Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the core of the analogy is not in the security itself, but in the user experience.

Unless you trust a third party, carrying a Bitcoin wallet with you becomes a hassle -- you have to set up software to pay from a given PC, and if you move between a lot of devices, you have to assume even your private keys for your wallet may be compromised.

I think at least when it comes to the experience, people would like to have BTC operations as seamless as sending money via their internetbanking or paying with a debit card.

BTC then becomes less useful if you still need a large entity to trust so you have a pleasant experience sending and receiving money. (Useful still, but less so.)



The usability is a huge and totally valid critisism, though I don't think for the reason you suggest. You can use software to allow you to sync keys between your devices. I use 1password - that's a fairly minor usability hurdle.

More of an issue is the bitcoin client software itself. It's a usability disaster. From every point of view - it's hard to use / understand for the layman. But even as someone technically minded, it's hard to figure out what you need from the software to manage your wallet. Given that all you need to keep your coins safe is a tiny bit of text that you can take with you - why is it so hard to get it out and in to the client software?

Edit: for a layperson the 1password hurdle is a lot bigger so you're right about how that's a major usability issue.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: