Quote from: samsonn25 on August 04, 2014, 09:22:08 PM

Quote from: dasein on August 04, 2014, 09:14:09 PM

Quote from: samsonn25 on August 04, 2014, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 04, 2014, 08:44:26 PM

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/

Quote

One of the most annoying things about Bitcoin is that its so convenient to make payments with it that sometimes it is extremely tempting to spend it and avoid the hassle of using dollars. One of the ways to help deal with the temptation to spend is to demand a Bitcoin discount at any store that accepts Bitcoin. This is perfectly reasonable because not only is the store lowering its own costs by using Bitcoin, but it is asking me to give up an inherently superior commodity.

Hoarders are more important than merchants. If a restaurant downtown starts accepting bitcoins, this does not necessarily create an incentive for anybody to buy more bitcoins. Why would anyone bother if they can still just use a credit card? If you can convince a merchant to accept bitcoins and stop accepting dollars, then Ill be impressed.

Unless a merchant is offering something that cannot be bought for dollars, or at least offering a discount, he is only benefiting Bitcoin to the extent that he encourages more hoarding. If he immediately converts the bitcoins he receives as payment into dollars, and if his customers only buy bitcoins so as to spend them at his shop shortly thereafter, then neither has much direct effect on Bitcoins demand. The real hero is the hoarder behind the scenes who buys from the merchant and enables him to convert his payments into dollars.

Not to change the topic of the post.

But I think the main problem with bitcoin mass adoption is there are no guarantees against the owner in cases of theft and mis use.

The reason why credit costs more for merchants is because the interbanks get paid most of the interchange fees (interest and transaction fees) and the credit procesors Visa, amex, mc get paid the association fees. But the banks cover most of the costs in case of fraud and stolen cards and accounts and most customers are not liable if the transactions are abided by the rules of the credit card companies. They know this happens alot and to keep commerce moving with more sales this is a built in "expense".

With btc if consumers have their wallets hacked or stolen easily the btc is pretty much gone and it will detract from mass adoption because there is no recourse for refunds. And this will mean less people use it, and less incentive for merchants to adopt it, even though it is good saving for them versus credit card transaction costs.

This isn't an inherent problem with btc itself, it's more a function of a new market without sophisticated financial institutions that will protect the consumer against fraud and theft. The New York regulations make it all the more likely that those institutions will be created.

The NY rules only want more info on the buyers and sellers of the btc, in case they have to trace back to illegal activities.

They dont address wallet security. Imagine people having codes on their cellphones and losing them. This is much easier than losing large amounts of cash or credit.

The regulations address capital reserves and other consumer protections, and obtaining a license from the state reduces the risk for banks and insurance companies to transact in bitcoin.