im guessing your still watching those advertisments from oxfam, unicef and red cross that are using footage from the 1980's

here is a quick update


i hope you now feel more informed. if not, google is your friend.. not them adverts where the CEO of the charity is racking in $1m a year salary

the main issue is people view exchanges as the main source of value. mainly due to API's and websites making value easy to be seen by anyone.
and OTC doesnt have the same public view.

meaning its harder to see a good overview of OTC trades to gauge OTC value as a whole. without making good public displays of OTC trades it would be near impossible to move to a decentralized model, and thats even if fiat gateways made a fiat 'token' that can then be withdrawn and used in decentralized systems.
take localbitcoins.
can you see what trades are happening LIVE, can localbitcoins display what live trades are also happening on the bitcoin-otc irc.. or other otc platforms. nope nope nope

making a fiat pegged token is easy. making a orderbook that links decentralized orders publicly and LIVE while remaining decentralized is the key to shifting away from centralized exchanges

firstly..
the "dollar" balance on an exchange/orderbook is not actual dollars.. its just a database entry. a token
the "bitcoin" balance on an exchange/orderbook is not actual bitcoin.. its just a database entry. a token

the real dollars are in bank accounts... not on your server
the real bitcoins are (supposedly) in cold wallets.. not on your server

so the database entries on ALL exchanges are actually "own virtual currency.. like a token"
where the balance can be redeemed like for like for a real bank transfer or real bitcoin transaction when the customer requests a withdrawal (swap token for real asset)

the problem i see is not about creating the new currency, thats easy.. but its about having "balances" to:
ponzi: make someone filthy rich at the cost of others losing out by internally changing balances
counterfeiting: making NEW real dollars appear in real banks  (impossible to do from a third party service)

if you cant solve the ponzi or fractional reserve stuff, users wont trust ya.

so you dont have to worry about counterfeiting in regards to fiat., but you do have to worry about ponzi's, and theft
EG
day1, one token is worth $1. day100 one token is worth 10cents.
seems ok. but later investigations reveal you personally controlled the market price to decrease it to intentionally cause investors to lose out. while you kept and spent the real bitcoin/dollar deposits of your investors

as for regulations in regards to fiat (bank account funds)
if something is pegged like for like. EG 1 token = 1 dollar, even if you were to name your pegged token bitUSD, FIATCOIN, or DISNEYears(any random name) by obviously having a clear like for like value and offering a swap service. and the only purpose of the token is to represent fiat..you are a money service business

if the value is not pegged and fluctuates. has different real uses that means it doesnt representing fiat, then that token is an asset and changing other currencies for it is just an asset swap. which is not money service, but may meet securities regulations or asset regulations(stocks/shares) hurdles depending on country of operation and customer base

i think the OP is having an emotional day.
im guessing he had a bag of alts in bitfinex and has just found out he has lost.
and now raging about it

saying bitcoin is inflationary due to alts is like saying gold is inflationary due to copper, platinum and aluminum

what i would say as a rational thought about exchange hacks and coins in circulation is this:
out of all the coins in circulation the "hacker" has over 100,000 of them but exchange users 'think' they too have 100,000 of them
this is now infact a fractional reserve scenario(borderline ponzi).

people 'think' they have real assets owed to them, stored in a centralized service. I'm afraid to say this, those real assets are gone. and all the users of that service are left with are worthless database entries which users think they will at sometime be able to withdraw in full thanks to other investors.

bitcoin itself is not inflationary and you cannot simply magic up new bitcoins with a click of a button in a centralized service. but the "bitcoins" debt appearing on exchange users balance is not a bitcoin. never has been a bitcoin. its just an IOU

i hope that clarifies the point about centralized services.

