Im thinking ease of use. If people lose their coins they arent likely to try it again. So issue 1 will need to be addressed after making sure its hard to mess up a transfer, not before.

Its the whole iphone thing. They noobed with the app so youve got to use a lame version that doesnt work. On an android its Ez.

What do you think is the biggest barrier to entry to Bitcoin?

1. Too Hard to Buy Bitcoins
Its notoriously difficult to buy bitcoins. Most people haven't sent a bank wire ever before, and it feels shady and unneeded. This gives people second-doubts and reduces interest in bitcoins. Makes it some super-complicated way of doing something super-simple.

2. Too Much Volatility & Uncertainty
Gox goes down. Bitcoin plunges. There is no easy way to get what the price is, and no guarantee that this is where it will be in 2 minutes. This prevents people from holding it, thus reducing its usefulness.

3. Too Long to Wait for Confirmation
Nobody wants to buy groceries then wait 30 minutes for confirmation that they did.

4. Too Complicated to Use
The average joe has no idea what a blockchain is, doesn't like long addresses that look like what CNN likes to show in a green font on a black background before stating the details of Anonymous' latest exploits.

5. Is Not Integrated Enough
Bitcoin needs more integration into already-used internet thingies like Email, facebook, or your normal web-browser.

6. FUD & Past Scares
What if Bitcoin is hacked? What if somebody copies their Bitcoins? Bitcoins are illegal. Bitcoins are worthless! What if I accidentally become a libertarian?

7.

Which is the most pressing issue?

ALL my coins are now safely stored in paper wallets and stored in 3 super-secret locations. My choice of location is so utterly radical nobody will ever find them! Muhahaha.

I agree that the blue line is the "real" one, but the question is should you be willing to pay a premium now for BTC, to be able to ride the blue line in the future?

I mean, consider a scenario (I know odd, but it, or a variation, is possible) in which BTC went above the "real" blue line, then went flat until the blue line "caught up." People that bought at the top plateau would still be in pretty good shape.

That was really dumb. How in the world does lag "increase" the price? How in the world can you look at past data and say it has?

It is very unlikely that mt gox's lag is being done to on purpose cause BTC to be priced too low. But implying the opposite is insanity.

Looks like we are being trolled again.

Of course we already had that, and you still have not made any of this mystical extra risk you are taking on clear.

Your suggested bet was "I pay you 250 USD (apparently through an exchange code though that was not stated until much later) if it goes above $250, I pay you 5 BTC when it goes below $50."

Your risk: 5 BTC being worth less than $50 at time of you exchanging out of them.
Your Benefit: 5 BTC being worth more than $50 at the time of you exchanging them





Then I suggested "You pay me 1 BTC if it goes above $250, I pay you 5 BTC when it goes below $50."

Your risk: 5 BTC being worth less than $50 at time of you exchanging out of them, you being late to exchange and 1 BTC being worth more than $250 at the time you exchange.
Your Benefit: 5 BTC being worth more than $50 at the time of you exchanging them, AND you being late to exchange and 1 BTC is now worth less than $250 at the time you exchange.

But according to you the bolded two don't cancel out (indicating that you are actually bullish, but whatever). So then I suggest:




"You pay me $250 in BTC at the BTC exchange price at which the transaction is made, I pay you 5 BTC if it goes below $50."

Your risk: 5 BTC being worth less than $50 at the time of you exchanging out of them
Your benefit: 5 BTC being worth more than $50 at the time of you exchanging them.

Which is EXACTLY THE SAME as the risks you were subjected to in your own bet. But for whatever reason you don't like it. So then I offer you a bet that eliminates the risk (and the accompanying benefit) of your own bet:




"You pay me $250 in BTC at the BTC exchange price at which the transaction is made, I pay you $250 in BTC at the BTC exchange price at which my transaction is made, if it goes below $50."

Your risk: none
Your benefit: none

You don't like that either. Okay, whatever. So then I offer you your own scheme in reverse:





"You pay me $250 in BTC at the BTC exchange price at which the transaction is made, I pay you $250 in MTGox redemption codes."

Your risk: Me cheating with the exchange code.
Your benefit: none



Which you then deny as well, thereby acknowledging the unviability of your own bet. Clearly, seeing as NONE of my proposed options please you, even the one which subjects you to the EXACT SAME BENEFITS & RISKS of your own scheme, aside from the benefit of you potentially scamming me, you are trolling.

