As I've said before I think Bitcoin eWallets (like WalletBit) that provide functionality akin to PayPal will play a big role in Bitcoin's future. Such eWallets can improve the user experience in ways the core network can't, for example, by providing recurring payment ability as PayPal does.

Bitcoin eWallets can also help with and/or eliminate other perceived technical hurdles such as scalability or 51% attacks, which wouldn't really affect them since transactions happen in house.

I don't think people really want outside entities having the ability to PULL via ACH from their accounts whenever they like. That setup usually takes a formal action at your financial institution to cancel. Very inconvenient. I agree PULL type accounts are not ideal.

Well, this forum hasn't changed much in many months. I think it's a testament to bitcoins that their price can still rise LOL

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

The fraudulent charges were intermingled with her legitimate charges over a span of 1-2 months (my mom isn't as to-the-penny balance aware as I am...). The total fraud was around 3K if I remember correctly. My mom had to file a police report and highlight the charges she claimed were fraudulent. Her credit union said they had insurance for that kind of thing, but I don't know how often they allow you to use it... I also don't know if regular greedy commercial banks would be as helpful. I've never had to go through that myself.

Remember, this is a DEBIT card, not a fee or interest paying credit card the bank makes money on.

It does keep it that way. Bitcoins are a CURRENCY.

People can use currency however they see fit. That includes storing/using it safely or exchanging for other currencies.

This new debit card simply gives people another option. A HUGE option IMO. (side note: There is no way 5,000 initial cards will be enough)

Having said that, I understand your concern about security.

My own mother had her bank account linked debit card number compromised and thousands of dollars stolen before she realized it. Luckily the bank reimbursed her (tip: use Credit Unions, people!).

I told her it was a BIG mistake using her bank account linked debit card for things (swipe for groceries, gas, etc. = too many vulnerable spots, even dishonest gas station cashiers) in this digital age.

I told her first to get a NEW non-compromised card and account number. Then I told her to set up a SEPARATE free checking account somewhere, anywhere, one that comes with a debit card. Then put only a few hundred dollars at at time into that account and use THAT for her debit card. IMO everyone should use this technique (especially if non-tech savvy) at it limits your possible losses, and increases charges awareness.

This Bitcoin debit card would be PERFECT to use with my security method, as a fund-as-you-go debit card.

http://www.wmxchange.net/exchange-e-currency.php

is good too.

No, someone who has $700 billion could pull of a 51% attack fairly easily. That doesn't equal destroying Bitcoin. There are workarounds and defense options in the event an attack is detected.

bit/bit/
Noun:   
1. A small piece, part, or quantity of something.
2. A mouthpiece, typically made of metal, that is attached to a bridle and used to control a horse.
3. A unit of information expressed as either a 0 or 1 in binary notation.

I think "two-bit" company does refer to the monetary "bit", but that's the only usage in that sense I can think of too. It's just a bit further obviously refers to "a small piece".

FWIW I think the 'bit' in bitcoin is strictly to indicate something technical. Most people think of "bits" to be the things used by computers, as in definition #3.

I'll go on record saying I think the value per bitcoin can easily reach $130,000 or more. That's 100 times more than your $1300 figure which makes it at least $100 billion for the attack. And that's before any "bitcoin defenders", people who have interest in seeing Bitcoin succeed, pull out the stops to defend the network.

Granted, there is a long way to go before reaching that lofty figure, so I agree the barrier-to-entry for attack is more palatable early on.

But I think bitcoins are protected in other ways. Using your math let's say it now takes at least 10 million for an attack. That's no small figure. Nobody is going to do that for profit motive. Not Oprah Winfrey, not a company like Apple, nobody. It would not make any sense. Bitcoins pose no threat to these people or entities, so why would they waste their money? Besides money is only part of it what's necessary. You have to hire the right engineers, procure all the hardware, set it up, carry out the operation, worry about blowback, etc. It makes no sense.

No, an attacker investing that substantially would have to feel threatened somehow, like a government. The problem is it would have to be a First World government, and in case you haven't noticed, all of them are in various states of financial crisis right now. I'll tell you why a government wouldn't do it in a second. First, a quick reminder about the state of U.S. finances:

U.S. Fiscal Cliff


Uncle Sam can no longer airily brush off "oh just another 1 billion dollars". His credit line has been checked. So even spending 1 billion against some project called "Bitcoin" would be felt.

But the real reason I doubt any government would take action is something I mentioned above: blowback. If it was discovered a government actually set up and carried out an attack what do you think would happen? Do you think the thousands of people already involved in Bitcoin would take that lying down? Can you imagine the press something like that would create? And who knows what other reactions it would spark?

If nothing else it would legitimize bitcoin in a way that would certainly put the focus on it. In other words, the effort to kill it could easily backfire. Remember, a 51% hash attack is not something that works in perpetuity; it has to be sustained. The blockchain already has more than 3 years of validity to it, a measurement to which we know transactions are true. A 51% attack doesn't "break" anything. At any point when the network regained confidence that honest nodes were winning bitcoin could continue on.

