mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX

[luckybit]

No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

People need money. BitUSD adoption can occur easily if you start paying your employees in BitUSD. Now they have BitUSD and no reason to put it in a centralized bank.

Just start finding excuses to give people BitUSD if you want it adopted. Stop expecting people to buy it.

[JoeyD]

I have to correct my earlier statement about bitcoincard having halted development. I just read an update by the dev-team also responsible for that project that that project is actually in the final stages where all hardware is built and they are in the testing/tweaking phase.

I also was not clear that they are the same devs responsible for the mycelium wallet and will probably use mobile phones for their meshnetwork projects as well.

Interesting project to keep track off, irrespective if they succeed or fail, it will provide some useful insights.

But carry on, I did not mean to interrupt the OT-discussion.

[arhag]

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

I think I finally understand your point of view. You don't care about Bitcoin or blockchain technology at all. You might still care about cryptocurrency in the sense of the push rather than pull model (meaning you sign specific transactions for specific amounts rather than giving away the keys to the kingdom with our current system of credit cards and ACH). What you want is essentially DPOS but where the number of delegates is exactly 1 (the corporation/government owning the system) and they cannot be voted in/out (hey that means you get faster confirmation times and better scalability than BitShares X!  ). Decentralization? Who needs it (according to you). Either you personally don't care about decentralization of power, or you believe the masses will never care about it despite the benefits it provides.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project.  I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies...  In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).

If you truly believe the masses won't ever care about decentralization of power, then yes you should get out of all crypto markets entirely (at least for the  long-term, you might still be able to make some money day trading if that is your thing).

Edit: By the way, here is the message we need to get out to the masses in order to get them interested in blockchain-based decentralized autonomous systems implementing cryptoassets:

The banking system is playing dangerous games with your wealth. We cannot rely on governments to properly regulate them because the governments are corrupt and in the pockets of these rich powerful banks. And yet, we are currently dependent on these banks to just live our lives and do basic business in the world. Getting out this system and just using cash is not a practical alternative in this new digital world; and besides that still is exposed to the risk of the central banks mismanaging the money supply (and I already discussed that we don't have good control over the corrupted governments in order to maintain control over the central bank policy). We, the people, need a good alternative. An alternative that by design is decentralized and therefore difficult to corrupt. An alternative that has important rules governing the financial system encoded in incorruptible software, and with astronomically expensive barriers to change those software rules without the consent of the masses. Blockchain technology provides that alternative. And out of all implementations that exist today, BitShares is the only one that provides adequate decentralization for extremely low cost, and it also provides: many essential features you are already used to with the current financial system such as price stability, fast transactions, and security of your holdings (eventually provided via multisig security companies); all the great capabilities other cryptocurrencies also have such as the ability to choose the arbiter (via multisig) who decides on charge backs in case one party failed to deliver on their promise, the ability to make transactions without having to give all your private transaction details to a third-party like a credit/debit card company, the ability to take back control of your wealth even if the third-party security providers disappear, and the ability to make payments to individuals/organizations you want without easy restriction by governments (obviously, the government can technically make anything illegal even if it is difficult to enforce, so act at your own risk); and finally, certain features currently unique to BitShares such as storing the value of a physical asset, like gold or oil, without counterparty risk, and high yields on non-volatile currencies just sitting in your digital vault (much higher than the interest rates you can get from your checking account in a traditional bank).

If you still think the masses won't eventually care about adopting cryptocurrencies (and in particular ones implementing BitShares technology, regardless of who the equity is distributed to), then I have nothing else to say to you. If that is how you think, then the rational strategy from your perspective really is to just get out of the crypto markets.

[Method-X]

Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people.  BUT, credit cards already offer that!  So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument.  Maybe there won't be mass adoption...

Bitcoin isn't meant for our moms or our grandparents. To them, it offers no value. I think where you and I differ is our view on how mass adoption will play out. Crypto is ideally suited for the black and grey markets. Hell, I was introduced to Bitcoin while trying to buy LSD online. I remember thinking to myself "this is totally going to be the undergrounds currency of choice". Turns out black market adoption wasn't what I had anticipated because of volatility and the lack of privacy.

The size of the global black market is estimated to be 1,829 billion dollars per year. And then theres remittances, the "unbanked billions", swiss bank accounts aren't what they used to be and a host of other use cases Bitcoin would be absolutely ideal for, if only it weren't for its massive volatility.

All the things we thought Bitcoin would be great at but wasn't, suddenly make sense with BitUSD.

Most people don't care about being their own bank.  In fact they would prefer not to be.

This is more an argument against crypto in general. For the above mentioned reasons, I think there are a ton of people who DO want to be their own bank. And when a financial crisis hits, the likes of which the words has never seen, maybe even mom and grandpa will see the value in being their own bank.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Seems we do agree on something then; crypto sure ain't for mom and dad. Black markets, grey markets, remittances, unbanked, swiss bank accounts, etc, etc, etc. There will be plenty of demand for a stable and private crypto.

[oco101]

Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

I tend to agree that to have mass adoption it will be very difficult indeed, you right about that.
I think people are coming wherever there are money to be made. That's one of the reasons why, I'm thinking, the market behind BitshareX can attract a lots of people, maybe not the average Joe not at the beginning at least. One step at the time. Forex is 5 trillions dollars, how many average Joe do you know that are trading there ?

