Almost no one outside of my techie friends know about Bitcoin. Even fewer understand how it works, so that's a no go.

Not knowing the technical, or legal arrangements of SWIFT doesn't prevent one from making a traditional international wire-transfer.

My 70 year old dad can use bitcoin. I'm sure your friends can learn.

Your 70 year old dad is an exception in a sea of people that don't want to learn.

One comedian put it this way: You can't fix stupid.

Point being: Learning is a lifelong pursuit, and if you don't want to learn then you will be left behind using Facebook Messenger to send money. Kidding, but you hopefully get the gist.

But at what expense? The existing system is not that broken for majority of the world so why should they care about learning this?

That will change. Cryptocurrencies are here to stay. There is no undoing decentralized commerce. It will change the world in ways we can hardly fathom.

If your debts are in dollars, I don't see any point in Bitcoin with its fluctuating exchange rate.

The points are that you don't need 1. a bank account 2. a debit/credit card 3. facebook messenger in order to send money instantly.

You just need a bitcoin balance and the recipient needs a bitcoin address. Which practically seems like way more friction than the three items you listed.

Bitcoin has its problems, but getting a bitcoin address is much less friction than setting up a bank account.

That's like encountering email in 1994 and dismissing it as a piece of crap because none of your friends have computers or internet access.

A better analogy is that it's like dismissing the alternatives to email that popped up in the later 90s and dismissing them because even though they were obviously better than email (but not as much so as email over snail mail), no one you knew used them.

Not to mention the fact that the recipient needs a bank account anyway if they want to convert their bitcoin into something that they can actually spend outside of the dark web. Worse, the recipient also needs a bitcoin exchange account to even make the conversion possible, then they have to wait two days for the exchange to ACH the money into their bank. This all assumes the exchange will even do business with them following their extensive KYC checks.

I've never had a bank require that I OAuth with Facebook or give them copies of my passport in order to get an account. Bitcoin is just not the solution to this problem.

> needs a bank account anyway if they want to convert their bitcoin into something that they can actually spend outside of the dark web

That's not true. Americans (Facebook's intended audience for this Messenger money-sending feature) can spend bitcoins directly at Microsoft, Dell, Expedia, Overstock, Newegg, Tiger Direct, DISH Network, etc. They can use and spend bitcoins theoretically received from FB friends without having a credit card, without even having a bank account.

100,000 (legitimate!) merchants worldwide accept Bitcoin - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-now-accepted-by-100000-merc... It is time to kill the myth of "only the dark web accepts Bitcoin".

Admittedly, my dark web remark was an exaggeration, however, it remains a practical truth for every day life. In the overwhelming majority of locales, bitcoin cannot be used to pay for groceries, insurance, utilities, rent/mortage, fuel, student loans, daycare, tuition, taxes, medical expenses, phone service, car payments or pretty much any of the common expenses someone might need to pay for. Newegg, Tiger Direct, Microsoft etc are all great companies, but for most people those companies only account for a small number of purchases per year.

The reality is that using bitcoin as money is very impractical, that's just a fact.

All systems that require adoption are, initially, impractical.

Bitcoin is becoming more and more practical as more and more merchants adopt it. Again: 100,000 merchants accept Bitcoin today, and this number is (so far) increasing rapidly.

> All systems that require adoption are, initially, impractical.

I agree with that. It seems we agree that bitcoin is currently impractical, which is the crux of my argument. Bitcoin is not a practical way to send money unless the recipient already has a bank account and a bitcoin exchange account.

Do you know where that 100k number comes from? I see it said a lot but the only source listed is an ibtimes story saying "an industry source says 100k". Has anyone figured out how it was calculated?

BitPay alone has 50k merchants: http://blog.bitpay.com/2015/03/10/heartland-payment-systems-...

Coinbase has 38k: https://www.coinbase.com/about

Gocoin has 5.5k: https://ihb.io/2015-01-29/news/gocoin-announces-5500-merchan...

That's already 93.5k from merely 3 american bitcoin gateways. Add the rest of the world (China, etc) and it is clear there are 100k or more.

Thanks for the sources.

I'd be curious to see what the active merchants per month actually are for Bitpay and Coinbase. Until then I have a hard time believing they actually have those numbers live given the number of stories I've seen of people visiting stores/restaurants that accept bitcoin only to be told they don't do that anymore.

