Banks are too big to see what's coming
bitcoinmedia.com
bitcoinmedia.com
* 10-15% of all transactions are fraudulent. In other words, something like $150Bn-$200bn/yr, or up to 2 times the entire market cap of Cisco Systems, is being lost every year to online fraud.
* Banks are investing in multifactor authentication systems to try to do away with passwords.
* But that won't work, so the only solution is to scrap the entire financial system and start over...
* ... with Bitcoin, for which there is "no payment fraud", "no paper work", "no merchant accounts", and "more privacy".
This argument isn't even coherent enough to be wrong. The types of mainstream attacks modern banking authentication systems are trying to deal with assume customer machines are actually owned up by attackers. They'd be happy just to find a way to make it harder to automatically extract value from accounts using standardized malware. This isn't a problem Bitcoin contemplates.
Oh man, that's a great line.
however, this does not mean bitcoin isn't actually a pretty useful system, and with some trade-offs from traditional currencies, has some very good benefits.
The bitcoin ecosystem are also converging toward that. Or rather, any serious bitcoin payment processor will also be exploring any real security solution, even if it comes from traditional banks.
This isn't a problem Bitcoin contemplates.
Think of bitcoin technology as the OS which bitcoin banks run on. There are advantages and disadvantage to using bitcoin as cash, or storing bitcoin with your bank, depending on situations you may encounter.
Bitcoin is on the scale of global commerce simply a thought experiment (or, less charitably, a Ponzi scheme).
So, of course, anything the modern banking system doesn't fully accomplish is "coming soon" for Bitcoin, right around the corner.
Never mind the fact that virtually all Bitcoin development is done either as a hobbyist project or by fly-by-night operations that end up getting fully compromised. No, somehow engineering problems that banks can't solve with tens of millions of dollars of dedicated IT security investment are going to be solved by Bitcoin startups for half-pennies on the dollar.
But, at any rate: exasperating though your argument is, it's also a non-sequitor. My point is that banks are dealing with zombie customer machines controlled by malware. Bitcoin falls to that same threat scenario too.
All successful things start small.
Never mind the fact that virtually all Bitcoin development is done either as a hobbyist project or by fly-by-night operations that end up getting fully compromised. No, somehow engineering problems that banks can't solve with tens of millions of dollars of dedicated IT security investment are going to be solved by Bitcoin startups for half-pennies on the dollar.
I don't claim that bitcoin startup solve problems that banks can't solve, just that I am asking you to compare bitcoin banks with banks, not bitcoin to banks.
The last (and hopefully only) time a critical vulnerability was found in bitcoin was in May '09: it was exploited on the testnet and then patched. The largest bitcoin exchange did have a security breach in July '11 and suffered a loss of 6k bitcoins, but the rest (most of which were in cold storage) remained secure (at least 424k bitcoins). And in the most recent incident, a couple of popular services lost a combined 50k bitcoins (the users were not affected) because Linode was compromised.
Your "fact" is entirely disingenuous.
Bitcoin is certainly not a silver bullet to securely using on a compromised machine (and nobody is claiming that it is). Obviously no system will ever 100% protect stupid/compromised users. But many credit card numbers are compromised mid-stream or at a malicious PoS. The public-key nature of bitcoin protects against those attacks.
The only reason bitcoin-related web apps are so extensively probed is due to the security of the protocol (bitcoins are valuable because the protocol and its most widespread implementation is believed to be secure).
The security track record of any highly targeted industry is generally poor, including banks, fortune 500 companies, credit card processors, and shopping carts. To say that the security of bitcoin-related services is any worse than these is unfair.
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/20/hackers-snatch-6-...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/citibank-hacked/
http://www.medianama.com/2011/09/223-hdfc-banks-database-was...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Swiss-Forex-Marketplace-Compr...
Just imagine for a moment, Google accepting bitcoins as floating currency, to be used in its Google Play service, or with its Android devices with NFC enabled Google Wallet. That would blur the line between digital currency and digital/real goods and services.
When a buyer comes, generate a new wallet for them. Poll the wallet to see if payment comes.
That's how you accept bitcoin payments.
if you create a few hundred receiving addresses, then you can keep the wallet (and hence private key) offline, as all transactions are public, and minimise the risk of having funds stolen (as we've seen a lot of places lately getting hacked and having their accounts drained..)
And as amazing as Stripe is, getting working Bitcoin payments is even easier: generate key, show to your user, and query your daemon for payments.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Bitcoin_payment_systems
Basically it just comes down to generating an address for the customer and checking if a payment comes in.
Personally I wish I could pay for a lot more stuff using bitcoin, so I wouldn't have to keep giving out my credit card number to every website I want to buy something from. (I haven't dealt with paypal in years so I usually end up using my CC directly.)
Problem with btc of course is that once you've sent the money, it's gone, and there's no recourse if there was some kind of transaction problem, or the vendor decides not to acknowledge receipt.
I think you mean a stable or predictable currency. What you need is more volume in the bitcoin economy to stabilize the price. Of course, when the economy grow at extreme rate, the expense of that is a predictable currency. But with bitcoin, you can be certain 99% that it will never exceed 21 millions.
let alone one that generally needs to take on debt to jump classes within a generation.
But you don't need debt if you can merely save and jump classes within a generation. If you have saving, you can benefit from extreme growth in the bitcoin economy.
If not a completely radical solution like Bitcoins, even some low-margin, relatively more secure solution seems to be more of a question of "when", not "if".
I'm excited to see what happens, personally...