The only innovations eBay has done in the past 2-3 years are innovative ways to charge you more money when you sell things using their service. Amazon is eating their lunch and they know it. I have sold 3x as much random junk from my house on Amazon than on eBay in recent times.
Please explain what you mean by "As of KitKat, Google search cannot be disabled". Disabled where? On the home screen? Yes it can. Google now? Yes it can be disabled. In Chrome? How about installing Firefox or Dolphin or one of dozens of other browsers?
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't know what you are talking about really but no one forces you to use Google services with any android device. Adding a google account is optional, and there are several app stores available.
How about you argue my original points instead of going off on an irrelevant sidetrack?
I could care less if your phone can run Skype or play games. What matters is it is possible for someone to make their phone 100% inoperable by trying to reinstall the OS. This is not true of a PC at all.
Because a phone is not a PC, that's why.
The bootloader of the phone lives on the same flash chip as the OS. For a moment let's just put aside the fact that recovering a phone from a bad flash using it's "download mode" is an arcane procedure involving special software that most people won't have. Beyond that, a failed flash of an OS can brick your phone in such a way that even the "download" mode of your phone does not work, and the only way to fix it is to crack open the phone and JTAG the memory directly.
This is not something an average consumer has experience with. You don't want your mom trying to flash a new ROM on her phone.
If it is legal in Washington couldn't Adams just have had his father transferred there? What could stop this legally?
Speak for yourself. I bought a vita for the SOLE PURPOSE of using it with Ps4 remote play. And thus far I find it amazing.
You know, a lot of people in here are complaining about in-flight cell use being annoying. But we have had in-flight wifi for awhile now, and you can use the phone over that service any number of ways. Is that being abused?
TO me, the solution is simple.. you enable the access, but you disallow people from making or taking voice calls via simple airline policy. Text only. This allows people to use their own text and data plans and keeps the annoyance factor to the same level as wifi.
Without the ability to conduct private cash-only transactions, a money system will never find success.
Aside from this, there are other things that will kill bitcoin in the long run as well, such as it's inability to make more of them to trigger price inflation. What a lot of people uneducated in economics see as a downside of fiat currency (inflation) is actually a much needed and necessary feature of a good currency. Using anything that has a fixed value store as a currency, such as gold or bitcoin, that can not have more printed of them has a lot of downsides that I don't have time to get into here. Suffice it to say it will never be adopted at a national level.
None of those things you put in your list will make using bitcoin anonymous.
They can make it HARDER to track, but with the right warrants and taps, it becomes totally possible to track, and in fact can be quite trivial with the right resources at your disposal. Compared to dollars, it is not even in the same ballpark.
If I walk into Walmart and buy something with a $10 bill, aside from in-store security cameras and other such things, there is ZERO WAY that that purchase can legally be tied to me. That is because my $10 is the same as anyone elses $10. This is not true of bitcoin. My bitcoin is not the same as your bitcoin. It is thus provable traceable. Sure, it will take work. But it is possible. Unlike current currency, where it is not possible, save an outside influence like security cameras.
That is totally irrelevant because of how the bitcoin network works. All of this "mixing" from wallet to wallet is all tracked and traceable. I can see that the coin went from user A to Silk Road and then to a bunch of random wallets and back out to user B, and user C who was the person who sold the item got a different one. It is all traceable. That is how the whole protocol is engineered. Without unique traceable transactions, bitcoin could not exist as a P2P system. The whole thing that makes bitcoin possible is also what makes it totally non-anonymous.
I just pre-ordered a Coin. I live in Canada where 100% of my credit cards and debit cards are Chip & PIN so this is of zero use to me from that angle. The whole reason I am getting it is so I can ditch all the damn loyalty cards. Day to day, I only carry around 1 credit card and 1 debit card - I have no need for more. But I have currently in my wally 4 different loyalty cards AND a gift card that I need to use. If Coin can take 4 loyalty cards and turn them into 1, then it is worth $50 to me. And this whole security discussion is thus a non issue because I really don't care if someone decides to steal my Aeroplan card... more points for me!
You say "I have a tough time believing that would work in court", when in fact IT WOULD, GUARENTEED, because that is how the proceeds of crime works in common law. If I steal your watch, and sell it on eBay, and the police can track down the guy that bought the watch - that watch can be siezed, and the guy who bought it is not entitled to anything in return from the police. If he wants anything back, he has to SUE the criminal in civil court. I see absolutely no reason exact same thing would happen with bitcoin transactions. Someone would have to explain to me exactly why they could not be siezed, because all logic tells me they can, and quite easily because they are so traceable.
The problem with BitCoin is it is nowhere near as anonymous as people think it is. In fact, it is even less anonymous than current currencies.
Consider the dollar. If I take a dollar in cash and deposit it in the bank, and transfer it to you, and you take it out of the bank - that dollar is now different. Those two dollars have different serial numbers. This is because in the eyes of the government, the law, and everyone under the sun, all individual dollars are the same and interchangeable - my dollar is as good as your dollar. This is what makes money laundering possible and why governments have a hard time battling it - it is pretty easy to funnel money from crime into another medium / person and "wash" the money in a way that makes it totally impossible to tie it to a specific crime, because all dollars are the same.
BitCoin is not like this. A bitcoin is a unique value and as it is passed from one wallet to another, that transaction is logged throughout the network. For any given bitcoin, you can trace the path of THAT SPECIFIC COIN from the time it was created to where it was today - seeing all of the wallets it passed through and what IP address owned that wallet at the time. All law enforcement needs to do to tie a specific bitcoin to a specific individual, for the purposes of an investigation, is to tie a wallet ID to an individual. Thus, any bitcoins used during the process of ANY CRIME are subject to seizure! I have never had anyone explain to me how to get around this problem with BitCoin. People have weird pseudo-anonymous hacks like "use ToR" or "Use a VPN", but all these things do is make it HARDER to tie an individual to a wallet, it is not impossible. In fact with the proper warrants and wire-taps it is trivial to tie a wallet to an individual.
You seem to be missing the connection that the money laundering laws are what contain the regulations forcing reporting limit in the first place. Without money laundering laws these regulations would not exist, because companies will not incurr the overhead cost for no reason. "If the money is traceable, it's traceable" - but without anti-money laundering laws, it would all be untraceable. That is the whole point of the laws.