i personally have been hoarding my bitcoins offline, i gave up on exchanges in 2013 and have been thankful the (long term) deflationary nature has caused the value of bitcoin to rise (ignoring the short term drama/speculation)

but if anyone else is holding bitcoin, please stop thinking that exchanges are a great storage place, if you are going to do one thing, only play around with pocket money amounts (amounts you wont cry about). and if you are foolish to put your whole hoard into an exchange. do a few trades and withdraw. stop using exchanges as a long term storage place

the entity behind the pseudonym satoshi is a single person. by this i mean only one person at a keyboard was typing emails and forum posts in the name of satoshi

.. but that does not mean he worked alone
ofcourse he worked with other people.. hal finney is the big name back then of someone he worked with, amungst others.
they just used their own pseudonyms

as for nationality. though he spoke english. it was more british rather than american, canadian, etc.

?? virtually no fee's ??
to america 11cents is not "virtually free".
to africa 11cents definetly not "virtually free" infact it can be an hours minimum wage

putting aside propoganda and instead using real life scenarios
you do realise some africans who work in america get paid fiat.. they have to convert it to bitcoin at a commission.(many localbitcoin traders add over 1%)
dont believe me, this over 1% also occurs on the main central exchanges too, go check out the differences of many exchanges.. at a average $600 price point many exchanges are $3-$6 different(0.5-1%) in value compared to the competitors and thats just the spread. thats before you include the trade order fee, withdrawal fee.. thus the costs are over 1%

they then need to send that bitcoin to relatives in america(11cent onchain tx fee). and that relative needs to find an exchanger to convert it to mpesa or other local african currencies.
so sending $60 to africa would cost once you factor in everything $1

even if you convinced an african village to be pure bitcoin currency(no need to convert to local mpesa).. every transaction is still ~11cents

11cents in many african countries/area's is upto an hours minimum wage.

im sorry but reality vs hope differ. sorry but its true
bitcoin really needs to address this and stop falling into the western capitalist market of expensive fees and restrictive use simply because africans wanting to move an hours wage is "spam".. its even getting to the point even in america, trying to move $7 is becoming "spam"
many people dont want bitcoin to be used by people that want to move just a couple dollars (their mindset: btc= reserve currency not local electronic cash)

thus trying to enable an open currency for africa, india etc wont be a bitcoin achievement if bitcoin doesnt change and grow

P.S
its better to say bitcoin remittance is CHEAPER than mainstream fiat remittance, but never say virtually free.. as thats false advertising

EG
american relative wants to send you 1 day of their wage($60) which is ~ 3 months of minimum wage in gambia, but will cost you an hours wage in gambia every time you transfer bitcoin to other people so it might be better to take a hit of 6 hours minimum wage and convert bitcoin into local gambian currency and avoid using bitcoin for everything you want to buy each day as that would end up costing you more than 6 hours over the 3 months

lol i comprehend more then you think
by the way. your assumption that we should restrict usage and go into a fee war now, actually goes against what your quoting from satoshi


satoshi also said bitcoins popularity and usage would go.. which if allowed by the devs would slow down the need for a fee war because more people are paying
EG you prefer 1 person paying $1, others prefer 100 people paying 1cent. miners dont care either way as its $1 either way
also the main income:bonus switch
where income was reward and bonus was fee,
becomes main income will be fee and bonus becomes reward,
is something that will happen (statistically and logically) in atleast 2032 (16 years)

the more users allowed to transact, the less its needed to happen in 2032
the less users allowed to transact(fee war) the more its needed to happen BEFORE 2032

so i really wonder why you want to push it hard to happen sooner, which causes less users able to use it and more costly to those that do use it.. there is another way that satisfies everyone, but you wont hear it..

but your mindset is FAST fee increase and restrict usage now, now now.
its like forcing a child thats 7years old to go get a job now because in 16 years he needs to afford to look after a wife and kids..
your not considering how to teach the kid whats best, nor allow him to grow and become sociable to have many people help him in the future.
its just a "get a job or get out my house at 7 years old" mindset i feel you wish to blindly stick with..

