Quote from: creighto on January 22, 2011, 04:31:18 AM

Quote from: neolith2099 on January 22, 2011, 04:16:06 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 21, 2011, 08:50:34 AM

I think the improvement would be that wallet could be completely encrypted, so to send or accept any transactions, one would have to give a password.
Still, that would not protect against keylogger attacks.

Would it be considered a bad thing for someone to setup a company that manages Bitcoin wallets for people. I don't mean someone with only 1 server in an office building, but more like multiple servers around the world. They all replicate to each other and transfer data securely among them.

Do you mean something different than www.mybitcoin.com?

Actually... pretty much just like mybitcoin.com only there are several separate versions of them to avoid one site/company monopolizing the "trusted bank" structure. These companies can run internal transactions with other customers that use them to provide additional services such as insurance, escrow, etc. The only time any actual bitcoin transactions take place are when people send bitcoins outside of the institution of "trusted banks" - in which case the transfer cannot be insured by the "trusted bank" network.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but the only way I see bitcoin picking up pace is if merchants and consumers have ways of being protected from scams, etc. I like the clearcoin concept, but I think their structure is far from perfect. Their choice to not handle disputes doesn't make me feel any safer than if I were to just risk my coins. Being able to not use bitcoins that were meant for a purchase for 30 days, 6 months, or even 12 months wouldn't phase me if I were a hardcore con-artist. The point is to eliminate the buyer/seller beware worries, which clearcoin isn't doing. Anyway, that's a discussion for another topic.