JPMorgan Extends Banking Services to Bitcoin Exchanges

Very, and it shows you're not a merchant. Thus, not really my demographic so any argument I make will be seen as 'irrelevant' to you or anyone like you. Loss of business due to network failures, or outright denial of services, is a critical usecase for anyone dealing in high volume low margin transactions for goods and services. Especially for one based on e-commerce which is out-stripping brick and mortars these days in case you haven't noticed.

> Or, I think that the NSA are nearly as able to trace a US-based Bitcoin transaction if so motivated.

Blockhchain analytics has been a thing since at least 2013 during the first wave of DNM take downs, and only further substantiates my argument about having proper OPSEC.

> My debit and credit cards have worked flawlessly for my entire adult life. That’s what you’re competing against. The fees are still cheaper than handling cash for merchants.

I'm guessing you don't travel much? I've had my credit card account shut down while in Switzerland on my last days when I tried to buy an airline ticket and after several hours of trying to get a hold of them and explaining to them why my tourist Visa will likely expire before they can reactivate it, they shrugged their shoulders and basically said 'not my problem.' And had to wait for them to get back to me. Meanwhile, I literately had to ask the butcher (I was making dinner for my hosts) to hold on to my order as he was wrapping it up while I went back to go move some BTC around and come back with CHF in hand several hours later, it was rather embarrassing to say the least.

The fees are actually not cheaper for them, hence why places with low profit margins will always have an amount requirement to use Credit Card POS systems and even give discounts for cash purchases for depreciating things like gasoline: you ever wonder why they have 2 different prices? That's why, and its contrary to your argument.

> What happens if someone steals cryptocurrency from my wallet? What happens if someone hacks into my bank account and steals dollars?

The same thing that happens to cash stolen out your wallet: its gone for good. The thing is we have consumer level tech that make it nearly impossible for that to ever take place. The possibility exists, sure but the amount of effort to steal your $50 from a trezor or ledger (short of mugging you) is going to have limited appeal to any adversary.

> Cryptocurrencies don't even solve basic issues like this that actually matter. I can sign up for an Apple Card and use that immediately to seamlessly make payments (it's not the best card but just for illustration purposes) or buy services. I can't do that with any cryptocurrency.

That's a matter of opinion and not fact, given your access to the traditional Legacy system. And, sure you can, a merchant just has to accept cryptoccurency in the first place. I'll grant you they're limited numbers these days, but go ahead and buy something off newegg right now with BTC, it can be done.

Your argument is only valid when dealing with fiat facing transactions, but still that's not true because you can sign up for Square and you can get Visa credit card to load your Bitcoin to in real time once you have it, granted it will take time to verify as with any KYC/AML system but that has more to do with Visa/Fiat then Cryptocurrencies limitations.

> So far there are just too many inconveniences/risks for me to make it worthwhile.

Agreed. Trying to on-board the greatest benefactors of the Legacy system (affluent Westerners) is not a milestone we've been able to achieve yet, but that doesn't detract from the other billions on this planet, thus my arguments are valid anyway.

> Privacy issues aren't really solved en mass either, because companies like Coinbase authenticate you for tax purposes (i.e. the IRS and NSA have you).

First, I call it COiNbase for a reason, second exchanges aren't even really how this tech was supposed to be used in the first place. But I'll grant you due to convenience most will always favour it, and for good reason and that's why Fidelity got onboard when it did.

I'm not trying to even hint that I'm condoning this will evade taxes, and I will say I DISCOURAGE DOING SO (PAY YOUR TAXES!), fiat is way better for that anyway, what I'm saying is that it has valid usecases for those who have issues with the aforementioned problems it solves and have limited access to the Legacy system, which happens to be Billions of People.

I highly recommend people read up on the what is actually the 2nd largest economy in the World, its called SystemD [1]. I'd love to see a revised analysis, since 2020 was a milestone year, and so many have found themselves forced into this system due to COIVID pandemic for mere survival.

> Plus, if you pay with a credit card, you have (in the US, at least) net 30 terms and some form of cash back/reward that comes out of the merchant fees. You could argue that this is a broken, monopoly-entrenching system and I wouldn't disagree with you, but it's the reality of the status quo you're competing with.

You're telling me you'd rather keep everything in place because you get ~1% in cash back, and has a system that monitors, tracks and then sells all of your data to some 3rd party rather than have your money backed by a pseudonymous, limited and an ever appreciating currency then its clear what I'm up against is really you, not the obvious monopoly-entrenching system.

