Why use Bitcoin?

[billyjoeallen]

• Security:

• Trust:

• Mitigation of Risk to User:
  
  

• Transparency : 
  

Surely you jest! look BTC is going nowhere if you keep lying to yourself. These issues are major points that need adressed.
Lets get real here.

There's nothing on your list that can't be fixed by some motivated codemonkeys, a locked door and some Red Bull.  It's being worked on as we speak. By the time the 1.0 client rolls out, BTC will likely be in the triple digit$.

[Rogue Star]

security is already a feature if you know what you're doing.  and if you don't encryption of wallets will be a feature of the next version.  ease of use is coming along with security.  thats clear.

Trust:  you don't have to trust anyone.  thats what the block chain is for.

Mitigation:  again, no risk if you know what you're doing

Transparency:  way more than our Federal Reserve and banking system.

Security: Encrypted wallets won't go very far to protect anyone. Bitcoin needs more than that.

Trust: Trust in any part of Bitcoin is voluntary, and as such susceptible to human folly. So while there is a high degree of trust for the block chain, almost everything else has a markedly lower trust level. The point remains Bitcoin will have trust issues, but the voluntary trust is a huge leap forward IMO.

Mitigation: People often don't know what they are doing, so hand waving that it is not an issue isn't constructive.

Transparency: I agree, but at least some of the transparency is voluntary. I'd like to see more transparency from mtgox for example, even though I still trust the service and love the volume of trading there.

I know my counter points are external to Bitcoin, but they have to be addressed.

I've put some cursory thought into combining offline wallets, offline transaction creation, and online transaction processors but even that has problems (mainly user error, physical security). Having something like that would address some of my issues.

[cypherdoc]

locked door

LOL!

[FlipPro]

security is already a feature if you know what you're doing.  and if you don't encryption of wallets will be a feature of the next version.  ease of use is coming along with security.  thats clear.

Trust:  you don't have to trust anyone.  thats what the block chain is for.

Mitigation:  again, no risk if you know what you're doing

Transparency:  way more than our Federal Reserve and banking system.

Security: Encrypted wallets won't go very far to protect anyone. Bitcoin needs more than that.

Trust: Trust in any part of Bitcoin is voluntary, and as such susceptible to human folly. So while there is a high degree of trust for the block chain, almost everything else has a markedly lower trust level. The point remains Bitcoin will have trust issues, but the voluntary trust is a huge leap forward IMO.

Mitigation: People often don't know what they are doing, so hand waving that it is not an issue isn't constructive.

Transparency: I agree, but at least some of the transparency is voluntary. I'd like to see more transparency from mtgox for example, even though I still trust the service and love the volume of trading there.

I know my counter points are external to Bitcoin, but they have to be addressed.

I've put some cursory thought into combining offline wallets, offline transaction creation, and online transaction processors but even that has problems (mainly user error, physical security). Having something like that would address some of my issues.

Security: There can be a private company in the future that comes out, and offers to secure these Bitcoins in a undisclosed , safe, offsite location. They can also opt-in to secure these funds up to a certain amount, sorta like how FDIC insured banks are insured today.

Mitigation: It is not Bitcoins fault that people don't know what they're doing. Once again read my statement above to understand how issues of safety and mitigation can be handled.

Transparency: IT IS NOT BITCOINS FAULT THAT MTGOX CHOOSES TO KEEP EVERYTHING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. IT IS MTGOX'S FAULT.
If you want transparency go http://blockexplorer.com, if not send MTGOX's support an email with your complaints. Thanks.

[Rogue Star]

Security: There can be a private company in the future that comes out, and offers to secure these Bitcoins in a undisclosed , safe, offsite location. They can also opt-in to secure these funds up to a certain amount, sorta like how FDIC insured banks are insured today.

Mitigation: It is not Bitcoins fault that people don't know what they're doing. Once again read my statement above to understand how issues of safety and mitigation can be handled.

Transparency: IT IS NOT BITCOINS FAULT THAT MTGOX CHOOSES TO KEEP EVERYTHING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. IT IS MTGOX'S FAULT.
If you want transparency go http://blockexplorer.com, if not send MTGOX's support an email with your complaints. Thanks.

I already acknowledged these things are mostly not Bitcoin's fault. In order to be successful, the infrastructure built around Bitcoin on the whole has to be up to snuff. That is the point I'm making, they will hopefully be existentially pointless arguments in the future but they are valid right now.

Security: No such service exists, only time will tell which hypothetical ones are actually secure. Moreover this is not a catch all for end-user side security.

Mitigation: I don't think some of the people that have claimed to have had their wallets stolen would say they didn't know what they are doing. Risk mitigation is very hard to do in practice. On the other side people securing their wallets presumably inadvertently destroyed their wallets. True or not, these stories are warnings that we need many solutions for many needs.

Transparency: My point is transparency is not guaranteed because of defacto Bitcoin services that operate like mtgox. This is why I feel it is important to emphasize the voluntary nature of Bitcoin between users and services.

[Elokane]

Thanks for posting. My recommendation is to tone down the "excitement" level of the text. Don't make it sound salesy. There shouldn't be any exclamation marks. Also, don't use terms like "IMPOSSIBLE to shut down Bitcoin." Statements like that invite controversy because they are almost certainly wrong. Fact is, there might be a way to shut it down and only time will tell if it overcomes these challenges. Simply change that sentence to something like "Bitcoin may be impossible to shut down."  It's actually a stronger, more confident way to write.

Understate the benefits, and remain humble.

Bitcoin is good enough that it doesn't need caps and hyperbole  

Thank you and everyone else for your feedback. I will adjust the post later today.


In what way is MtGox less transparent than other exchanges or than what you'd like to see?

[Rogue Star]

In what way is MtGox less transparent than other exchanges or than what you'd like to see?

Transparency is missing in the reports of support tickets being closed seemingly without any reason behind it. There is important information missing about how they operate, the community is left to guess. During the crash for example, I don't think I was the only one surprised to get confirmation that it was a 1 coder/1 support staff operation. We knew they were looking for help to some degree, we didn't know how far behind they were. We still don't know whether they have hired another coder. I have no doubt most people (myself included) trust mtgox is doing its best, but they leave much to be desired. I don't mean to pick on mtgox about transparency, they are just a prominent and important example.

[Elokane]

Updated the OP with your suggestions. Thanks everyone!