It's interesting that you feel the discussion can be advanced by reposting the study that Firefly referenced (post #107) over 4 weeks ago. I'll give you the same answer as I gave him. The data that their study was based off comes from as far back as 2009! Bitcoin is in its infancy now - it was very much in the darkest corners of the web in 2009!
I do agree with them on this point => "The illegal share of bitcoin activity declines with mainstream interest in bitcoin". And that's exactly where it's at. Dark web activity aligned itself with Bitcoin in the earlier days. Not so much more recently (they're more likely to use a privacy coin) and as a proportion of activity, that continues to become less significant.
90% of US Dollar Bills have been found to have traces of cocaine on them whilst no more than 10% of drug consumers have used the dark web. Ergo, the traditional means through which illicit substances are purchased remains the US dollar.
Tell us more about this 'industry review', Leo? What 'industry'? Who reviewed it.
As regards 'peer review' - you mean other academics 'peer reviewed' the paper of other academics? You don't say. That really sets it over and above every other paper that has ever been published.
Why is it that researchers at MIT - in a study that has just been published - couldn't find this level of illicit activity?
Over and above all that, governments around the world have banned things that should never be banned.
- The U.S. used its influence to dictate to paypal, visa and others to cut wikileaks off some years ago - so that it could be starved of funding and be killed off. Bitcoin was the only option open to it- and it saved the day. Nobody can come calling to 'bitcoin' to try and influence it - as there's no central office.
- Governments and regimes ban all kinds of stuff they have no business banning. Crypto could have been handy back in the 70's here when condoms were banned. There are publications banned - worldwide - by different countries - whether due to religiously extremist policy or politically extremist policy, etc.
- Is it wrong for a citizen in Iran or Venezuela to use Bitcoin in order to get round sanctions and buy medicines, etc? Sanctions impact real people much more than governments.
So...whilst I'm onboard that payments for illicit goods generally is a bad thing, don't assume that it always is. Furthermore, don't deprive society of something progressive on the basis of some fight against a percentile that use that tool for nefarious means. That's akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I mean, I don't agree with you that this will be its only use - far from it in my opinion and as I've outlined previously, it has found far more significant use cases that continue to grow. On price, any price above a few grand means its a success. Price speculation is a show all of its own - opinions vary on it and I keep an open mind and accept that all is possible depending upon how things unfold.And that's why I think Bitcoin will not fall to zero. It's great for the criminal world.
That said, your view here puts you in a different category to other naysayers who maintain that it's going to vanish completely. Congratulations on realising that Bitcoin is here to stay (even if you have arrived at that realisation based on incorrect rationale).
That's not true. Amazon itself doesn't support Bitcoin directly - that much is true. However, having signed up with that third party payments processor, you can and it's childsplay to do so.You can't buy anything from Amazon using Bitcoin.
YOU don't have to convert jack. You sign up with the third party processor - and run their browser extension. You then open your account on Amazon and you pay as you normally would. The conversion is instantaneous and automatic. What's more - the third party processor don't custody those funds in the few seconds the transaction is made.You have to firstly convert Bitcoin to real money.
You've seen the demo video I linked to. It's not easier - it's childsplay. Furthermore, what I didn't clarify is that having a Coinbase account is not essential. It's one of two options. Having a lightning wallet is the other option - which doesn't require any account opening or KYC/AML, etc.The Chrome plug-in you reference makes this easier
Sure you could - have at it, Firefly. I mean, I think you'll find that the 'stamps' would have to be digital - and then once you realise that, you'd see that they would have to have the ability to facilitate smart contracts - so hmm...lets see...it would need to be another crypto - but yes, absolutely - all day long - you could.if someone could develop a similar plug-in for converting my stamps to cash I could claim the same thing, that I can buy anything on Amazon using stamps.
As an aside, I assume you have a credit card denominated in one type of unsound money -> Euro. If you buy something online from a UK vendor, chances are you will pay for it in another form of unsound money -> £GBP. Visa/Mastercard will do that conversion - and you don't have any issue with that, right?
I think you are forgetting where we started out with this. Leo claimed that nothing could be bought with Bitcoin. I agree that it has been a long time difficulty and that development on that front has been sluggish. However, a tiny bit of innovation and the market has been enabled so that 353 million products are available to anyone who wants to spend Bitcoin. Furthermore, that company plan on rolling this out to a whole host of platforms - naturally enough starting with the next biggest such as Walmart, Ebay and Alibaba.
Now, would it be better if Amazon provided direct support - absolutely. From the viewpoint of onboarding newcomers, it would be far better. However, for those of us already participating in the Bitcoin economy, the reality is that we can purchase anything we want off that platform seamlessly. Quite soon, we'll be able to buy off all major platforms.