Distributed exchanges have no weakness.
A Tor based exchange is not distributed, but I think the way to go.
That doesn't quite solve the problem. Who is holding the cash when the "send" button is pressed? If it's the bitcoin seller, then he can run away instead of hitting "send". And if it's the buyer, then he can run away the moment it's pressed. Sure, you may shout "stop the thief", but they're experienced in making a quick get-away...
How is this not seen as an outrageous problem?
Missed the part where I said that, perhaps you could point it out?
We are discussing a world where bitcoins are illegal, obviously the solution will be a bit sketchy.
I get paid in Bitcoin Cash and same with my employees.
Buy and sell goods for BCH. Why is there a need to convert to these papers, metals (, and cotton, etc)?
Don't see why I should pay above a 1c fee to send money from point A to point B.
Also do not understand why I must drive to an ATM where usually homeless people sleep.
Is this some kind of anonymous performance art? I have trouble believing that people like this really exist in a form that knows how to turn their computer on.
If it were as bad as you say, people would not be using it.
It doesn't matter what you expect, you cannot possibly predict the specific circumstances from region to region that could require someone to spend any length of time working on arrangements or traveling. What if you live outside of a city and have to spend 30 minutes driving alone?
> risk is largely removed by meeting in public
Demonstrably untrue. Meeting in public is obviously the absolute minimum precaution necessary when performing any kind of physical exchange, coming armed is even better, but that still doesn't stop people from being mugged in broad daylight. Even if we accept the "largely removed" risk of getting mugged, the reality is that most technologies pose 0 risk of mugging in practical use. There are also many other security risks, especially if you make a large transaction (e.g. you could be followed back to your home).
> If it were as bad as you say, people would not be using it.
Well, most people don't use it, otherwise the prices wouldn't be so high relative to online exchanges. LBC seriously sucks.
Predictions don't have to account for every edge case, my point is in the majority of cases the transaction should not take long. Longer drive times is the cost for living outside of the city, but I don't see why you couldn't just do the transaction when you do another trip(e.g. commuting).
> Demonstrably untrue. ... most technologies pose 0 risk of mugging in practical use
Escrow would be useful in this case. What technology has 0 risk for mugging? AFAIK you can force someone to perform some transaction at gun point. Followed back to your home is resolved by being aware of people following you, and frankly if you're transacting large sums of money, the types of attacks that are worth doing is immense.
> Well, most people don't use it,
Unimportant, it clearly has a userbase. Prices correspond with risk, doesn't seem unfair, and users are willing to pay for it.