I think we need to kill the "bitcoin requires a passport" myth as well. I have used bitcoin for 4 years and have never had to present a passport for anything.

Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it's a myth.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/246mlg/bitstamp_blo...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/25jyf1/bitstamp_ive...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26c1y6/buying_bitco...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2renc7/why_dont_peo...

I could go on, all I did was search /r/bitcoin for the word "passport" and I was overflowing with results.

You brought up having to present a passport as if it were a requirement to using bitcoin, which it is not. Again, you were spreading FUD.

> You brought up having to present a passport as if it were a requirement to using bitcoin

I'm not sure how you read, "a passport is required to use bitcoin" from "I've never had a bank ask me for a passport when opening a bank account". My point, which I substantiated with those /r/bitcoin posts, is that it's not unusual for a bitcoin exchange to ask for a copy of a customer's passport as part of their KYC procedures.

>>This all assumes the exchange will even do business with them following their extensive KYC checks....I've never had a bank require...a passport..

One can deduce from the context that a passport is required to use bitcoin. It's FUD and incorrect.

What do banks require in order to open an account?

From the 1st result on google:

your name, your date of birth, your current address and phone number, Social Security number (in most cases) and your email address.

You don't need any of those to use bitcoin. You don't need any of those to buy or sell bitcoin.

> One can deduce from the context that a passport is required to use bitcoin.

You deduced incorrectly. I'm saying that if the KYC system flags the recipient, for whatever reason, then they will likely be required to produce a passport.

The KYC system is the exchange's, not bitcoin's. It's similar to blaming TCP/IP because a website requires you to use a password to log in.

> The KYC system is the exchange's, not bitcoin's

This is obvious. What is your point? Nobody is arguing that KYC is a requirement of bitcoin. Let me break down exactly what I'm saying:

1. For the vast majority of people, bitcoin is impractical as a method of payment for every day needs.

2. As a result of this, most people don't want bitcoins, and instead prefer legal tender that is usable wherever they might need to spend it.

3. The most practical and least stressful method for converting bitcoins into legal tender is through an exchange.

4. Exchanges have KYC procedures.

Very simple.

>Not to mention the fact that the recipient needs a bank account anyway if they want to convert their bitcoin into something that they can actually spend outside of the dark web.

I guess you've never read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

No, I haven't read the list of locations where bitcoin is accepted. The reason for this is, like most people, I have a bank account and don't need to double check that I can actually pay for dinner and a movie before I patronize an establishment.

Except you weren't patronizing an establishment. You were spreading FUD.

What you call "FUD", the rest of the world calls "reality". Bitcoin is currently impractical as money, that's just a fact. The few businesses that accept bitcoin aren't even close to enough to make bitcoin practical for every day needs.

I'm not saying bitcoin is practical as money. I'm saying it is practical as a payment system, if anything. Just look at the gigantic $100,000,000 bitcoin transactions that happen and only pay a $0.20 or so fee.

Besides that, bitcoin is so profoundly different than traditional money systems it can't possibly be practical as money so soon. It shouldn't be practical as money so soon, but it is making progress.

So that is 2 requirements for bitcoin versus 5 requirements for sending via facebook: bank acct, debit/credit card, email acct, facebook acct, facebook messenger (let's not forget the immense amount of personal information you willingly give away).

Yet, bitcoin seems like way more friction?

Instead, let's be dumbfucks[0] and use Facebook to send money!

[0]http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuc...

It's not an either-or proposition here.

But let's get real, bitcoin combines the ease-of-use of sendmail.cf with the stable value of the Russian ruble.

So you think bitcoin is harder than:

1. Learning how to open a bank account (requires tons of personal information)

2. Learning how and why to use a debit/credit card (insecure)

3. Signing up for (requires e-mail) facebook and tying your credit card to it to send money

?

The point is that 95% of adults have already done #1 and #2 and half of #3, and they have experience giving their credit card info to other websites.

Maybe if you were starting tabula rasa with eleven year old children who'd never had a bank account or used a website before, maybe then bitcoin would be easier (provided they didn't get hacked and have their coins stolen[0]).

[0] https://twitter.com/Coinapult/status/577892916309291008

Incompetence is payment-system-agnostic:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-03-13/target-misse...

Liability isn't.

Where is this magical land where a company can't be held liable for losses because they accept bitcoin?

The hard part of bitcoin is keeping all the devices you use it on perfectly uncompromised and backed up.

