11–20 of 82 posts
For point 2, there is a white paper on using cryptocurrency to incentivize the development of Tor networks - http://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/chacs/ghosh-torpath-torcoin-proo...
It may be too simple though, since the amount donated in laughably low compared to the work done by the nodes.
Torcoin and similar solutions may be a better solution due to that issue.
Also see OpenBazaar, a peer-to-peer marketplace: https://openbazaar.org This is a rapidly developing example of an application that couldn't exist without Bitcoin.
Sort of like the NY Times paywall we all know and love/hate, but easier to deploy for less gigantic sites with less staff, and more voluntary (users who don't pay would just see ads as they do now).
The real wonder is why haven't any of the major players in these areas adopted it in any way. Curiously it is the payment provider industry who has paid it some attention, rather than any of these.
Perhaps the traceable nature of bitcoin makes it unappealing for these use cases. In the early days of bitcoin where it was relatively easy to get anonymous bitcoins (by paying cash through unscrupulous dealers not paying attention to KYC rules), these would have made great use cases for bitcoin.
Now however, I feel like bitcoin doesn't provide relative anonymity over more traditional methods of payment.
I think there could still be a case for a new mail-like protocol that combines email and cryptocurrency for an email system which is both encrypted by default but also everyone sets a payment level for mail to reach them.
So I say "My Address is , pay at least 0.001 bitcoins to get mail through".
This system:
*Puts a direct cost on spam (therefore massively reducing it)
*ensures everyone owns private keys (so mail can be encrypted simply by knowing their address)
Sadly it won't happen, mail is too entrenched.
Interesting to see VCs like Chris Dixon desperately pumping Bitcoin in a last ditch effort to wipe the egg off their faces.
But while the price dropping is somewhat concerning, it is extraordinarily clear to anyone paying attention that BTC and crypto generally is growing in utility rapidly.
For context: I'm a fairly neutral observer who does not own Bitcoin. I do have USD on the Ripple ledger.
Nor can Bitcoin handle fast payments. It takes about an hour to get solid confirmation of a transaction, by which time the price of Bitcoins may have changed substantially. If you're selling anything that actually costs you money, you have to wait for some confirmations. One gambling site tried accepting unconfirmed transactions. People would bet, then, if they lost, double-spend to kill the payment.
A distributed digital currency without these problems is technically possible. That may be the currency that actually becomes useful for micropayments. Meanwhile, Bitcoin for vending machines, music tracks, and parking meters isn't going to happen.
Bitcoin can't handle micropayments. The block chain is limited to about 7 transactions per second, and every node has a full copy of the block chain, so traffic goes up roughly as the square of usage. There's a minimum fee for each transaction (if you want it confirmed in any reasonable length of time) and it's currently about $0.30. That's more than many merchants pay to process a credit card transaction. Nor can Bi…
Micro-gambling Peer-2-peer gambling Webcams The real wonder is why haven't any of the major players in these areas adopted it in any way. Curiously it is the payment provider industry who has paid it some attention, rather than any of these. Perhaps the traceable nature of bitcoin makes it unappealing for these use cases. In the early days of bitcoin where it was relatively easy to get anonymous bitcoins (by paying c…