Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on May 22, 2013, 09:29:34 AM

Quote from: johnyj on May 22, 2013, 08:42:57 AM

Quote from: Vladimir on May 22, 2013, 08:26:23 AM

Quote from: johnyj on May 22, 2013, 08:17:01 AM

Just like a gateway in ripple, this is the point of weakness for all the P2P exchange design: That escrow/gateway must be able to communicate with banks through an authorized channel and that channel is controlled by banks

Yes, as long as you have to communicate with legacy bank systems, you will have to follow their rules and regulations KYC etc...
Do not expect this to make proper exchanges obsolete all of the sudden. You need to take the commerce completely out of legacy bank system to not depended on whims of the banks. Or we could just buy a few banks... and have them run some OT servers.

In a traditional bank system, bank A open an account in bank B and bank B open an account in bank A, and they can do transactions both way. But due to bitcoin is not a single entity, traditional banks can open accounts in bitcoin network while bitcoin network can not open a bank account at traditional bank, only individuals can

I still think localbitcoins.com is better than the idea of P2P exchange

I don't think a lot of people realise this but localbitcoins.com is actually a centralised server model ... and does anyone know how much data they retain about all the recorded transactions/messaging that passes through their server? ... wonder which jurisdiction/locale the localbitcoins.com server is located in and what their privacy policy is by the way?

The advantage of OT is just if government raids an OT server, they will get nothing, no store of currency, no meaningful transaction record, no destruction of operator identity(if he remains strictly pseudonymous and uses Tor) , he can just find another server and get online again.