Topic: [ANN] The world's first handheld Bitcoin device, the Ellet! - page 18. (Read 45664 times)

Perhaps CCM is referring to this section of the OP:

If the intention is to follow Apple's "crystal prison" business model, I would want nothing to do with this device. 

"Introducing... the One Point Five system! Three halves to be 1.5 times as secure! Coming to a pocket near you, as long as you have a good memory."

So the seed has 3 halves?  Sounds complicated.

Apple will be implementing their own version of the bitcoin software on their devices, and only let you spend it on approved products and services. They wouldn't give that up to the likes of us.

2 words: kicked out

Two words - App Store 

In 6 months you'll know more.
Printed with smudgy ink

Such ambition! I can't wait

Wow, where can I buy some equity in this Matthew guy? He is quite an entrepreneur.

Load everything from from microsd card or paper

Store half of seed on the device, and other half on the paper and the other half is your password you manually type in.

or store nothing on the device, store half the seed on paper(QRcode or microsd card) and the other half in your brain that you manually type in upon wanting to load.
(This is obviously not the one size fits all solution as everyone has different security preferences but since we are down this road)

nothing on it -> can't make ecdsa signatures -> can't send bitcoins.
something on it -> hackable/stealable/cheatable -> can send bitcoins.
seed-on-paper approach -> steal paper.

I believe it, its very feasible to have Ellet device not store anything at all and still be able to send bitcoins. Thus in the event of a stolen ellet device there is nothing on it to steal. The wallet seed could be stored by some other means(laminated paper, manually typing it in, or inserting and SD card,etc) and when the ellet device user is ready to send they load it up(This level of security is obviously for only people that hold alot of BTC in their device and/or use it for business transactions)

do you even self believe that? Anything, can be hacked. I don't care about nice and funky hardware features: it will be broken, FAST.

I want to go on record in stating that I don't dislike the name because of the way it sounds or looks (in fact, I'm intrigued by the word), but  I am against naming the product such from a marketing standpoint. Unless the domain ellet.com is own by the team, of which I seriously doubt,


then that fact alone makes it dead-in-the-water, I believe, coupled with the following: https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=14&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ellet  =  About 2,120,000 results (0.15 seconds). That's the point I was trying to bring home.

In no way were my earlier posts meant as humor toward the product or Matthew. I was simply intrigued with the product and desire to see it succeed, but with proper branding. The product alone will have an uphill battle, so why add improper SEO into the mix, starting with the product's name.

Allow me to illustrate:

Bob: Nice product you have there. What is it?
Alice: It's an Ellet. I never have to carry any forms of money again, for it's all safely stored on my portable cloud.
Bob: Neat! How do you spell that?
Alice: E-L-L-E-T.
Bob: Great! Simple enough. I'll look it up when I get home. (or search on his smartphone when he has more time)
BoB: (later that same day, he searches for Ellet, remembering the spelling) What the fuck! So many results. Maybe I spelled it wrong. I don't have time for this. Too bad Alice was a stranger, or I would call her to get some more information about that great Ellet thing she had. Damn it!

Now, I hope that the above drives home the important point I've been trying to relay.

Later, Matthew.

~Bruno~

"Trust but Verify" is my motto. 

Here's a scenario for you.  I receive a paper check from a customer for $1,000 for services rendered.  I take a picture of said check with my smartphone, and it deposits that money into my bank account.  After ACH clearing that night, the next day I walk into my local bank and withdraw said $1,000.

This is a service supplied by several large US banks.  Personally my tin foil hat is just as large as yours appears to be and won't let me utilize this service, but vast numbers of the public do.


Hence my opinion that the time/energy/money being spent here would be better spent making the software and then hardening software/infrastructure etc.  If Chase Bank can [pay some developers to] do it, surely some group here in Bitcoinia (word?) can do it as well or better.

Can the owner specify the server it will connect to, and eventually set up his own?

Very true, but the original argument was whether a user paid specifically for fraud protection, perhaps as a line item. Not where the funds to cover it came from. I am not disputing that banks create money or at least do so indirectly by getting funds from the fed.

I see, so if I use the bitcoin wallet instead am I going to get those extra interest payments from the wallet company instead of having them held by the bank?  And then I can pay for my insurance with them?

I think i might stick that in meh sig.... well said!

The original question was whether or not the fraud protection provided by banks was free or not. It is not free because the resources the bank uses to refund your money in the event of a stolen card, for example, are resources they aren't using to pay you a higher interest rate on your deposits or provide other services. Likewise, deposit insurance is not free.

People who think the resources which are used to provide certain services in the traditional banking system magically appear out of thin air are going to be confused about why it doesn't work the same way in a Bitcoin economy.