1. Use an iOS or Android Nexus device. Apple and Google do a good job of keeping iOS and Nexus devices very up-to-date security wise. (Specifically avoid non-Nexus Android devices as companies other than Google do a bad job at deploying timely OTA updates.)

2. Use a deterministic wallet app so there is no need to back up anything whatsoever (all your addresses and keys are generated from a password): Greenaddress, Breadwallet, Mycelium.

Then all you need is one strong unique password, and you have a decently solid Bitcoin wallet. If someone specifically hacks you with a 0day to compromise your mobile device, you have a lot more things to worry about than losing your bitcoins.

The hard part about using a credit card is trusting the merchant to be perfectly secure.

The difference is that stolen bitcoin equates to a permanent loss of funds while a stolen credit card number equates to a customer service phone call.

Not always true. The reality is less rosy than you depict it.

Most credit card issuers don't let you charge back transactions older than 60 days. It is always fun to discover this fact after a merchant invents believable excuses to stall your order for 60+ days... ("Warehouse stock depleted, wait 4-6 weeks. We shipped it! Sorry we shipped the wrong item!")

Merchants can dispute chargebacks, and in fact do win 40% of them. See page 12 of http://bit.ly/10iW5wJ A lot of this is friendly fraud but still...

CC issuers will typically hold you liable and refuse chargebacks if the PIN code was used (the hacker guessed it, stole it, or cloned it). Check your CC fine print, for example: "If your Password or PIN is used in such a transaction, you will be liable for the full debt" from http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/common/pdf/borrowing/revolving_...

Fair enough. Credit cards offer decent but limited consumer protections; bitcoins offer none.

Credit cards enable theft at, or fraud by the merchant because you give the merchant your CC info; Bitcoin fixes this flaw by design as it cryptographically authorizes only transactions of specific amounts to specific addresses.

CCs and Bitcoin solve different issues with fraud and theft. I argue that the protection offered by CCs is overrated. For example plenty of people everyday are happy to use a system that does not offer these protections: cash. I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection.

>I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection

People are happy to use cash because in almost all cash transactions they are able to verify the receipt of the product or service immediately or have a known location within reach to access the seller incase it doesn't happen.

>I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection.

But this is something that is warned against. People/organisations warn against mailing cash for this exact reason all the time.

We warn about mailing cash to dubious/untrustworthy recipients.

But paying a very trustworthy merchant by mailing cash would probably be fine in terms of risk of theft: mailing a $100 bill is no different than mailing a $100 item, yet people ship millions of $100+ items every day through the postal system and few get stolen.

It's just stupid to mail cash because faster ways of sending money exist.

We don't warn against mailing cash only because it might be stolen in transit we warn against it because of the lack of tracking. How do you know the store received the cash? What happens if your envelope is delivered but falls off the mail cart somewhere and is lost? The merchant isn't going to take your word that you mailed them cash no matter how trustworthy they are.

> lack of tracking

Are you joking? The entire shipping industry offers tracking services, delivery confirmations, etc.

Yes that will track that a package arrived but it doesn't track that it had money in it or its location within the receivers infrastructure.

I get that you're a huge fan of bitcoin but your instance to dismiss the possibility that companies can make mistakes in processing orders or managing orders or shipping is really weird. Even after I've showed you examples of it happening. Even in large 'trustworthy' companies.

I've said it repeatedly during our discussions. Not all problems that require a chargeback are fraud. Just let that sink in for a bit then go back and read our last conversation with that statement in mind and look at the points where you repeatedly accuse me to saying a company was willfully fraudulent immediately after I said the above.

I think from this point I'm just going to stop responding as honestly I don't feel like wasting time in another back and forth over whether or not companies are able to make mistakes.

> it doesn't track that it had money in it or its location within the receivers infrastructure

If the customer mails an empty envelope, the merchant won't ship, so where is the problem?

If postal workers steal the cash but reseal the envelope... well these incidents do happen but are very rare. It can't be the major reason why "people don't mail cash". People mail valuable items all the time.

If a trustworthy merchant genuinely lose the envelope after delivery... well these incidents are also very rare. It can't be the major reason why "people don't mail cash".

If a fraudulent merchant "lose" the cash after delivery... as I said this is why we warn to not mail cash to untrustworthy merchants.

Again, "lack of tracking" is not why people don't mail cash even to trustworthy merchants. People don't do it because faster and more convenient ways of sending money exist.