i know you are in the "bitcoin is the new reserve currency" camp rather than "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" camp
you have not seen the big picture, you have not seen the pro's and cons and you have not ran scenarios or even spoke to people around the world.
it seems your mindset is stuck in what bitcoin can do for you when you retire and cash out back to fiat.

i too am hoarding alot, but atleast i can look beyond myself and think about what bitcoin can and should be for everyone, instead of a niche market of capitalists.

i wish you luck with your mindset and hope you cash out and be fiat rich, and your dreams come true back in the fiat world

to people in africa i would say

welcome to mastercard 2.0
bitcoin users want to think that your african hourly wage is just spam, also 10%-50% of your minimum wage is good value as a transaction fee, just to use bitcoin.

bitcoin has moved into corporate america's hands(narrow minded and short sighted) and is no longer helpful to average africans. only the "nigerian princes"(scammer, conmen and money grabbers) will take advantage of bitcoin.
sorry you missed the boat, but like 200 years ago, maybe its a good thing


P.S
i say this after spending a couple years actually promoting bitcoin to the unbanked and seen how those that use it actually respond and talk about it, listening to their concerns and try to find out solutions to get around their objections.. but ultimately.. my statement is the summary for those african unbanked community

and your not willing to "question authority" about how should we be restricting/expanding bitcoins usage and kicking people out of bitcoin.
EG average tx fee is atleast half an hours minimum wage in india
EG average tx fee is well over an hours minimum wage in bangledesh
EG average tx fee is well over two hours minimum wage in cuba
EG average tx fee is 20 minutes minimum wage in a dozen other third world countries

to me anyone who i see that doesnt want capacity growth and instead thinks that someones hourly wage is "spam" is just ultimately screaming
"we are racists we dont want china involved, we dont want india to use. we want bitcoin to be an american corporate payment network where only the first world countries can afford to use"

put it this way now that america is trying to push for $15 minimum wage. imagine a network that wanted to take $7.50-$30 per transaction.. would you use it?
no you wouldnt. and thats exactly how third world countries are thinking about bitcoin right now. half to twice their minimum hourly wage..

i have gone to india and other countries. and they are combined over a billion people (one 6th of the planet) yet they have seen, used and learned about bitcoin and thought its worthless

i have gone to first world countries and went to retailers, farmers, the homeless. yes ven homeless people in america and europe wont accept bitcoin. i have tried setting them up and taught them how to go to a cyber cafe and move their daily donations. and showed them how and where locally to them that they can convert them bitcoins into something spendable at fast food restaurants.. after a few days they have seen all their little donations cant be used the same day to even buy a coffee or a sandwich to keep warm..

if you think bitcoin shouldshut out third world countries, should treat small amounts as spam and instead think of bitcoin as Mastercard2.0.. then i feel sorry for you.

i understand more then you realise, and although i might be blunt about how i talk about certain things. i think about the small picture, big picture how it affects the little man and the big man. is it needed to affect anyone now when will it need to affect people. how could, should it affect people now and in the future. ultimately is there a better way

and my conclusion is that restricting usage to push out who can use it now via fees, for no reason that fee's is actually needed now is ultimately a slap in the face to what was suppose to be a open payment network for everyone
if you think the only reply to a question about fee's is "just shut up and pay more"

then it seems you have stopped "questioning authority" and settled for corporate america mantra.

in my eyes i would prefer to see more people using bitcoin so the cost of use is spread so thin that anyone can use it. rather than restricting bitcoins usage so only "those that can afford it" would use it.


if you disagree. that's your prerogative.. and i guess i should "welcome you to mastercard 2.0 shut up, pay up and don't question the fee"

that ruling was local (state level) not national or international.

if in america you have to check what state you want to operate in to work out what is required.
if you want to have ATMs around the country then it will be costly.

