Quote from: DrGregMulhauser on July 19, 2013, 10:49:22 AM

Don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate the option to conduct business anonymously, and I have no problem with that. But if we really want to encourage wider adoption, fixating on anonymity and how to remedy the problems that anonymity creates just won't cut it.

That is the important part. Large verifiable trusted companies using Bitcoin don't remove the choice of (psuedo) anonymity. The payment protocol Gavin is working on actually combines both. It allows one to verify the recipient (using CA and signed payment orders) while still making the tx itself psuedo anonymous. If you don't want the gubbermint tracking your battery or tinfoil purchases made on Amazon with Bitcoins you could use a mixer. This is something that can't be done with CC for example.

I think a lot of the "issues" with Bitcoin are really issues with user naivety. Bitcoin is like digital cash. It is an imperfect metaphor but it works for the most part. Most people would not hand a bag stuffed with cash (hereafter refered to as "bag-o-cash" to a "company" rep standing in an random alley which changes every day that has no ID, no name, no method of verification. You don't even need to post warnings about how/why you shouldn't do that. "Thanks for the bag of cash, wait here and I will get your product ... soon (sucker)". However for some people they essentially do the EXACT same thing with Bitcoins and are surprised that they got scammed. Somehow it is less risk because .... Bitcoin.

I think it is good for all Bitcoin users to stop before pushing [Send] and just ask themselves "If Bitcoin didn't exist and my only option of payment was fiat cash would I feel comfortable handing this "person" a bag-o-cash given the information I have and can verify?" If the answer is "no" then you absolutely shouldn't be sending them Bitcoins either, so take your hand off the mouse and slow down. It really is that simple.

If NewEgg, Amazon, or namecheap tomorrow started accepting only cash I would have issues with the risk of paying that way (it would be annoying but that is a different topic). Likewise if they accept Bitcoins I wouldn't have any more or less issue then paying them by cash. Escrow in those cases simply adds cost and expense.

On the other hand if some guy on Craigslist wanted to sell me a pre-order "super ultra hyper Bitcoin ASIC miner" but I had to buy today (they only have one left) and I need to pay in advance by sending a bag-o-cash to a PO BOX and wait 3 months I "probably"* would decline. The same guy asking for Bitcoins instead doesn't make is less risky so the answer is still no.

I can't explain it beyond absolute naivety on the part of some users. The problem is that enough "foolish" users makes it a target rich environment. That brain dead scammer knows his pay cash and wait 3 months for magical beans won't work but change cash to Bitcoin and magical beans to ASICs and there is a line of suckers fighting to get rid of their wealth. The amount of scamming will not go down until the "street smarts" of the users go up and the bad news is it will take a lot more losses for that to happen. It likely will take time for "common sense" to catch up with the technology. It doesn't help that credit cards have made the average consumer brain-dead when it comes to managing risk. CCs transfer all the risk (and consequences for asinine decision making) from the consumer to the merchant so why bother managing risk. Hell you can post your CC on facebook homepage (so you don't have to look in your wallet) and it costs you absolutely nothing. Consumers don't need to be "smart" with CC like they do with cash (or Bitcoins). It will take time to deprogram the average user.

These aren't technological issues and they can't be solved by technology.

* "Probably" means WTF? Are you on crack?