Quote from: JFC on December 20, 2016, 05:48:30 PM

The way I see it, using this way to transfer (a decent amount of) money has the following benefits:

~~a) Way less scary~~ I disagree. I don't find bitcoin addresses scary at all.
b) Compact (15 decimal digits in the example vs 34 case sensitive alphanumeric positions)
~~c) Possible to be dictated and typed easily (only needs the numerical keypad)~~ Bitcoin addresses can also be dictated and typed easily.
~~d) Secure (mostly but not only, because of the checksum)~~ Bitcoin addresses also have a checksum.
e) Familiar; very similar to what regular people use to transfer money
~~f) Doesn't need any external database or service, it just makes use of the blockchain~~ For most, the blockchain IS an external database. Bitcoin addresses on the otherhand do NOT need an external database.
~~g) The implementation in a wallet is ridiculously easy~~ Lite (SPV) wallets don't store the entire blockchain. Bitcoin addresses are MUCH easier to implement in a wallet.
~~h) Doesn't require major testing, since it doesn't change the bitcoin protocol in any way~~ Anything handling people's wealth should be tested. Bitcoin addresses are already tested for more than 8 years.
~~i) It is completely optional. You can use if you need it and when you need it.~~ Bitcoin addresses are already optional. Your solution isn't optional if the other party hasn't implemented your solution, or if the other party refuses to accept traditional addresses.
~~g) You can even use it without a software implementation (Just use the blockchain.info website)~~ I find blockchain.info's website to be VERY unreliable.

It has also the following challenges:

a) Not implemented anywhere. Just an idea (yet)
b) Not valid for every transaction (it doesn't intend to, anyway)
c) It could have some security risks I am not capable of seeing (that's the top reason I posted this, btw)
d) Needs a standard (Anyone would like to help me writing a BIP for it?)
e) Best practice is to NEVER re-use a bitcoin address. This "solution" is useless for everyone except those that are already choosing to ignore this advice.

Quote from: JFC on December 20, 2016, 05:48:30 PM

Bitcoin will have to become much more user friendly to achieve the kind of reach we all expect it to.

Just like TCP/IP and UDP and HTTPS and FTP and routers and switches and gateways and firewalls need to be much more user friendly for the internet to achieve the kind of reach we all expect it to?

The solution is to add layers on top of the technology, not to change the underlying technology or expect the average user to understand the underlying technology. I realize that your suggestion IS a layer on top of the existing technology, it's just a bad layer that discourages best practices.

Quote from: JFC on December 20, 2016, 05:48:30 PM

If we neglect the social aspects of bitcoin, by not improving also its non-technical deficits, it won't succeed as a payment platform.

Then I guess we don't need to change anything, because it is already succeeding as a payment platform. Given your statement, I guess that must be proof that we've already "improved its non-technical deficits".

Quote from: JFC on December 20, 2016, 05:48:30 PM

Maybe what we have is enough for it to succeed as a settlement network for an investor to be happy, but I think we can do much better.

And we will. But not with this proposal.