this is why ATM manufacturers never really pushed to operate it themselves and simply made the equipment and get other people to operate it at the operators expense

out dated but worth a read
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-money-transmission-state-level-us/

when you get to the root of it, its all about who can "hack" / access / move funds of private keys.
as long as there is no encryption exploit funds are safe( by this i mean about you holding ur own privkeys)

as for businesses that run on the outside edges of the bitcoin ecosystem. well thats not bitcoin but just currency businesses

i personally dont care about daily fluctuations of prices.. i see the bigger more longer term picture. but if you only care about how much fiat you can get for bitcoin then thats your flaw.. but lets deal with that..

in 2009-2011 there was only 1 exchange. so for the "price control" concern, the bitcoin price has become more distributed with over a dozen well know exchanges recently. and more coming each year.

soon people will be less reliant on these exchanges and people will be able to barter better and more adhok. ofcourse the ability to compare prices between different layers, services, gateways is just another situation that is not really about bitcoin but about currency businesses.

the real question is..
if you want bitcoin to be sooo different then fiat. why do you care about a fiat valuation rather than bitcoins abilities that dont need to convert/touch or care about fiat

firstly

64% of all reserves are held to users as "active balance" should users decide to cashout
36% is lost
bitfinex does not have this 36%

bitfinex gave users 36% of tokens (vapour, no value, no backing)
bitfinex has NOTHING LEFT OVER to actually "buy up" the tokens even at a discount..

if they had funds they could easily have decreased the overall debt to everyone.. obviously..

but
what would happen is other USERS will put up buy orders when the tokens are exchangeable, at stupidly low prices to buy the debt off people at a discount.
this is where for instance a user that supposedly has 1btc (now 0.64btc after hack) does not withdraw the 0.64btc but instead puts a low buy order to buy an example of atleast 584 tokens(equivalent of bfx valuation of 1btc debt (days ago but meaningless after that)) for 0.64btc..

which would give the user 1.3btc of debt tokens.(equivalent of bfx valuation debt (days ago but meaningless after that))
ofcourse people will try to get more tokens for less solvent bitcoins because the 'valuation of future repayment may be considerably different

it makes logical sense that some people will try to take advantage of a chance to buy debt cheap in the hope it reaps rewards later. its a risk, but as i said bitfinex wont initially by up the debt at a discount as they have nothing spare..

segwit serialized blocksize=4mb
segwit=4mb blocksize increase but still only 1mb traditional transaction space

"real bitcoin" please stop trying to push the 'hardfork=bloat' bait and switch.. its so wrong on so many levels.
the only downside of a consensus change is controversy.

i hope you realise the same tactics needed to make a second chain survive a hard fork are the same changes needed on a soft fork.
people can IP ban any nodes that have upgraded and use the minority hashpower to make non segit blocks.

so softforks are just as controversial as hard forks if they choose to be
if you want to dream that soft forks are better because unupgraded nodes can continue to run after a soft fork. then your delusional again. they are rendered litenodes automatically because they no longer validate full data. no one should describe notes that dont validate as full nodes.

no controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or be left as no longer being a full node.
controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or block upgraded nodes and form a alt..

wake up and stop eating the spoonfed honey you have been treated to.

by the way answer the question i asked before
when luke JR releases CORE segwit 2mb will you finally accept you doomsday of "controversy" is over because the factions ALL have code, and no longer a one team vs another team

cryptorush also done a similar "token" policy after their hack...

as for the maths of the debt and something to think about in regards to BFX, i said this elsewhere, but worth repeating

facepalm

your answer seems to be the opposite of what i expected. im guessing the original owner of the account sold it to a noob.

here is my reply.

