Topic: The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin - page 12. (Read 19978 times)

I would go, but its $2200!

Since the security is in the hardware device, I'm sure there will be a limit on the value of each transaction. Also, expect every coin to keep a full history of the bank account it was originally created from, the devices it traveled to in the meantime, and the bank account it was later deposited to.

This means that unlike Bitcoin, if you ever funded your MintChip from you bank account, all your operations on that device will become trackable by the central bank. It's not clear as of yet if one will be able to purchase MintChips anonymously, or there would be some kind of forced "activation" where the devices is tied to your bank account, thus obliterating any trace of privacy. I'll put my money on the later.

No merchant is under any obligation to accept legal tender.
Legal tender requirements only apply to debts.

Still why would US govt want to start Bitdollar when they can just keep printing trillions and trillions of increasingly worthless dollars.

Of course they could inflate the currency - they can change the software/protocol any time and require everyone to update.

Yes, a hard backed Bitcoin alternative could be set up quite easily. But then the government couldn't inflate the currency. What incentive would a government have to do it? The goodness of their heart?

You know, this really gets me thinking - what if the US gov were to start Bitdollar?  They just have to require all merchants (in the US) to accept it as legal tender.  Seems like Bitcoin would immediately become irrelevant as Bitdollar would quickly be adopted world-wide.

A hard backed Bitcoin alternative would be pretty easy to setup I think. All you need is to remove the coin generation, and start the initial block with a ridiculously large amount of money. So the Canadian Mint holds the private keys to 10 trillion BTC. These could possibly be timelocked as well, so they absolutely cannot go into circulation all at once. Then they have an open contract to sell anyone funds from their huge reserve of BTC in exchange for equivalent CAD which they will remove from circulation, and they also agree to buy back these BTC for the locked away (or freshly minted) CAD.

Hopefully, MintChip will be even better than Interac e-Transfers for buying bitcoins with canadian dollars.

The options for depositing/withdrawing on CaVirtex are quite limited by my bank.

This is a good thing for bitcoin. Canada's backing will put MintChip into many stores as a payment option. Exchange between MintChip and Bitcoin will be easier than any other fiat currency with its irrevocable electronic transactions, anyone will be able to start an exchange without having to rely on paypal or other processors. Essentially we could end up with a system like:
MintChip = checking account
Bitcoin = savings account

I'm not so sure.

One thing this, and Bitcoin too, has shown me is that money is changing -- it no longer needs to be local to gain adoption. People are going to look for whatever is most convenient to exchange and is the best store of value, two key functions of "money". In the past, since people and economies were separated physically, and money was/is physical, the local currency would win by default.

With the Internet this is no longer the case. Now it comes down to the nitty gritty. Currency systems will compete globally. And since software can be the same anywhere, the money that wins will be what people agree has the best value.

Inflated paper currencies are on their way out. They are about to self-destruct anyway, but even if not they represent old technology. Globalized e-currency will be what is next.

However, just as the Internet enables better money systems it will allow people to get better at identifying them. Information is no longer encapsulated and unavailable to the uninformed. It won't be easy or perhaps even possible for currencies to be inflated without being severely devalued. I believe the world will identify gold and silver as a benchmark. These metals have been recognized as valuable as money for thousands of years, and are not inflationary. I doubt that will change.

I think people will maintain a physical store of gold/silver as savings, and convert them to the winning e-currency(ies) as needed. Bitcoin, with its transparent, verifiable cap at 21 million coins, and authority-less features, will have obvious value. The governmental/regulatory environment that springs up around it will determine what role it plays in everyday mainstream use.

On the other hand, currency like this MintChip is novel as the first e-currency sponsored by a government. What they do with it remains to be seen, but it appears they are looking to inflate it. The only clue we have is from the CEO who commented it would be "backed by a fund". Not backed by gold or silver (which could be surreptitiously inflated anyway), but backed by a fund. That leads me to believe it won't go very far with acceptance.

EDIT: Here is more reading I found on MintChip. It appears there is more in store from them April 17th.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/canadian_news/2012/03/15/3426.html

+10

MintChip is DOA: Dead on Arrival

and with official currencies too and still they don't learn 

Exactly. And compete it shall!

Thread title is inaccurate. It's not an alternative to Bitcoin because MintChip is centralized and requires trust in one entity. It's a competitor, however, because it competes on an electronic functionality level.

Ironically, they're getting burned and burned time and time again with decentralization too.

yup, way ahead i'm afraid. There will come lots of centralized versions of digital currencies by powerful players first that probably also have the resources to provide a strong network effect. People will have to get burnt time and time again until they learn the value of decentralization.

Standards are like testicles: Every dick has 2.

+1 for double standards!!

This is a clear sign that Bitcoin is ahead of it's time and we should be stressing this point (and pointing out the clear difference that MintChip still requires trust in a government).