Quote from: jbreher on January 07, 2015, 03:16:38 AM

Quote from: flipstyle on January 07, 2015, 01:55:08 AM

Jbreher: I agree with some of your points, though to me (may not be the same for all) it seems like you're trying to downplay the greater issue by staking blame of risk vs. reward at the end user when most have been essentially robbed blind without recourse. Or are we all to just 'expect the worst' in the crypto community when entrusting our bitcoins in transactions?

Well, if the inevitable result of entrusting exchanges is getting ripped off, then yes - I suppose we each should expect the worst. It seems to me no different than any other part of life. If you are going to trust the untrustworthy, you're gonna get screwed. I'm not saying that the thievery is justified. I'm saying that we should regard it as inevitable that enabling scammers is going to result in scams occurring.

Quote

p2p? I've combed over that multiple times in other posts. It's no different. You're still putting your trust in another faceless entity over the internet with no verifiable name/address/location. Go through an escrow? Lol. What if the escrow packs of shop once they've hit personal economic hardship?

I guess this one is on me for not clarifying. How 'bout I say f2f - as in face-to-face. I've had a 100% track record so far with this. As have all of which I am aware.

Quote

You keep saying I'm blaming the technology. No, I'm not.

I must have misunderstood you then. Perhaps due to an earlier quote from your OP:

Quote

And this is precisely the reason why I believe bitcoin will ultimate fade into the sunset of obscurity along with failed techs like tablet pc's and palm pilots.

Quote

What good is fiat without banks? Or are we all to just hoard coins in our personal computers and let them collect dust while maintaining a 'wait and see/trust no one' approach? I'm sure that's the entire point of bitcoin, right? To just hoard and remain stagnant.

I have no idea what you are indicating by "What good is fiat without banks?".

I don't think there is any particular 'supposed to do'. Crypto is a technology, not a director of human activity. Maybe start by asking what it is that you want it to do for you? Hoarding is a possibility, sure. If more of the planet comes onboard, you're likely to accumulate purchasing power by simply holding a fixed amount of it. Of course, with no activity, the world may not hop onboard. You can use it to purchase things.... the list of vendors is large and growing larger by the day. I personally feel that remittances (a multi-billion USD market with astronomical profit margins) will be the first real 'killer app', but I expect that it is dependent upon several more years' worth of infrastructure buildout.

Despite the cynicism I display in the opening sentences of this post, I am hopeful that crypto continues to grow, to the point where it overtakes fiat in gross global economic activity. I see this as more likely than not (your analysis may differ). A wonderous world awaits humanity if we can wrest monetary control from the hands of self-rewarding parasitic warmonger vampire-squids. (That last sentence should be a clue that I suspect that you and I likely could have an extended discussion on the merits or demerits of the fiat monetary system - but that should likely wait for another thread).

The problem is...how are people supposed to exchange bitcoin if we are not to trust exchanges...at all?

F2F is of course the most foolproof method...but that's essentially destroying the entire point of crypto currency. It's for the digital transfer of funds quickly and efficiently to people 1 mile away...or 8,000 miles away. Having to seek out potential buyers in your local city, set up meet times/drive to meet...is a borderline archaic method in this day an age. About the only time people do this is for the sale of tangible goods like furniture on craigslist. It should not be the go-to means of digital currencies...or that's a very very bad sign.

I'd love to see alternative exchange technologies that have truly secure means, or are physically insured. But I'm not sure they exist. Or else I'd assume they'd be way more popular by now. Either that, or they have some severe disadvantages that has prevented them from gaining large volume.