I always said Bitcoin won't hit mainstream adoption based on a monetary value alone, it will only truly achieve that when its entirely indiscernible and just as 'convenient' than the current system, and hopefully it can be iterated to have all the features I mentioned thus far built in by default: much like the Internet most people would never find value in researching, and then deploying SSL despite how much information they divulge on the Internet. The same applies to Money.

1: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/forget-china-system-d-is-...

Edit: I just had to respond to this as it was too good:

> Bitcoin routinely has >10 minute downtime, it just calls them "confirmation intervals".

Sure, if your assumption is based on thinking PoW and the whole security thing is a downtime thing, too. Think if it more like compiling code or rendering video, that's far more accurate and relevant comparison.

Gold went from ~$400 in 2005 to ~1,300 in 2019. That is about 3x.

S&P 500 went from ~1,100 in '05 to ~3,000 in 2019. Also about 3x.

Gold is doing fine. And turned out to be a much better bet than stocks after including 2020 :D.

And if you want to put a bitcoin price chart side by side a gold price chart over the last 2 years it sorta speaks for itself. Gold went up. Bitcoin went all over the shop, averaging flat. If you want to call 2 years cherry picking be my guest, but it hasn't been a performer recently. It isn't a point of contention that Bitcoin is up infinitely from 2005.

Intrinsic worth means that an item has inherent, non-economic usefulness, i.e., you could use it even in the absence of trade of that item.

Gold has because it can be used to protect items from corrosion, to conduct electricity, etc., and these uses don't depend on it being traded.

Carbon fibre similarly has intrinsic uses, because you can do things with it even in the absence of trading it, like making cloth, parts, or vessels.

Fiat currency does not have intrinsic value. It's sole value is that it is accepted by a government agency for debts owed by the government, and/or that it is the legally recognized method of non-barter exchanges of value.

Cryptocurrency has no function apart for its role in trade, which is why--like fiat currency--it has no intrinsic value. Without trade, it's useless. It's sole proposition for having value is that the other people might want it.

Wright was transparently, painfully, fake to every (other) technical expert. He can't make it 5 minutes talking about Bitcoin without inserting some claim which is obviously false or outright nonsense. Considering his chosen vocation (satoshi impersonator) he's been extremely uninformed about Bitcoin's technical history... worse, he tends to try to employ "bet you didn't know" 'zingers' based on reading some public summary which are just incorrect (because he misunderood the source or the source was wrong-- wright isn't very literate in code).

For a person who is technically proficient in Bitcoin to fall for him it isn't sufficient for them to have just been tricked by him, they also have to be blind to more red flags than a communist military parade. :)

It made for a reliably good initial impression but often lead to a bad relationship in the long term. Over time, you'd learn to recognize the coded language "Ok." meant "I disagree profoundly and I'm going gonna screw over this plan behind your back." and dread dealing with it.

So, for example, he'd disagree with something the development community was working on but instead of confronting it directly, he'd go to companies as a representative of the development community and advocate for his position (without disclosing that he alone held that position) but then come back and tell us that it was something the company was demanding. He even went as far as to recommend obscure altcoin developers to companies looking to employ a bitcoin devloper full-time, presumably to protect those relationships and maintain that leverage.

So essentially sticking himself in the middle of things and presenting himself as speaking for people he didn't speak for. This proxying went swimmingly when there was broad-spread agreement and rapidly turned into a mess when there wasn't.

As time goes on we continue to slowly learn more. For example, recently I learned that people were given highly edited copies of email chains between the active Bitcoin devs that eliminated most of the disagreement's with Gavin's positions, and falsely made it look like other people agreed with him in discussions where, in fact, no one agreed. It'll probably never be possible to tell if distortions like that were intentional or just a result of a profound tunnel vision that came from fundamentally not respecting other people's positions.

What you see as a change in ideology or personality I think was a combination of reaching a point where the web of appeasement couldn't be maintained anymore, where people who previously provided sound advice behind the scenes no longer cared to offer their council because they'd been alienated, and the stress and desperation as the plan he'd invested so much in was falling apart.

There were flashes of that long before, even extremely public ones like the infamous "Luke-jr is a toxic person" post that arose because luke steadfastly wouldn't support Gavin's position on what was mostly technical minutia. (Admittedly, Luke can be pig-headed and annoyingly impervious to political winds but that post was entirely inappropriate).