You have absolutely no idea what my point was because you are so wrapped up inside it. You are living in a VERY small community, and I am saying that the rest of us aren't even close yet.

Yes, that is the first part of what I was saying. However, the second part was that even IF a person gets access to the internet, the convincing it will take to get people to turn their paycheck into a QR code will be near impossible in the foreseeable future.

There is YOUR world, and there is the non connected world. I am arguing that the non connected/ intimidated world is much larger than people on this forum believe.

Never mind. This is the exact mindset that I am talking about.

Yes, that is sort of what I was saying. However, the second part is trust. Right now, the easiest way to purchase BTC is probably Coinbase. By easiest, I mean both simplicity and not intimidating. Local bitcoins does not look professional enough yet. The website looks like a scam to a newbie.

To purchase BTC on Coinbase, you have to supply a checking account number. That is also intimidating for most people. That is a huge, huge, obstacle.

Yes, this will change as tech progresses, but that isn't my point. My point is that for people that do not routinely use the internet, there is no way they are going to trust it with their money. You might as well ask them to go swimming in a pond full of piranhas.

Most of the people I know around my community still don't trust Amazon. They are intimidated by typing a credit card number on the computer.

Actually, I shouldn't say most. That is an exaggeration. I know a lot of people that are afraid to use Amazon.

Bigger picture? Um, if I am 4 hours from NYC and I don't have reliable internet in 2016, who is missing the bigger picture?

Technology only changes quickly when there is a market to exploit, "mate."

The cost to bring high speed internet to remote areas is still too expensive relative to the potential profit.

People in Africa may have access to internet, just like I have ACCESS to internet. Access isn't the issue.

In order for this to be used as a currency, a person needs to be able to carry it with them. I sincerely doubt that rural areas in Africa are carrying a smartphone.

Moreover, IF this technology somehow makes its way into rural areas, it will be another several years before people trust enough to turn their money into a QR code.

There are many many more years to go before there are any real gains in bitcoin.

And I'll bet my BTC that the current price is higher than the ten percent. It'll take a lot more than 10 percent adoption to see the gains you think you'll see.

That's what I thought. Everyone is going to spot read what I wrote and simplify it. Read the last part. My argument is NOT about the internet service alone.

Let me spell it out...

Getting and using the internet is just the first step in a several year long process. Those that had AOL dial up in 1995, started using online banking in 2000. If they didn't get internet access until 2000, then they didn't start online banking until 2005. Do I need to continue?

The internet access was only one part of the delay.

In order for BTC to take off it will require one basic component that does not exist yet... reliable and affordable mobile internet EVERYWHERE.

Yeah, I know, you're ready to pounce and tell me to wake up. Entertain me for a minute. Let me explain...

I live in the United States, about 40 miles from a city with a population of about 45,000. We have three choices for internet; dial up, satellite, or a mobile hotspot (if you can get a connection). Satellite is okay, but it is metered, so if you actually use it, it can be very expensive. Smartphones and hotspots are becoming more common, but they aren't very helpful unless we are close to the city. And dial up, actually, I am not sure you can even get that anymore.

Oh, I forgot to add that I am only fours hours drive from NYC.

I think people on here are putting the cart way before the horse. If you don't believe me, take a drive out to the country and try to use your smartphone. Of the several houses on my street, I am the only one that has access to the internet, mobile or otherwise. I live in the sticks. I explained Uber to about 20 coworkers a few weeks ago. Several of them said it would never work.  (Just trying to paint a picture of what I see.)

So my question is,
How can this technology benefit the "unbanked" in developing countries within the next several years? Really, how close are we to smart contracts and self driving cars and a sustainable BTC price of >$1000?

I keep hearing how BTC is going to help the "unbanked" in developing countries... like that is going to happen in the next year or two. I keep hearing about Etherium, smart contracts, self driving cars. I saw a video on youtube of a prominent BTC person saying that we are almost there. He substantiated it by saying that self driving cars already exist and function. They may exist, but they wont function where I live. In fact, they wont function in most of the world. If I can't call my wife on the drive home from work, how the hell is my car going to drive itself?

