if core want the next 'fork' to be contentious enough to become a bilateral split then core should be the ones implementing the replay attack prevention on the core code. not the other way around

please do try researching the real details of whats actually happening.

P.S i did say 'hope' 'suppose' 'pretense' because its all just a ruse/bait and switch to get segwit in early, a few months ago and now the switch part of the bait and switch plan is happening. i only mention the paragraphs above in the context of if the agenda was actually to upgrade bitcoin to 2x.

but either way if core want to altcoin it. core should add some replay protection on their side. seeing as they are the instigators of making the altcoin

lol
might be worth you researching and realising the term consensus

btc1 wants to use consensus so that the community choose..

its core that want to prevent community choice by CORE.. yes CORE banning nodes and avoiding consensus forming a honest decision on what the community want.

again i state it a different way. CORE are the ones creating the altcoin by preventing consensus from finding a single route based on bitcoins built in decentralised decision making process known as consensus(orphaning mechanism)

please learn consensus and realise CORE are avoiding bitcoins built in mechanisms..
this means core are the nasty ones by becoming the centralised decision makers.

really people.. wake up