Such attacks also wouldn't be effective against proper physical bitcoins as I describe here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98318.msg1076508#msg1076508

While I agree such an attack is possible in a theoretical sense, I consider it highly unlikely.

You're merging ideas. It doesn't work like that. You don't go from 1% usage suddenly to another 99% usage. That's why bitcoins come into existence over time, all the way to 2033. [1]

There is plenty of time for people at any stage of hearing about bitcoins to get a hold of a good number of them.

Your other point asks why people wouldn't collude to start a different kind of bitcoin, one that suits them better somehow.

Guess what: they can!

That doesn't mean anything to bitcoins.

People currently understand exactly what bitcoins are, including how many there are, because it's spelled out in the rules of the protocol everyone agrees to by using it. If you change the rules it is no longer the bitcoins the majority of people consider bitcoins.

Anyone is perfectly welcome to change any rules. Bitcoin is open-source. But the challenge is getting enough people to go along with you to have any value.

There currently exist other crypto currencies such as Litecoin. These have been around a long time now and their exchange rate value is still nowhere near bitcoins. This challenge awaits any other currency. You have to convince people you have a better thing going than the people already convinced about using bitcoins. Good luck with that.

Even if people say they will go along with whatever new currency you start, if they have bitcoins, say just 1 of them, and that one bitcoin is worth $50K do you think they will get rid of it? Not likely. They will use both currencies to the best of their advantage. For example, even bitcoiners now hold and use dollars because it works in their interest to do so. In the end people will look out for their own best interests. The new currency exchange rate would NOT start out at $50K per coin. Again, you can't just jump from one thing to another, merging ideas.

Luckily, any value bitcoins do have is earned value, and not simply government decreed value aka fiat money. That makes them really hard to devalue and/or compete with.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png

Very true. It's because we're immersed in Bitcoin daily that it's easy to forget the reality that Bitcoin is known by approximately .015% of the world's population (yes, I invented that stat).

Would you call investors along the lines of Steve Forbes nut jobs?


Also:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2012/06/14/gold-as-an-investment-vehicle-heres-how-to-buy-it/

And there is supposed to be media coverage there as well, so be sure to tug over some camera crews

http://www.dailypaul.com/248359/media-flocking-to-tampa-for-paulfest

+1

Hmm, and the Japanese section of this forum is relegated to "other" with a mere 2 pages of activity since 2010.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877.0

Wow, it certainly could! Ala Gowalla or flash mobs.

Kill two birds with one stone. Businesses would jump onboard for the obvious business promotion and potential side sales, so we get new Bitcoin businesses signed up, and it adds another fun dimension to the game for players  

Geohashing looks fun

There are lots of ways to potentially set something up. In that treasure hunt game, as I recall, most everything - gameplay, riddles, etc. - was contained in the game, and you could talk with others online. However, I do think there may have been some real world components too. For example, extra clues might reference a structure in front of some museum, or maybe something found in the largest library in Los Angeles. Teams formed with an understanding to split the prize. It got to be a pretty popular thing.


I liked your original idea, but thought it fairly small scale, with marginal effectiveness. However, you may have given inspiration for something much larger. You (or anyone) can of course continue taking any actions you want, but I'm thinking we collectively might also explore a larger game based project, and maybe pool a prize of several thousand dollars to add some kick.

Interesting...

I actually referenced a zerohedge article in trying to explain Bitcoin on another forum.

Let me look into that site a bit more...

OMG That is brilliant!

I started to play a game long ago, can't remember the name of it, but it was soon after the Internet started taking off. This game came from a traditional computer game maker, a riddle/treasure hunt game, but the exciting thing about it was it adding an "online experience".

There was a real world prize, maybe like $100-500K or something, and you could talk with other players online and see how far they had gotten. I never had the chance to follow through more than the entry screens of that game, but I always thought it or something like it had HUGE potential. People love things like mysteries, riddles (really tough ones!), and scavenger hunts. They also love interacting with one another online, so merging these things can exponentially increase the fun.

If something like this could be created using Bitcoin the resulting word-of-mouth (best form of advertising) viral marketing could propel Bitcoin forward by leaps and bounds.

Let me think more on this...

Be sure to have some of these there, as I'm sure it would go over nicely 

http://printcoins.com/images/gallery/ron_paul_bill.jpg

That's what a fallacy is. It's a failure to make a well reasoned argument.

*sigh*

I guess you didn't bother reading from the ad hominem link provided. Let me explain it for you:

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments ...

You seem to be stuck on my mentioning that I designed a theoretical monetary system, which I did in response to your quote:

Any system using hard currency has to be partially debt-based as well.

What you failed to consider is that I never said how much merit I felt my design had. It so happens I believe the concepts need refinement should it have merit overall.


As I alluded to earlier, I've lost interest in carrying on this discussion with you.