EDIT: I like colours.

I have no idea why you suggested this bet, but clearly risk has no part in it.

You, pay me, $250 worth of bitcoins if the price tanks, and I pay you $250 worth of bitcoins if the price goes to $50. If you are in favor of trolling, then if you must we can do it at the exchange price at the time the transaction was made. Neither side takes any more risk than the other. No risk for you.

I even offered you your mumbo jumbo exchange code troll you are so enthralled with. But no, you maintain that YOU must be the one paying ME in the exchange code, and there is absolutely no reason for you to take this stance other than either (A) on purpose trying trying to play "hard to get" or something equally weird or (B) intentionally trying to scam me.

By your own reasoning, you wanted us to take the same risk. Your risk is that BTC will go down in value after hitting $50. My risk is BTC going down in value after hitting $250. They're one and the same.

Or, if you would, like, I could pay you in your favorite exchange codes 

Lets walk through this step-by-step. What risk are YOU subjected to given the conditions stated above?

I honestly don't understand ripple, so IDK.

Please articulate what magical risk you are subjected to under my new system. I.e, you buy me $250 worth of Bitcoins. At the market price bitcoin is at, at the time of the transaction. Or is there some magical manufactured reason you are afraid of this as well?

If I win I take the risk that BTC goes below $250 before you can give me the BTC. If you win you take the risk that BTC drops below $250 before paying me the USD.



Obviously it should not be in the loser's incentive to withhold the money for as long as possible hoping that the price declines and/or goes up. The bet should be set up to incentivise the loser to pay the winner as soon as possible.

So just pay me $250 using the exchange rate at the time? At least that way its all public, even though you could still pull some shit about "oh, I was offline while it was skyrocketting, sorry." At least that way everyone can see what you pulled, and I am at least secured for my original $250 USD, even if I don't get to exchange it to BTC at the optimal exchange rate.

In other words, you will be liable to pay me $250 worth of BTC, i.e $250 worth going by the exchange rate at the time the transaction was made. Happy? We switched the "risk" in the other direction. Swell.

1. Post a fake redemption code
2. claim that the winner already claimed it when it doesn't work
3.
4. Profit

There is simply no reason for him not wanting to pay me in BTC, considering I even covered his marginal "expense" in the exchange. Absolutely zero, other than him wanting to cheat me.

This is bullshit. You either pay me with BTC, or provide me with some fool-proof method of payment that can be publicly verified, or there is no bet.

This is getting dumber and dumber. So the way to make it "fair" is to provide me with a way of cheating you out of winning in return for me providing you with a way of cheating me out of winning?

This is nonsense and makes no sense for either of us, unless one of us plans on cheating. Even if the loser is truthful, the loser can be all "oh, I didn't receive the exchanger code" and damage the loser's reputation. If the loser cheats, well, thats fairly self explanatory.

And all the while we have a completely transparent currency available to us that makes sure we both are true to our word. Hmm, I wonder why you don't want to use that.

So I can agree to something where you can fake a payment, or I don't. From a person who provides no valid reason to wanting to pay through this method that can be faked.

Hmm, this is a tough decision. How about no?

Also, how is not wanting to be scammed translate into a superiority complex?

Once again, please explain why I am paying you in a better currency than you are paying me.
here's how you pay me in USD and make it publicly verifiable:
-You go to the place where you would give me a key
-You suddenly direct your mouse in a sudden movement upwards and to the left.
-You click on "trade"
-You buy bitcoins
-You then withdraw those bitcoins to me.
That so hard? It seems really odd why there is any reason you would not wish to pay me in such a manner. I'll tell you what, if this is whats bugging you so, I'll pay the 0.6% transaction fee  

If there is some legitimate reason for you not wanting to pay me in bitcoins, please speak. If not, I see no reason to agree to a bet where you seem to be on purpose creating circumstances that are not transparent.

And why exactly, may I ask, did you have me pay you in a form that can be publicly verified while you will pay me in a way that cannot? As you put it, fair is fair.

over $250 lol, fine.

BTC is better than exchange since everyone can see the transaction and confirm it was indeed completed. It simply makes more sense for it to be settled as such.

Yes, they set it so the value is always way less than 1:1 if they expect that team to win for obvious reasons. Unless I somehow get enormous interest in this thread I'm not going to have time to constantly update my odds and thus such a system is not viable unless this thread generated enough interest to warrant my creation of a small website.