addressing the OP's question
the fee's are based on the demand(how many people want to send a tx straight away around the same time you do) and the supply(how much data space is available in a block to allow a transaction in)

think of it like a train..
if there are 5000 passengers(transactions) waiting for a train(block) but only enough standing room on the train for 2500 people. the ticket hustlers who have the 2500 tickets can charge a premium to those who want it.. leaving other people waiting for the next train.
the only problem is that the next train might also see a new set of 5000 people walking onto the platform. so those not wanting to buy a premium ticket wont get on the next one. after a day of waiting you exit the station on your feet(dropped out of mempool) and you can if you want to come back again this time with money to by a ticket(rebroadcast transaction with fee). however you need to manually keep an eye on the current estimated "bid" price people are paying and pay a little higher. afterall other people will be looking at the same estimate too (causing a fee war of increasing fee's when demand is high)

the solution is not to argue that people should pay up or shut up due to fears that the train company wont get paid healthily in a decade or too.. but to ask the train company to add more carraiges to add more capacity to allow more passengers cheaper, which when combined adds up to a healthy income.

trying to start a fee war now when the blockreward is the income and the fee is just a bonus is stupid.. it will be over a decade before that flips and the fee becomes more important. so there is no need to piss customers off now for something that can be controlled and offset naturally and slowly over the next few years/decades.

in short.
untill extra capacity is added to blocks your stuck with the fee war so check this website
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
and remember to read the page. the numbers at the top are not fee per transaction but fee per byte of a transaction
at time of posting:

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes*, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.11$).
*small 1-2 input, 1-2outputs

as to the guy named "question authority"
i think he forgets that bitcoin was invented to help the unbanked and those that do not want to be paying high fee's just to move their money around..
seems "question authority" has now become "silence and accept, and pay for authority"

i have nothing against paying for what you use. but when there is a way to code something to offset costs to allow cheaper use, and also spread the cost to help everyone out, especially decades before that "cost" is an actual need. yet the current situation is not to go forward with that and instead shut up and put up with fee's or F-off if you dont want to pay.. then i find people have really lost the plot

apart from the fact that cloud mining never has or will be profitable, not only are you paying admin/lease/and other profits to the company running it.. but here is the other bad news .. those "estimated" numbers are also fake.. they do not account for difficulty changes or anything else
i know its an altcoin and your hoping (falsely) to get $2.87 in a year.. but you wont
for instance pretend it was bitcoin instead of dollars and the altcoins difficulty adjustment changed every 2 weeks, like bitcoin..
your earnings will drop by 5%-10% every fortnight

so that 0.00784320 x 14 days= 0.1098048
at 5% difficulty adjustment
0.105 the following fortnight.
0.10 the following fortnight.
0.95 the following fortnight.
0.905 the following fortnight.
0.86 the following fortnight.

or at 10% difficulty adjustment
equals 0.1
equals 0.9
equals 0.81
equals 0.73
equals 0.66

but that image of projections does not account for any adjustments of any kind.
they just done false crappy math of hourly*24*30.5 days*12 months

so im sorry but you wont even get $2 back

lastly, i just googled "eobot scam" and sorry but many people are finding issues.. (besides the obvious advertisers hyping it with fake info)
atleast you only invested $5

out of all of your list of requirements.. there is only one thing that is actually consumer protection orientated. i made it bold
all the other stuff is internally created by the company and submitted to the regulators who just sit on it until they hear a complaint. and then only look backwards.

im not saying bitfinex kraken or btc-e are any worse or better... im saying as a whole.. people should care less about regulations which is 90% paperwork to hinder usage and only 10% consumer protection.

bitcoin businesses should definitely concentrate on the consumer protection side more then the paperwork hindering side.

once you yourself realise the details of regulations you to would laugh at the whole licence things. and instead prefer businesses protect their customers first, because regulations are not about protecting customers first.. once you actually read into it

i suspect they want to convert the big holders into company share holders and release the debt. and then use that "free credit" to the smaller holders. EG turn their entire 100% bitcoin holding (64% solvent and 36% debt) into shares to use the large holders bitcoins elsewhere and prevent as large of a bank run as possible.

