Future of Bitcoin

[Zomdifros]

No banks, thank you. They are not needed anyways!!!

Why not? Currently, banks are a necessity. But if all the transaction power is given to the people, banks will became what they should have been in the first place: A service. Mainly for people who are willing to pay a small fraction of money to have their other money kept in safety. Let's face it, being your own bank is risky

why is being your own bank risky? Can you not take care of your own finances? Sorry I dont understand you point.

Many computers get infected with malware. Most computers don't have cash that you can make a copy of either though. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples of decidedly not dumb people losing Bitcoin. Bitcoin will redefine "bank," not eliminate them.

Absolutely. Right now it's killing me that if I ever mess up my security I'll lose a lot of money. You can always follow procedures and think you're doing the right things, but there are always accidents possible which are very hard to foresee. That's why I'll always keep a combination of my own wallets and some insured wallets in various banks, once these are available (perhaps even generating interest).

[yolo2222]

No banks, thank you. They are not needed anyways!!!

Why not? Currently, banks are a necessity. But if all the transaction power is given to the people, banks will became what they should have been in the first place: A service. Mainly for people who are willing to pay a small fraction of money to have their other money kept in safety. Let's face it, being your own bank is risky

why is being your own bank risky? Can you not take care of your own finances? Sorry I dont understand you point.

Many computers get infected with malware. Most computers don't have cash that you can make a copy of either though. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples of decidedly not dumb people losing Bitcoin. Bitcoin will redefine "bank," not eliminate them.

Absolutely. Right now it's killing me that if I ever mess up my security I'll lose a lot of money. You can always follow procedures and think you're doing the right things, but there are always accidents possible which are very hard to foresee. That's why I'll always keep a combination of my own wallets and some insured wallets in various banks, once these are available (perhaps even generating interest).

you can safe your wallet on a usb drive or paper wallet or brainwallet 

[Zomdifros]

No banks, thank you. They are not needed anyways!!!

Why not? Currently, banks are a necessity. But if all the transaction power is given to the people, banks will became what they should have been in the first place: A service. Mainly for people who are willing to pay a small fraction of money to have their other money kept in safety. Let's face it, being your own bank is risky

why is being your own bank risky? Can you not take care of your own finances? Sorry I dont understand you point.

Many computers get infected with malware. Most computers don't have cash that you can make a copy of either though. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples of decidedly not dumb people losing Bitcoin. Bitcoin will redefine "bank," not eliminate them.

Absolutely. Right now it's killing me that if I ever mess up my security I'll lose a lot of money. You can always follow procedures and think you're doing the right things, but there are always accidents possible which are very hard to foresee. That's why I'll always keep a combination of my own wallets and some insured wallets in various banks, once these are available (perhaps even generating interest).

you can safe your wallet on a usb drive or paper wallet or brainwallet 

Sure, but what if your house burns down? Or what if I generate a brainwallet from an unsecure computer? There are lots of Black Swans around the corner.

[yolo2222]

No banks, thank you. They are not needed anyways!!!

Why not? Currently, banks are a necessity. But if all the transaction power is given to the people, banks will became what they should have been in the first place: A service. Mainly for people who are willing to pay a small fraction of money to have their other money kept in safety. Let's face it, being your own bank is risky

why is being your own bank risky? Can you not take care of your own finances? Sorry I dont understand you point.

Many computers get infected with malware. Most computers don't have cash that you can make a copy of either though. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples of decidedly not dumb people losing Bitcoin. Bitcoin will redefine "bank," not eliminate them.

Absolutely. Right now it's killing me that if I ever mess up my security I'll lose a lot of money. You can always follow procedures and think you're doing the right things, but there are always accidents possible which are very hard to foresee. That's why I'll always keep a combination of my own wallets and some insured wallets in various banks, once these are available (perhaps even generating interest).

you can safe your wallet on a usb drive or paper wallet or brainwallet 

Sure, but what if your house burns down? Or what if I generate a brainwallet from an unsecure computer? There are lots of Black Swans around the corner.

What if the government just confiscates your gold as it happende before in the US?

What if your government decides to freeze your funds because it was hanging its  gluteus maximus a tiny but too far out the window?

[Zomdifros]

What if the government just confiscates your gold as it happende before in the US?

What if your government decides to freeze your funds because it was hanging its  gluteus maximus a tiny but too far out the window?

