Security is not a problem, the problem is the people that are using bitcoin are lousy in keeping their credentials safe. I don't know what to say about the second part though. In my opinion, the biggest problem that bitcoin needs to solve is the network speed and the transactions speeds.

If we are speaking about the problems then please add this to your list

#3 The Crazy Fees for the bitcoin transaction. What the heck man, the prices for fees are soaring like hell fire. 
So to spend my $ 150 from mycelium account with "Normal" speed (=still takes 2 hours to confirm) and this costs me -$23. How do I suppose to love bitcoin if the fees kept soaring like this ?

Security and fungibility comes after this. If I dont even like BTC for my transactions then why would I be thinking about other stuff beforehand.  However, I am still bitcoin holder, but devs need to think about this for sure.

1. then don't reused bitcoin address, or used a tumbling service.

2. Wasabi and Conjoin could be a good to obfuscate dirty history, several hops from the source.

I think it's not bitcoin's problem at all, in any case there are 'services' like I mentioned above that can help address the issue if someone thinks that this is really a big problem for bitcoin users.

I think this is indeed the main feature of blockchain technology that satoshi introduced from the start. Anonymity is not the main ultimate offering of bitcoin creation.

Everyone can only track it, but bitcoin is still yours and only you can control it.

Problem?
What problem is that I'm sending my cousin 1BTC even if somehow somebody manages to link my address to my person?
Besides, when receiving payments from somebody you can always use a new address and coin control, there is no "problem" that stops you from doing anything. Besides, since you mentioned banks, your transactions are there forever, link not only directly by your name but all of them with all the names of your recipients and senders and real-life addresses, one single security failure and things far worse than a tx id wil be known by everyone on this planet.


By who? The avengers?
Stop with the drama, no authority will seek blacklisting wallets as that is a futile attempt, the real way of trying to create a blockade for "tainted" coins would be to whitelist addresses as it's far easier.


Monero is doing so, how is its path to becoming great with all the discussions about it getting delisted from exchanges?

And if you're really concern about the problem of anonymity, then the pretty obvious and simple is in my signature.

I'd swap Security with Privacy instead, because the problem you're trying to detail is pretty much a privacy-related one. I fully agree that fungibility and privacy are two things Bitcoin is missing, yet I really do not see these coming through future updates unless MW somehow gets into BTC .. which is quite unlikely imo.

The news about XMR getting delisted was an overreaction to what Bittrex has done imo. It wasn't even that Bittrex had to remove the coin or anything - I'm not sure exactly on which news site I read this, but AFAIK, the XMR delisting from their exchange was a personal choice. Ever since, nothing negative has happened to XMR ... in fact, Grayscale wouldn't have thought about Monero had it been a bad choice from a legal perspective. XMR is perfectly fine from a legal standpoint. The fact that governments hate it when we deny surveillance is a different subject...

Privacy is needed. If we have a problem with XMR, I guess we should have a problem with cash as well since it does respect our privacy and it gets closer to what Monero does than Bitcoin.. it's kinda mind-boggling how we've reached the point where not only "tainted coins" are gonna be a reality soon (they partially are, if we consider those exchanges banning mixers/coinjoins) but we're also ignoring the fact that Bitcoin is a great tool for financial surveillance since the average person will not spend their time making sure no personal information gets leaked when they're transacting with BTC... coin control, mixers, CoinJoins etc - they're all extra steps and a lot of newbies come here wrongfully thinking they're going to be anonymous when the reality is pretty much the opposite!

Now one thing I'm wondering is... why are we not improving Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy? Is it that we're scared of the governments' reaction to it? Wasn't Bitcoin released as a counterattack against the fiat system? What are we scared for precisely? If Bitcoin anonymity is an issue, then what's the difference between that and using CoinJoins/Mixers?

Another quite interesting/funny thing is.. Binance blocks coins coming from mixers/coinjoins, yet XMR can easily be deposited without issues. This further proves that the more we comply to what the government wants, the more they'll make it sound like privacy is a bad thing. They literally want to say that if you want to be anonymous on a public blockchain, you're a suspect.. while using XMR does not make you one since it has privacy on by default. That's how I take it.. otherwise, where's the logic?

Although you can own bitcoins with immune access to equipment, even if they are traceable, that doesn't mean you are being watched. because the article is to open access, you only need to strengthen your wallet defense.
Well, the problem is we don't use one address for multiple transactions, because that would obviously be a prone thing to pay attention to. The most serious problem remains on shipping costs. even though it is worth the price of bitcoin, but a few satoshi saved will be completely useless when you are charged high fees and slow transaction times. So for that solving 1 bitcoin is the solution and we want the shipping costs to be reduced.

No, it wasn't and people should really stop creating themselves reasons as to why Bitcoin was created for. Satoshi only once used the term fiat money and while talking about the government he actually went against a phrase that claimed the same as you:


Bitcoin was created as a p2p payment system, nothing more, it wasn't meant as something to replace fiat, to replace banks, to topple governments to end poverty, or bring a new world order with the rule of the reptilians. People have high expectations from a piece of code, it is nothing more than a tool that can be used as long as conditions for it are met, simple as that, and acceptance for this is at an individual level.

Bitcoin needs user-friendly dapps, fast transaction and low fees. I think it will come very soon, after investors are setting their sights on bitcoin. Which summarizes that there is interest in creating capital with bitcoin and there will be more users bitcoiners.
Despite everything, we are fortunate to know bitcoin with its weaknesses and virtues, not everything is bad, the improvements that bitcoin users need will have to come for massive adoption.

If you need privacy, use an altcoin; Bitcoin is not designed to be anonymous in the first place. Satoshi made it clear in the whitepaper that the privacy aspect comes from the fact that it is not linked to any identity. Bitcoin cannot achieve perfect privacy without a radical protocol change, transparency is a core element of Bitcoin. If we've had so much resistance over block size, then I bet there'll be even more when it concerns privacy. Not sure if he didn't predict Blockchain analysis or if he didn't think there was an appropriate solution for it.

Unless you can:
1. Make a good proposal to change the network in a manner that preserves its privacy without radical protocol changes.
2. Convince everyone that this is a good idea.

I can't see how Bitcoin would improve on privacy especially when there are far more important things to focus on first. I don't think you can have any privacy without being conscious about it, Tor has integrated loads of features to improve on the privacy but there is really nothing that Tor can do if the user makes any mistakes. Privacy is far more of a users habit and being overly reliant on Bitcoin/altcoins to provide you with the said privacy gives most user a false sense of security.

So what if it is tainted. Most of your coins are infact tainted to some extent, either intentionally or inadvertently. If you want to restrict use of tainted coins, then I'll consider it as a form of government policy to discourage the adoption of Bitcoin. "Taint" is a fundamental concept that is flawed and any businesses who enforces that should be avoided (like Coinbase ), because obviously if they're willing to trace your deposits, then they probably don't care about your privacy at all.

Using a mixer does not mean that you're participating in illicit activities. If your exchange restrict this, then I would advise you to perhaps switch to another one.