For BTC to grow in the time frame many of you propose, developing countries would have to have cheaper and more reliable internet access than me, four hours outside of NYC?

Think about that. That is what I have a hard time wrapping my head around. 

I am not bashing BTC. I own a little and want to cash in someday just like everyone else. I see the potential. I am just trying to offer a perspective that I think most are overlooking.

And please, do not simplify what I am saying. Where I live, people just started using debit cards in place of their checkbooks, and are just now making their first internet purchases!

So even if the access to the internet improves, there is still a long time before the trust factor enters the equation.


Sorry, but three years from now, millions of people in the western world will still be writing checks, and millions in the the developing world will still be seeing the internet for the first time.

In 1995, I was told that my monthly subscription to America Online was a waste of money.
In 2002, I was told that ditching my checkbook and using online banking was "crazy."
In 2003, I bought a 256 mb MP3 player, and I recall trying to explain what digital music was to people that still had not used the internet.
In 2005, I was the only person in my high school class that had a Facebook page.
In 2009, I bought an iPhone, and everyone wanted to see it.

**I live in a very rural area in the United States, and not many people here have more than a high school education. I still know a lot of people that have never used the internet.

In 2013, I met the first person in this community that made me feel like a Luddite. I am a law enforcement officer and I busted a guy that was using BTC to buy drugs on Silk Road. (I am not a federal officer. I caught him with the drugs and he explained to me how he obtained them.)

My point is that even though it has been seven years, just because people see something on the news or in a magazine, doesn't mean that they have the insight or the courage to jump in. Many people know about cryptocurrencies, but not many people have taken the time to consider the potential future. The operative word here is potential.

In order to understand that potential, a person has to dig very deep. In most of the world, that isn't close to happening yet.

One big factor that I have not seen anyone address, is that BTC requires one critical component, that does not exist yet... an internet connection. Even bigger, if it is going to be used as a currency, a person will need a smart phone.

You may reside in an urban area, and if you do, you wont see this. I have heard how this currency can help the "unbanked" in developing countries. Sure, it absolutely could... but you can provide them all the 2x4's in the world and they still can't build a house if they don't have nails.

Let them eat cake...

We won't be getting rich anytime soon.

Don't tell me that this is a Bitcoin forum. There are conversations about many different crypto currencies on here. This is a very valid legal question that is directly related to Bitcoin. Look at how many people have read this conversation. I'll bet that not one of them has even considered what the future of blockchain is outside of the price of bitcoin.

"Yes and a equal amount of beneficial things."

I am officially bailing out of this conversation. You said multiple times that governments will find no function in blockchain. Now all of a sudden you say that they WILL find function. I proved multiple functional purposes, that will serve government and private business. That was your argument, I illustrated things that you never envisioned.  

Now you are trying to say that this is already occurring but at a much slower pace. No, I do not know what you do for a living, but I can tell you with certainty that taking a driver's license away now, does absolutely nothing to prevent a drunk driver from driving. The change is enormous. Nobody's home key will stop working if they don't pay their mortgage.

Some of these things are good, until they happen to you.

It is very different. The drunk driver's car wont start. Now, we take away their license. Does that stop them from driving? Absolutely not. But when we verify a contract on the blockchain, and suspend the drivers license, the drunk driver cannot get a car to start, and their privilege to purchase alcohol is stopped. We are not relying on an 18 year old store clerk to check the license, the blockchain shuts it down. If you think that is anything like the consequences we have now, again, you are choosing to ignore the larger picture.

Anytime a government issues a license, whether it be a real estate agent, an attorney, a doctor, or a hair dresser, a third party has to verify that license. With blockchain technology, in theory, the hair dresser's clippers wouldn't function if the license is invalid. That is an extreme example to illustrate my point. Blockchain eliminates the third party. With currency, the third party is a bank. The public ledger validates the exchange just like the public ledger validates a license.

What would the NRA say about validating all gun purchases on a blockchain?