Well those are risks as well. That's why I would like to have a combination of paper wallets, hybrid wallets and insured BTC bank accounts.

[yolo2222]

What if the government just confiscates your gold as it happende before in the US?

What if your government decides to freeze your funds because it was hanging its  gluteus maximus a tiny but too far out the window?

Well those are risks as well. That's why I would like to have a combination of paper wallets, hybrid wallets and insured BTC bank accounts.

100% agreed!

[gogxmagog]

Honestly, I am most afraid of perception problems.
People cling to fiat and banks because they have Stockholm syndrome. Anarcho capitalists are most likely already on board or at least seriously considering it. The regular sheep view the whole BTC with doubt and fear. The word is getting out there slowly, but, and this leads to my second point... Big Business, and Big Government... they will not relinquish control. Ever. No Way! They are watching, and my guess is, plotting as well.
What do you do in an experiment? You OBSERVE. Take note of what works, and why. Take note of what isn't working, and why. Try experiment again with alterations in the variables to see if you can not control these outcomes.
I'm am pretty sure that there are huge teams of developers at work, covertly, to create and introduce a competitor that exploit all the weaknesses of BTC, and simply reproduce the parts that regular noobz seem to be attracted to.
My paranoid fantasy? IDK!
They might be able to start a cryptocurrency that has less volatility. I certainly approach with a little trepidation towards the idea of spending a dollar if by evening that dollar has doubled in value. I shop for bargains, dude, not gouges!
Users could very well choose a centralized and standardized "lookalike" if it is marketed properly. Say PayPal makes a PPpenny- they mint 51% all right away and then open up mining to the miners with the same difficulty/rewards type situation as a newly birthed crypto$. They allow early adopters to see good rewards but retain majority ownership of this economy. Then PP is basically who is backing this and it is a "backed" currency. They continue to refuse to accept BTC as well as lobby govt to make unbacked currency restricted beyond usefulness. Meanwhile, their considerable PR dept is touting the safety and "trust" offered by their PPpennies all the while magnifying the drawbacks of BTC. They will play on public misconceptions to do this if necessary. We are competing with them and they hate us and will be both secretive and ruthless. 
Really, I wish people were more committed to anarcho capitalism, but the disappointed idealist within me isnt into holding his breath on this one.

[cbeast]

Say PayPal makes a PPpenny- they mint 51% all right away and then open up mining to the miners with the same difficulty/rewards type situation as a newly birthed crypto$. They allow early adopters to see good rewards but retain majority ownership of this economy. Then PP is basically who is backing this and it is a "backed" currency.

You will see the premined coins in the blockchain. Who would think it was fair other than their cronies?

[gogxmagog]

Users could very well choose a centralized and standardized "lookalike" if it is marketed properly. Say PayPal makes a PPpenny- they mint 51% all right away and then open up mining to the miners with the same difficulty/rewards type situation as a newly birthed crypto$. They allow early adopters to see good rewards but retain majority ownership of this economy. Then PP is basically who is backing this and it is a "backed" currency. They continue to refuse to accept BTC as well as lobby govt to make unbacked currency restricted beyond usefulness. Meanwhile, their considerable PR dept is touting the safety and "trust" offered by their PPpennies all the while magnifying the drawbacks of BTC. They will play on public misconceptions to do this if necessary. We are competing with them and they hate us and will be both secretive and ruthless. 

This scenario is completely unrealistic for a number of reasons. What do they have to gain from a cryptocurrency if they're not profitting from it? Why would they do that when, they already do it except they know your info. They will never "back" a currency that's entirely anonymous, who the hell would? They do chargebacks, would you think their new slogan is:

"The new PayPal! Now with no buyer/seller protection!"

Essentially if you unravel things backwards, the essence of bitcoin cannot be anything more than harnessed by the established players. They cannot retain control AND offer anonymity. They can offer opt-in participation, which is a hell of a lot better than our current terms. Many would opt-in and even pay towards it. Hell, that's what this community works towards via web of trusts and transaction fees for exchanges, etc.

OK, that allays some of my fears. Still... The perception problem... as you can see I'm swimming in it... and I'm one of the converted!
I'm just saying, that as much as we all look at and try to deal with the squeeky parts of this machine, Big Brother most likely has many times the manpower working at exploiting problems. Of course, the opt-in thing you mention, also their role as potential payment processors are on their table too, and these things bode well for BTC.
Its just my way of unraveling things backwards, but thats what these forums are good for.