Any polls should also be re-done at a later date since opinions can change. It can take time for people to digest information.

Well, I think the wording would be more accurate if it said:

* It's counter-intuitive, but [displaying] more payment options reduces sales [in tests we've done using our methods].

hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems.

I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out.

To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all.

That page talks about too many choices of products, not payment options.

There is no need too look at data. It's common sense. Whatever the checkout procedure is there doesn't have to be every payment option displayed at once.

The checkout procedure for one option (say a check for USD in mail) can look the exact same as a checkout procedure for multiple options, with one difference being a link or similar which says "other payment options". Now, if you're telling me you'll lose sales because of the presence of that link, then you've surprised the hell out of me.

(Note I'm not talking about heavily psychology based products like "work-at-home-and-get-rich-if-ordered-now!" landing pages where every word said makes a difference.)

The only one of those that might hold water is #1.

Point #2 is patently false. Yes, it sounds counter-intuitive because it's not true. Giving the customer more payment options always increases sales, because it expands who can be a customer. If some product is desired at all then having maximum options to pay for it is a bonus/benefit, not a drawback.

Point #3 is understandable, but still arguable. It depends who you are, or, rather, how technical you are, and what technology is available. The back-end overhead to manage one crypto-currency or multiple crypto-currencies is not all that different because everything is software. You don't have to re-secure a server to hold more than one crypto-currency. The server is either secure or it's not. Conversion of currencies would be more the issue, but even that could be handled smoothly as, again, everything is software; it's just bits, bits which can move around the world in seconds for free. Giving employees choice of payment? Again, more choice is always better for some things, and money is one of those things. Lastly, about the presently low volume, that isn't expected to always be the case.

Glad you're taking this approach, Gavin, rather than pushing ahead one ideology and risking a likely fork, as with your influence you could. This at least ensures large consensus for change.

Still, we're left with the problem of how to solve this together. I'm thinking on it but right now my brain is throbbing a bit from catching up reading all the threads on the topic 

Note that Bitcoin Clearing Houses don't centralize Bitcoin.

Such clearing houses have no power to create coins or prevent their transfer (users could revert to the core network).

A rudimentary form of this already exists. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Green_address

Mt.Gox provides green addresses and a few merchants recognize them (see bottom of the above link). Mt.Gox also conducts an estimated 80% of all bitcoin currency exchange. It probably holds sizable coin storage for the community too.

Mt.Gox could already act as a Bitcoin Clearing House, in other words. That doesn't mean Bitcoin is centralized.

Note: I think it's unwise to store a majority of coins with one eWallet like Mt.Gox. A BCH, as I see it, only holds a small balance of user's coins, the amount they expect to usually transfer. Users should probably drain their balance periodically too by default.

Yep.

You just suggested what I predicted 4 months ago in my post Solution to the Bitcoin Foundation.

I think it's nearly time for a Bitcoin Clearing House (BCH).

I've long suggested a majority of Bitcoin transactions will not take place on the core network. There are many reasons. The core network, while ingeniously designed to allow Bitcoin to be viable, is not ideal for transacting coins. Close, but not ideal.

The first and most obvious problem with the core network is a delay in coin transfer, and the verification of this. Bitcoin is built upon technology, and modern technology allows near instantaneous transfer of information between most any points of the globe. Transferring coins instantly should be available too.

The second problem is fee dependency. Bitcoin depends, to some extent, on fees to operate smoothly and avoid low quality transactions. Again, modern technology makes worldwide instantaneous information transfer possible, but also free. It should be free to transfer coins too.

The third problem is scalability. Scalability was less obvious a problem because Bitcoin is still in its infancy, but lately it's becoming noticeable, e.g. long block chain syncs, and this thread topic on block size.

For these reasons, and other smaller ones, I concluded a majority of coin transactions might eventually happen off the core network, and it's entirely possible.

A Bitcoin Clearing House is a centralized server maintained by a trusted entity. For example, BitInstant, MtGox, the Bitcoin Foundation, or maybe Blockchain.info, etc. might be good candidates to establish such a server.

There is a public facing web site through which people can sign up for simple accounts to deposit or withdraw coins. Those transfers take place using the core network. However, because of the visibility of the BCH many other users and businesses could also maintain accounts there. Now if you want to send coins to Mt.Gox, or BTC-e, other exchanges, or maybe a service like pizzaforcoins.com to order pizza your coins would transfer instantly and for free.

This also works for person to person transfers. For example, because users sign up for accounts at the BCH with an email address you can send or request coins to/from them using only their email address, similar to PayPal, and eschewing ugly wallet addresses. If a person doesn't have a BCH account they receive an email saying they can retrieve the coins (with or without signing up).

Last, the BCH also provides an API which allows other services/eWallets, like Walletbit, Mt.Gox etc. to make API calls that transfer coins in or out. That means all coin users don't have to have a BCH account. Their existing eWallet service may already be linked which gives them the same access.

There is no real limit to the number and speed with which transactions could occur with this system, and core Bitcoin network transactions are drastically reduced to ones which for whatever reason require it, like SatoshiDice bets.

Anytime users suspected their coins or their value might be in jeapordy at the BCH they could withdraw them to their locally hosted wallet.

Many problems solved.

Keep it up! I learned some news and that's why I'll watch.

I hadn't seen that. One clear example of how the foundation can benefit Bitcoin as a whole.

I agree, hazek, for competing within Bitcoin nobody else could ever be on equal footing with TBF. That's why I was initially so concerned. However, as I said, as long as Bitcoin isn't the only viable thing available to the marketplace (and now with Litecoin gaining favor it's not) I'm not worried.

