Bitcoins only for 'hackers' and 'gamers'??

[evgonoba]

The real problem is that Bitcoins will likely never gain enough acceptance because the whole thing about 'mining' and the like will always only appeal to the rebel and hacker part of society. I'm part of that crowd....but most people aren't.

It's the wrong crowd to really change our money system cause no one takes us seriously enough. And even worse, hackers and gamers don't even really WANT to be taken seriously.

So, it's a limited idea due to it's culture. Sad to say.

[ohreally]

Those same 'hackers' and 'gamers' built the internet and it's taken pretty seriously.

[drakahn]

and why would only hackers and gamers need to easily send money anywhere in the world?

[evgonoba]

It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.

[Kazimir]

"the whole thing about 'mining' and the like" is totally irrelevant for normal Bitcoin usage.

Most women I know like jewelry, yet none of them ever actually dug up any gold from the ground themselves. Same for Bitcoin.

[Slyyrd]

Mining makes you part of the security of the system, you don't need to be a miner to use bitcoins as currency. anyone with a smartphone will be able to use BTC without having a clue how it works. Hopefully in the near future.

[evgonoba]

The point is not that you need to actually "mine" but that to the average person in the economy, it sounds goofy, therefore doesn't engender trust in it as a 'system'. I know....we don't trust the present system, either, and shouldn't. Therefore, the system to replace it needs to make sense.

Where does the money come from you ask? We mine it from complicated computer transactions...just too goofy for most people.

[3ham3]

Not Gaining Acceptance? BTC is on the CNN Business News most weeks,
Websites have already started adapting, only a matter of time before it is the main online currency.

[evgonoba]

It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.

The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.

Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.

[evgonoba]

It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.

The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.

Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.

Please explain how transactions require trust, if your signing a transaction with your private key, then no one can change it and still allow it to be valid across all nodes.

It was a general point that all transactions require trust....that the item you are buying is what you think it is or, on the other side of the transaction, that you will be paid. You said "you don't need to trust it", so my point was that trust is always an issue when doing business. You seem to feel that there is no doubt or hesitancy out there for Bitcoin to overcome. My point is that the everyday person is skeptical and leery. Anything that new money can do to make it easier to trust is beneficial, even if it seems self evident to others. I think the culture of Bitcoin is a bit too dismissive from what I see and read, and telling people they don't need to trust seems to dismiss widespread and persistent tendencies, which limits its appeal.

[FinShaggy]

The real problem is that Bitcoins will likely never gain enough acceptance because the whole thing about 'mining' and the like will always only appeal to the rebel and hacker part of society. I'm part of that crowd....but most people aren't.

It's the wrong crowd to really change our money system cause no one takes us seriously enough. And even worse, hackers and gamers don't even really WANT to be taken seriously.

So, it's a limited idea due to it's culture. Sad to say.

No, as soon as they have a commercial on TV that says you can spend X amount of money to turn your computer into a money making machine, it will launch off.

[u237114006]

The real problem is that Bitcoins will likely never gain enough acceptance because the whole thing about 'mining' and the like will always only appeal to the rebel and hacker part of society. I'm part of that crowd....but most people aren't.

It's the wrong crowd to really change our money system cause no one takes us seriously enough. And even worse, hackers and gamers don't even really WANT to be taken seriously.

So, it's a limited idea due to it's culture. Sad to say.

No, as soon as they have a commercial on TV that says you can spend X amount of money to turn your computer into a money making machine, it will launch off.

And so will the mining difficulty.

[montdidier]

I don't think it's serious impediment. People use stuff without being involved at every level all the time. Mining is only one part of the picture and realistically it's only dominating that picture in the early stages of the bitcoin lifecycle. It's currently low fruit. As it becomes stupidly difficult to find new coins, mining will become less visible and the focus will switch to other areas of bitcoin. Miners will eventually have to survive on transaction fees alone, we'll have to get used to paying those or our transactions won't be processed!

[evgonoba]

It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.

The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.

Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.

Please explain how transactions require trust, if your signing a transaction with your private key, then no one can change it and still allow it to be valid across all nodes.

It was a general point that all transactions require trust....that the item you are buying is what you think it is or, on the other side of the transaction, that you will be paid. You said "you don't need to trust it", so my point was that trust is always an issue when doing business. You seem to feel that there is no doubt or hesitancy out there for Bitcoin to overcome. My point is that the everyday person is skeptical and leery. Anything that new money can do to make it easier to trust is beneficial, even if it seems self evident to others. I think the culture of Bitcoin is a bit too dismissive from what I see and read, and telling people they don't need to trust seems to dismiss widespread and persistent tendencies, which limits its appeal.