> your instance to dismiss the possibility that companies can make mistakes

I DON'T DISMISS MISTAKES. I acknowledge they do happen. But they are rare and therefore don't matter as much as you insist they do. You gave me 3 examples of Tiger Direct refund problems, and yet that's only 3 out of thousands(?) of error-free orders. And these 3 all were eventually solved in the customer's favor, so none of them required a chargeback (had it been possible).

> Not all problems that require a chargeback are fraud.

That's not my point. My point is all of these problems (whatever they are: mistakes, frauds, etc) are rare to begin with. How many times to I have to explain it? You even confirmed it with your own life experience: you personnally issued only 2 chargebacks, ever.

Chargebacks are RARELY needed, period.

The difference with bitcoin is that the protection is up to you. Same as with holding cash or precious metal in a safe at home. Except with bitcoin, you have m-of-n signatures, encrypted wallets, brain-wallets even. You can backup your encrypted wallet anywhere. Someone even put their wallet.dat on a website for anyone to download, but their passphrase is probably 1,000 random characters or something.

Why would anyone want that? Most people are not interested in holding cash or precious metal in a safe at their house. It's extremely inconvenient, expensive to do correctly, and still much riskier than keeping your money in an FDIC-insured bank.

This is the problem with bitcoin: Everything its advocates claim is a desirable feature is actually a huge bug for normal people.

>13.1 million identity-theft cases were reported in 2013, resulting $18 billion in losses.

from https://www.javelinstrategy.com/uploads/web_brochure/1405.R_...

Banks are the ones taking those losses, and it comes out of the CC fees paid by merchants. Yes, this probably results in price increases, which is like buying insurance - I will pay 2% more for pretty much every good I buy, and in return I will never be defrauded out of my entire life's savings at once.

Seems like a good deal to me?

You don't see the problem here do you? 13.1 million people were defrauded because they used a credit card. $18 Billion were lost as a result. Losses due to bitcoin are peanuts in comparison.

Excellent. Yes, let's go there.

Over the course of a year, $18 billion were lost to CC fraud. Meanwhile, CC transactions totaled about $6 trillion [0] (that was 2010, the most recent I could come up with, but it's been increasing every year for a long time so I'll be generous and use it). That's .3% - clearly affordable on the 2-3% merchants typically pay.

Meanwhile, Mt. Gox defrauded users out of about 650,000 bitcoins [1]. This was a single instance of fraud, remember - I'm trying to be generous. Eyeballing this chart [2], I'm going to give bitcoin a clearly-exaggerated 200,000 BTC in daily transactions, or 73 million BTC in a year. This comes out to .9%, or about 3 times higher than CC fraud.

But remember what I said earlier - CC companies essentially insure you against loss by paying out the fraud themselves and then forcing merchants to raise prices a bit to make up for it. In bitcoin, a given person can easily lose thousands, tens of thousands, millions of dollars, all at once. No recompense. So not only is the rate 3 times higher, the outcome is _way_ worse per dollar lost fraudulently.

[0] http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/credit-card-... [1] https://coinreport.net/99-of-mt-gox-bitcoin-losses-likely-fr... [2] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume

Multisignature transactions solve the "annnd it's gone" due to hacked merchants/exchanges. The rate may be 3 times higher but bitcoin is almost 1/8th as old as the credit card system. Losing $18 billion a year is not a good sign for a system of such age. At least bitcoin can and has improved and will continue to improve.

Yes, I noticed you failed to address the 13.1 million people a year who have their lives ruined because they had their identity stolen.

> Multisignature transactions solve the "annnd it's gone" due to hacked merchants/exchanges.

Theories are great for people who can afford to lose tens of thousands of dollars. Until the actual rate goes down, recommending bitcoin to average consumers on the basis of "this is supposed to work" is stupid.

> Yes, I noticed you failed to address the 13.1 million people a year who have their lives ruined because they had their identity stolen.

No, I didn't. Here, I'll quote myself:

> CC companies essentially insure you against loss by paying out the fraud themselves and then forcing merchants to raise prices a bit to make up for it.

Almost no one is having their lives ruined. You call your credit card company's fraud department (actually, these days they often catch it first and call you). You spend 20 minutes getting your card canceled and showing them which purchases were fraudulent. You wait three days for a new credit card to show up.

Hardly life-ruining.

I use Bitcoin Wallet (app) for Blackberry and Android. Super easy to use.