i could also see they may also want to just pay off some of the really small holders completely and in full as another plan, simply to have less arguments, less numbers of people that are threatening them at as little cost as possible. and hope it inspires some positive drama by small holders celebrating they got bailed out quickly

ok lets clear some terminology up
the blocksize is about a change in consensus rules..

a smart plan is that with a high node count and a high hash rate there is no controversy. and everyone moves over. and clients that dont move over stop receiving data, stop relaying and simply shut down. (no replay of transactions, sorry game over minority)

the premiss is at 75% miner flag, the warning bell is rung and people have to actively upgrade.. at 95% active nodes miners feel safe their blocks wont orphan and so the new consensus becomes active..

this is not a "altcoin 50-50" doomsday, but a simple change of consensus where 6000 total nodes become 5700 new consensus and 300 nodes shutdown. eventually back to 6000 when the laggers give up their protest against change.

.. now to create a altcoin/fork.. the minority group (in this case 300 nodes) need to start IP banning the 5700 nodes to ensure they dont cross contaminate the tx data. they also need to hash blocks.. which with bitcoin being such high difficulty means them 300 nodes are only getting 1 block every few hours and the unconfirmed tx's are piling up, causing them 300 nodes to need to rebroadcast their tx's with ever increasing fees to beat everyone else in the minority to be accepted into the next block.

also with a 1 block per couple hours. means instead of 2 weeks. the difficulty adjustment happens after a few months (2016 blocks) and that adjustment wont be a 900% drop either.. so dont expect to wait out for difficulty to drop.

ofcourse with such a minority. trying to find a merchant or service that is also using the minority would be a task in itself. so even in a altcoin survival scenario where 300 nodes pushed to keep their un-upgraded nodes alive by tweaking settings.. the cost of use, and ultimate usefulness of their alt would not last long. social choice including transaction headaches, costs and inability to do anything with it would make them move across to the main chain easy..

also some of the large miners may attack the minority chain by just using a quick spike in hashrate to make a new block thats empty. just to cause more issues for the minority having delays in confirmations

unlike ethereum that never have thousands of merchants or high difficulty, so the choices were never clear or defined..  bitcoins choices would be very visible and the changes and direction would happen very quickly.. with 95% making the choice even before its even activated..


in short..
bitcoin is not proposing an altcoin. nor a fork, but a consensus rule change..
its only the people creating controversy that will use the controversy to prevent it from being a smooth change, and instead being an altcoin by their actions to try creating an altcoin by ip banning and other aspects needed for a survival scenario..

in shorter version
screaming about controversy being the cause of a fork, yet be using controversy to set up a controversial hard fork by resisting change, instead of a smooth change of consensus, is just shooting the minority in the foot. however.. if there is no majority. there is no change

i havnt hoarded in an exchange since 2013 im just giving advice to general population

oversight??

please read some regulation documents.. regulators are not watching and auditing businesses pre-emptively.. they react AFTER THE FACT.
the SEC do not create policies personalised for every business, the sec does not create monthly statements yearly tax reports for businesses.they just receive documents from the company.
when the SEC receives a complaint then the sec investigates. if there is no complaint the sec just takes the businesses word that they are following their obligations and have a policy(the business created themselves) in place.

for instance..
imagine a criminal put funds into an exchange..
the exchange cannot:
inform the suspect that the exchange is filing a suspicious report
freeze the account themselves without a court order.. so the funds have to continue to move (you can spot a phony exchange because they freeze accounts when no crime was committed, just to pretend they are licenced)
record any and all information possible about where it came from and where it is going to, again without suspects knowledge

however by being regulated
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange is obsolved of any personal connection to the crime. if they file a suspicious report

however by not being regulated/not filing a report
if LATER the funds are truly linked to criminal behaviors, the exchange can be classed as a money launderer on behalf of a criminal.

and all of this is about reacting to info AFTER the fact..

regulations are a laughing stock.. no one should ever be promoting regulations... HOWEVER.. consumer protection is advantageous