We are talking about two different things. Your talking about in general a transaction, which obviously you need trust but that has nothing to do with bitcoin as a currency. That has to do with how you conduct business and which would be found on all currencies. I did a transaction thru amazon with dollars and got scammed. So this is not limited to bitcoin. But with bitcoin you can do easier types of escrow, which I do all the time. I have a reputation built up that I am trustworthy. So I am not seeing your point but I think your dismissing bitcoin a property that all currencies have.

You are wrong that I am dismissing Bitcoin. I accept it as an improvement. I agree that the need for trust in a transaction has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I thought you were asserting that when it comes to Bitcoin trust is not an issue, therefore I said it is always an issue and nothing about Bitcoin removes that issue.

I do not dismiss Bitcoin. I do believe, however, that it could be improved if its creation was based on something other than 'mining' it. Base it on something REAL. Again, I realize that this is even MORE true with our present system of just creating new money 'out of thin air'.

We could issue Bitcoins anytime someone can hold their breath for longer than 3 minutes. That's hard to do, too. (I recognize the value that 'mining' has to the Bitcoin system, but ONLY to the Bitcoin system.)

So, this is why I suspect that non-techie, non-rebel, mainstream type people will not take Bitcoin seriously enough to give it the chance I would like to see it have of displacing our current system.

This is why I suggested in another post that there is real merit in idea of using Capital as Money as presented in the book http://www.amazon.com/Capital-As-Money-ebook/dp/B009AP9ZG6 by a professor who is proposing something new. I think CAM and Bitcoin should 'merge'.

[evgonoba]

To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.

Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?

Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?

Is this a religion or a money system?

[ThomasX]

The real problem is that Bitcoins will likely never gain enough acceptance

They said the same thing when internet itself got made public for normal people in the late 1980's, i watched it first hand. I was running several BBS's back in that time, and also telnet BBS's. mmmm. Good old memories. And look at internet now. 

They said the same thing about VISA credit/debit card when they created that card in 1958. NOBODY would ever use it, they said; it was madness to trust a piece of plastic with unprotected numbers on it! Look at the growth of creditcards now. (Now I personally still think its madness to trust a creditcard with unprotected numbers like VISA tho, but the world seems to ignore that. Bitcoin will solve that problem once and for all)

They said the same thing with Paypal too. Who would trust a private owned non-bank corp for payments. Look at the growth of paypal now.

Same with bitcoin today. But within few years when enough web-sites has adopted it, rest assured, it's unique way of working will make sure it will be a highly popular way to transfer money. Unless we in future somehow discover a insane bug in the protocol which opens up for a major security-breach, bitcoin is here to stay.

Period. 

[gweedo]

To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.

Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?

Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?

Is this a religion or a money system?

So by trustless I mean my node doesn't need to trust what your node is sending to me. I can validate it on own, meaning it is a trustless system.

No bitcoin based on a protocol that is built and working, no theory behind it. If your talking about crypto-functions do some research. The addresses are nothing more than private public key, the bread and butter of internet commerce since about 1996 probably earlier.

This is a money system, that a lot of people are passionate about.

[evgonoba]

I agree. And so is VISA, but with a very mixed kind of success.

If Bitcoin is just a way to 'transfer' money then it will gain ground and be one of many ways to do so, but not really that interesting of an innovation.

If it is a way to 'create' money, as I believe it is, then it has a more serious task ahead of it as far as winning widespread acceptance.

[evgonoba]

To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.

Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?

Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?

Is this a religion or a money system?

So by trustless I mean my node doesn't need to trust what your node is sending to me. I can validate it on own, meaning it is a trustless system.

No bitcoin based on a protocol that is built and working, no theory behind it. If your talking about crypto-functions do some research. The addresses are nothing more than private public key, the bread and butter of internet commerce since about 1996 probably earlier.

This is a money system, that a lot of people are passionate about.

A lot of people are passionate about a lot of things. Nothing gained by that point.

No theory behind it? I'm sure its more serious promoters would wince at such a naive statement. There is theory of some sort behind all cultural innovations and certainly no money system stands a chance without taking money theory seriously.

The trust issues I raise have nothing to do with addresses and private public keys (technological issues) and everything to do with the conception and creation of the money itself, not whether or not nodes do or don't need independent verification.

[drakahn]

The trust issues I raise have nothing to do with addresses and private public keys (technological issues) and everything to do with the conception and creation of the money itself, not whether or not nodes do or don't need independent verification.

the creation of bitcoins is predictable and cannot be changed, what issues?