Topic: ChainLock your online accounts using a bitcoin address - page 2. (Read 2179 times)

Users are not paying the miner fee to access their account. They are paying a miner fee to lock/unlock a feature of their account, such as withdrawals.  How many times do you make a withdrawal/transfer from a savings account to a checking account... from cold storage to hot wallet?  Not very often. And so users are paying a very small fee to ensure their accounts are locked down tight. Your example of $9000 in an account... paying 16 cents to even 50 cents a month... to make sure NO ONE can access your account?

There is no need to wait for confirmation of the bitcoin transaction. The unconfirmed transaction will hit the blockchain within a matter of seconds... less than a minute. Waiting for a transaction to confirm only matters when a user is concerned with a double spending issue... this is not an issue with ChainLock... no one cares about double spending 25 cents.  If you watch the demo video, you will see that the account is locked/unlocked in a matter of seconds.

There is no middleman. The bank (for example) is the server that will implement the idea. There is no trusting of bitcoin to anyone. Each user has control of their bitcoins just like they have control using a wallet application.

if a bank wants a bitcoin based 2FA they will use their own internal blockchain explorer and ask their own customers to add a public key for the bank to watch.
the business plan:
banks/services wont pay a licence fee to a company who requires access to peoples account to control what an account can or cant do.
that alone is already a breach of customers terms of use of all banks and many other services. even if you update your business plan so its just an API request access. this is still a middleman security flaw.

though the concept of using bitcoin funds is more user-friendly compared to bitID's requirement of copy/pasting a message and then copy/pasting a signature. there are flaws in your business plan

trying to patent this form of 2FA to then licence it, is a failure. you are failing the open source ethos of bitcoin by making a barrier of use. especially if you end up trying to sue anyone that uses bitcoin transactions/addresses as a method of authentication to log into services to hold up your 'licence'. is a big no no..
there are other flaws to your business plan.. but i wont digress further

any service wanting a bitcoin based 2FA wont buy into a licence scheme especially for just 10 lines of code they can create and run themselves.

dont get me wrong, good 2FA security concept.. but bad business plan.
using bitcoin for any reason is open licence. sorry

I agree with what Franky is stating and the response to him just points to why people should be weary of this business. Its bad tact
to insult people that are actually reading this advertisement that is actually in the wrong forum to boot.
You are asking people to "Please believe..." and that is sketchy as hell,when we are talking about you acting as the secure link in transactions. Finally it does matter if people have doubts and you should be working to address the doubts rather than tossing them to the side because you believe the product is superior. You need to work harder on talking to the customer,as you are coming off in a manner that is raising multiple red flags.

The main issue I have is you did not explain why Franky is wrong and I would like to see you address this.

Howard, that is a very bold statement to make.. Why would I have to pay US$ 0.28 or whatever amount with miners fees to access my

accounts? The 0.28 cents... adds a lot of extra cost, on top of all other banking fees for people with much less money, than the $9000 you

have in your account. This type of charging additional fees to access your account are typical of fiat banking systems, not Bitcoin.  ... I

do not even want to go to scenarios where confirmations takes 2 hours. 

I agree and its more of a Security issue here. How much do you trust for your bitcoin account for that middlemen?Though the idea is good, but people are hesitant to trust their bitcoin to anybody.

Thanks for the comments.

The last two commenters asked for more details, and we encourage people to watch our demo video which provides a good overview of the basic concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wgHyOxJf9Y&t=135s

The first commenter seems like a person that immediately assumes he understands everything about anything, and why it won't be adopted.

Please believe that ChainLock is easily the best security product on the market today.  We have explained the difference between simple public/private key authentication such as BitID and SQRL as compared to ChainLock here:

http://chaintightsecurity.com/content/

It doesn't matter whether a few people have doubts. It's just a matter of time before the entire Internet adopts ChainLock as the standard for locking online accounts.

Concept seem quite interesting but not clearly explained in first post, i think if you can also add few screenshots with working demo link on how this platform works it will be helpful to understand.

I find this interesting however I do not know know much about this.  Please explain more about this or tell me where I can go to read more about this chainlock and see if it is something I can use myself.  Thank you in advance.

as a concept of EG bank of america themselves monitoring a key(as a 2FA), is a step forward compared to the BitID concept.
where you no longer need to sign a message and paste it each time.
thus making it easier to prove authentication quicker.

but the flaw is giving chainlock your "account" login where you use chainlock as the middlemen. and they control the account.

sorry.. but um, nah.
i think bank of america will do their own bitcoin 2fa without "chainlock" as middlemen thus remove a security flaw (middlemen)

good use of furthering and enhancing the bitID concept. but trying to make a business as being a middleman will be the downfall.
there is a reason banks dont use facebook as a login and google 2fa..
middlemen are a security flaw.

i can however see a bank or service incorporate the concept directly under their own self monitoring.

ChainTight Security has introduced ChainLock, a product that allows users to lock all or part of an online account using a bitcoin address.

An account is locked by transferring a small amount of bitcoin into the address, and the account is unlocked by transferring bitcoin out of the address.

A user can check the status of their account (locked/unlocked) simply by checking the balance of their bitcoin address without needing to log into their account.

There are also several enhanced features that ensure the security of a user's online account.

You can view tutorial videos of ChainLock here:

http://chaintightsecurity.com/content

Imagine how much bitcoin will explode if used not just as a store of value (digital gold)... not just a currency... but also an authentication protocol for all of the banks, equity markets, exchanges, etc. As people engage bitcoin as an authentication protocol, they will begin to understand ALL of the benefits of bitcoin.