Matthew, for the record, I think the Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea. There are several beneficial things they can do by adding formal structure to handle some things now being handled (or not) in willy-nilly fashion. Things like recommending standards, taking lead on legal issues like trademarks etc. are issues important to Bitcoin's overall progress. Having a foundation or organization that works within the existing system I think makes a lot of sense.

You may have missed the announcement thread for TBF. It may be this forum's largest, but I'm not surprised. Bitcoin's primary strength is that it is decentralized and operates completely democratically, relying on the free market. If it wasn't this way the support it has from almost everybody would turn to support from probably nobody. That strength, however, is also a bit of a weakness for the "willy-nilly" effect I talk about above. A person with apparently no regard for the well being of Bitcoin, but only for profit, and capitalizing on a situation tried to claim trademark ownership over "Bitcoin". Obviously, such problems are better addressed by a formal entity. This, I believe, was largely the inspiration Gavin had for a foundation in the first place. The formation of a power structure for something supposed to have diffuse power caused an understandable uproar.

I joined in the voices of opposition to TBF, not against having it per se, but against not having checks on its potential future power and influence. A comment in this thread illustrates an example of what I mentioned in that thread. Many people think  "Bitcoin" got a bank license because of bitcoin-central.net, wrongly inferring that from the name. There is power in a name, which I talked about in that thread.

I won't rehash more argument for or against TBF, including what they have or haven't done to date. I no longer worry about unchecked power from them. I spelled out why in this thread I posted:

Solution to The Bitcoin Foundation

The gist of it is I believe the free market will regulate TBF for me (us). As long as other cryptocurrencies can challenge Bitcoin they can reflect dissatisfaction with an unwelcome power consolidation whether it's TBF or something else.

As for whether you might want to support them I'd say evaluate their performance thus far and decide. My personal opinion is you probably won't find a better or more capable group. I never had a problem with any of TBF's participants or the concept of it, only the potential for things getting out of hand.

The difference between that episode and when you first started this (the real first time) is night and day.

Nice job, looking more professional. This latest video wasn't boring either. The earlier ones left something to be desired. But I think you've nailed a bunch of things. First, the backdrop is better. You in a chair against a blank wall wasn't so interesting. The changed attire is great too, much more professional, letting you rise above the "anybody at a computer in their pj's" realm. Last, i think you have more to talk about now, and that will continue. There is a lot going on with Bitcoin, and I agree with you.. I don't think this is a bubble, but instead Bitcoin gaining momentum.

Will be watching  

You know you don't need to ask permission. Just make a translated site and promote it. If it's good enough maybe the devs will see it and link to it. Nobody needs to ask anything with Bitcoin. Nobody controls it. Just do what you like and the free market will sort it out. The devs are often too busy for administrative decisions.

Okay. So it comes down to semantics. Let's get to it then. Here are Google's definitions:

consent

Noun
Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Verb
Give permission for something to happen: "he consented to a search by a detective".
----------------

consensus

Noun
General agreement.

Synonyms
accord - agreement - unanimity
----------------

agree

Verb
1. Have the same opinion about something; concur: "I completely agree with your recent editorial".

2. Approve of (something) with regard to its moral correctness: "I'm not sure I agree with abortion".

Synonyms
consent - accord - assent - concur - tally - accede
----------------

If you study 'consent' and 'agree' you find that approval must happen. When you consent you give permission. When you agree you approve.

Consensus is trickier, because it is "general" agreement. Well, the word 'general' is injected in there which gives wiggle room to the meaning. However, the word 'agreement' is still present, which as I indicate means to approve or give permission.

So I disagree there is consensus about which side of the road to drive on. Did you ever give permission or approve of things being set up that way? Or did you simply not object. Because that's NOT the same as giving permission.

Earlier in this thread I suggested to Erik the need to replace the word 'agreement' with 'acceptance' when referring to how people give value to money. Erik suggests his comments may be nitpicking, but I think he's right. Look at my example about going to jail for not having fiat money to pay the fine. Do you give permission to go to jail? Or do you accept going to jail?

You don't give permission or approve of going to jail. However, you accept it (you don't object or resist) because the alternative is being beaten likely to death.

Bullshit. The hell he is.

If the fiat or decree doesn't matter then why make it at all?

Could it be that left on its own the free market would pick something else as money? Yes, that is it.

Fiat overrules the market, plain and simple.

If government threatens you with fine or imprisonment for some infraction, and the payment must be made in fiat you don't consent to going to jail because you opt out of using that money. That is force.

Yes. The interesting thing is there isn't any such thing as any official site, including Bitcoin.org. All sites are non-official because Bitcoin is decentralized. However, some sites can be perceived to have more weight, and be regarded as "official" (that's the problem with the Bitcoin Foundation many here tried to voice).

But in the end it's all about accurate, helpful information spreading. That will happen eventually regardless, but may happen sooner depending on what is available to users.


Yes, that's what I mean above.


Yes, the thing is Bitcoin is STILL in a very early stage, though it may not seem like it to us breathing it daily. There was something I believe said by Gavin a while back which I agree with regarding the cumbersome official client. He said he doesn't WANT Bitcoin to be easy for people to use yet, because it's too easy to lose your money. Look at all the people who have lost coins various ways as a testament to that. I think we're only now beginning to get to the stage where we can start inviting more mainstream users to be involved with Bitcoin, because we've already been through many of the pitfalls we can now warn people about.

Exactly. I think a "non-official" site could help in this capacity.