There is one thing tough that could attract masses of people and that is Bitshare Music. In my opinion this is the blockchain that could get massive adoption right away. Average Joe will not need to deal with bitcoin,btsx, blockchain cryposuff he'll just use it.  Bitshare Music it is the perfect way to educate people to the beauty of blockchain .  That of course if Bitshare Music would be working as intended, if the execution it perfect and if there will be enough money after IPO that they could deliver the best experience for the user. 

[fussyhands]

I just don't understand your point of view at all.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees

To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.

Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people.  BUT, credit cards already offer that!  So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument.  Maybe there won't be mass adoption...

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.

Well all the VC money is flowing to web wallets (Circle, Coinbase, Xapos) so there are a lot of experienced people who totally disagree with you, including me.  Most people don't care about being their own bank.  In fact they would prefer not to be.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project.  I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies...  In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).

[Method-X]

I just don't understand your point of view at all.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees

To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.

[nomoreheroes7]

Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

Guess what we already have banks too. Go get yourself an bank account ......Bitcoin what the heck we need that!!!!
Since when you are trading CNY in stock/commodity exchange ??

Not to mention the fees for e*trade:

Min. Initial Deposit
 $500.00 

Stock Trading
 $9.99 per trade
 $7.99 per trade, if you make over 600 trades per year 

Options Trading
 $9.99 per trade + $0.75 per contract
 $7.99 per trade + $0.75 per contract, if you make over 50 trades per year 

Pretty sure BTSX would have that beat.

[oco101]

Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

Guess what we already have banks and money  too. Go get yourself an bank account ......Bitcoin what the heck we need that!!!!
Since when you are trading CNY in stock/commodity exchange ??

[fussyhands]

No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees.  When margins are only 2-3% to begin with, those 2-3% processing fees can make a HUGE difference to profitability.  To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

Average Joe will use Bitcoin to get those discounts.  And also to feel safer from identity theft.

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Eliminating the global 3% tax on card payments seems important.  Eliminating fees for stock trading... not so much.  I have a tradeking account.  In my whole life I've probably paid less than a few hundred dollars in trading fees.  Getting rid of those isn't transformative disruption.

[fussyhands]

Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register.

A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.

Ummm...no.  Bitpay is free:  https://bitpay.com/pricing.  A $300/month business account adds *phone* support.  I'm pretty sure Bitshares X will not offer phone support for free.

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button

Unless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.
Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found.  A guy for China or Greece has no access to it . 

Take a look at the "Locks" that coinapult offers today:  https://coinapult.com/locks/info.  Circle has discussed adding a similar feature.  Circle is going international:  http://www.coindesk.com/circle-global-launch/.

Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ? 

I think users are very comfortable with the idea of insured deposits.  Remember: libertarian cryptonerds are not the mainstream.  Most people just want something easy to use with a stamp of approval.

You seems to underestimate the power of  bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without  the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees.  This has so much value even without yield. 

Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

[Method-X]

No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

[oco101]

Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register.

A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button

Unless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.
Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found.  A guy for China or Greece has no access to it .  Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ? 

You seems to underestimate the power of  bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without  the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees.  This has so much value even without yield. 

 Bitshare X versatility it is unparalleled because is decentralized and is universal(no Circle need it). Anything could be pegged that's extremely practical, imagine some things are only of interest in some country if there is enough demand you can put it on the market right way, with  no wait.

If you invest in bitcoin you expect to make money if the price it goes up. If you invest in Bitshare X  you can make money on so many ways.

Bitcoin stopped innovating a long time ago. Bitshares X is just getting started.

And yes P2Pool could help Bitcoin but very unlikely to happen : https://blockchain.info/pools

So yeah we don't really know how all will pan out but I believe there are enough advantages in favor of Bithsare X  that, even for ignorant user perspective, are enough to make it more attractive then bitcoin ecosystem.

[fussyhands]

Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved.  Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...

You have skipped a much bigger problem of mesh networks. They can only operate efficiently if the principle of locality applies to the nodes' communication behaviour. Otherwise, the nodes closest to the high speed internet access have to carry not only their own traffic, but also the traffic of all the other nodes in their downline. Unfortunately, internet traffic today does not meet that criteria.

In practice I don't think that is a big problem.  Modern WiFi can connect at a gigabit, 1000Mbs, whereas most broadband is stuck below 100Mbs, frequently well below that at 50Mbs, 25Mbs or even 10Mbs.

That means there is a lot of room for inefficiency in the last mile WiFi mesh network before it becomes the bottleneck.  90% of the throughput of a 1000Mbs connection could be wasted with inefficient mesh routing and the bottleneck would still be the 50Mbs broadband connection.

And even at 50Mbs, most people's broadband connections sit idle 95% of the day.  Even when they are actively web surfing the connections are mostly idle.  (The only time they might be maxing out their connection over a long period of time is when they are streaming movies or downloading torrents.)  So there is A LOT of bandwidth to share.

Given the above, it's not clear to me how inefficiency due to low locality will be a problem.

[pc]

Mesh networks have a critical problem that has yet to be resolved.  Mesh networks depend on wide spread participation to be effective ...

You have skipped a much bigger problem of mesh networks. They can only operate efficiently if the principle of locality applies to the nodes' communication behaviour. Otherwise, the nodes closest to the high speed internet access have to carry not only their own traffic, but also the traffic of all the other nodes in their downline. Unfortunately, internet traffic today does not meet that criteria.