There are thousands of very functional reasons that blockchain will be used outside of Bitcoin. As you start to think about them, they get very scary.

Farmers need to be licensed if they want to use certain fertilizers or pesticides. The criminal justice possibilities are endless.

You wont have to show your drivers license to buy a six pack, just scan your code and go.  

When you think about the immediate response of the blockchain, does that enhance your idea of freedom, or restrict it?

You honestly believe that if a bank can prevent a car from starting when the loan payment is overdue, that this potential would be seen as trivial?
 That was the question.

You said that banks will find no function. I showed a profitable function, and you said...

"Well shouldn't they pay their bills anyway?"

You did not answer the question.

There is function for governments, and private business and you refuse to acknowledge that.

And when your medical insurance isn't paid, should the chemo treatment be suspended as well? You are changing the subject and attempting to make this about personal responsibility.

I explained it very clearly. You just don't want to see it.

You honestly believe that if a bank can prevent a car from starting when the loan payment is overdue, that this potential would be seen as trivial?

If you are not considering the potential, and who would benefit from the implementation and widespread use, then you are choosing to ignore it. Or, you don't truly understand it.

I am being hypothetical to illustrate how powerful this technology is. Here are some more examples:

Let your car insurance lapse, you car doesn't start.
Don't renew your annual bar membership dues, the kiosk at the county court doesn't let you in.
Your prescription for Ambien and your weekly donation to the church are all confirmed by the blockchain.

They have every reason to not claim ownership. Because if they did, the endgame would be obvious. I have read the Princeton textbook. I know the history.

With blockchain technology, it will be possible to carry all of the following things in your "blockchain" wallet:
birth certificate
high school diploma
college degree (and in theory, your degree could be suspended if you don't pay your student loans)
marriage certificate
social security
all personal property

If you don't think that governments, , banks, marketing companies, or insurance companies can find function with blockchain, then you need to go back and look.

This technology has the ability to suspend a college degree if the loans are not paid. I did not say that it will happen. I said that it can. Think about that. It isn't about establishing trust, and if you believe that, you are not seeing the larger picture.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that Google isn't anywhere near bitcoin or blockchain? If blockchain can do what I have read, there is no way that Google could afford to ignore it. Which makes me wonder if they had a hand in creating it. They leave it out for someone else to start, and just like that, they have created a new level of gathering data.

My understanding of the blockchain technology is limited. That said, I have done a considerable amount of reading, and there are some things that I need help with. First, is the so-called Satoshi Nakamoto. I find it difficult to believe that only one person created this. In fact, when I consider what types of business stand to gain from the widespread use if blockchain, there is only one company that comes to mind. A company that profits by selling marketing data, a company that knows where I’ve been and where I plan to go. Why would this company that has so much to gain from blockchain create such a powerful tool, and just leave it on a virtual park bench for anyone to pick up and run with it? Do a search for blockchain technology, you will not find one mention of this company. A technology that could potentially change the world and the company that is positioned to gain the most is nowhere to be found. Doesn’t anyone else find that odd?

My concern is that the end game is complete transparency. Imagine a world where we all have our own unique QR code. This QR code is more than just a social security number. It can verify our birth, or educational achievements, our military service, our criminal history, and even hold our wealth. Our home, investments, pensions, and personal property will all be attached to this one QR code that identifies us as individuals. We use this QR code to start our car, and if we don’t pay the loan this month, the car doesn’t start. Likewise, we use this QR code to gain entry into our home, or perhaps the local country club. The QR code essentially becomes a pass that delineates us into those that can gain entry and those that cannot. All the while, there is a public ledger documenting that I failed to pay my mortgage this month, that I got a C in my high school Calculus test, or how long I wore that GPS bracelet that my parole officer put around my ankle.

My understanding of the blockchain technology is that it is a mechanism to provide accountability through a public ledger. What or whom stands to gain the most from the widespread use of blockchain technology? When viewed for its individual purposes, it shows incredible promise with endless possibilities. However, when I look at the location history of my smartphone, and I think of all of the additional data that will be added to it, It scares the shit out of me.