The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin - page 7.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Just found an ass-long read, and I'm still reading, but wanted to share the link nonetheless: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3797977

One thing I learned:

Quote

One thing that you might not know is that in Canada, we don't have "debit cards" per se, but INTERAC cards, which can't be used for online purchases. This means that you must use a credit card for online purchases, which makes online transactions prohibitive for people who don't want or otherwise can't have credit card (i.e. kids).

Quote

Bitcoins don't have IDs - it's only amounts being transferred between addresses. If I have 5BTC in my wallet, I have no way to differentiate between let's say the 0.01 "canadian" and the 4.99 ordinary BTC. i could not specify which ones to send in a transaction.

That said, if MintCoin gains momentum I'm sure there will be plenty of MC-BTC exchanges popping up.

~Bruno~

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Yeah it is called astroturfing. The good news is most astroturf attempts fail when the money stops. Everyone has a budget ... well I am not sure that applies to central banks given they can just print more money.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

One thing that strikes me as very odd, is the amount of marketing and press releases put forward into MintChip, even though the service isn't readily available. If you Google both words, MintChip & Bitcoin (without quotes), you'll be surprised by the total search results.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/05/royal-canadian-mint-aims-to-kickstart-digital-currency-with-mint/

Quote

Bitcoin may not have yet grown much beyond a relatively small base of enthusiasts, but it looks like the Royal Canadian Mint is hoping that its backing will help its own new digital currency catch on in a bigger way.

Followed by 47, and counting, comments. A good read!

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Three words: exploding chipcoin implants

That could be made into a promotional video. Chipcoins use advanced tamper-detection technology to protect against counterfeiting hackers. Oh no, Barbara's chip accidentally self-destructed. Ted didn't pay a parking ticket, so his chip was deactivated. Choose freedom. Choose Bitcoin. Don't get chipped.

Seriously, though, this is probably good for Bitcoin. There's that theory that, you know, having a wingman who kind of looks like you, but is less-attractive, is a benefit. It might be limited to small transactions. It's not going to be anonymous. There will be chargebacks. Obviously it will be inflationary. I'm looking forward to it.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

It should be worth a chuckle to see what problems they face with adoption. Perhaps we'll have a Bit-Minstant service before long for people that want an e-cash that's easier and friendlier to use.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: rjk on April 05, 2012, 10:16:07 PM

Quote from: casascius on April 05, 2012, 10:13:06 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

I would expect someone who gets a chip's private key could just mint their own money without needing to double spend. Afaik when a chip signs a message to transfer value, it has no burden of proof that it ever received that value from somewhere else, it is simply trusted to only sign payments out of its balance and to not sign payments without sufficient funds. With a hacked chip or compromised private key, one could simply issue new transactions without limit, they wouldn't need to be double spends. Such fake transactions could be used to top up real non-hacked cards.

This seams plausible, I wish they would issue some detailed information about how it works so that we could determine the actual failure modes of the setup.

Open Source it and let's see how "great" it really is ..... if it can't survive in the free market for ideas it probably can't survive long term.

rjk

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1ngldh

Quote from: casascius on April 05, 2012, 10:13:06 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

I would expect someone who gets a chip's private key could just mint their own money without needing to double spend. Afaik when a chip signs a message to transfer value, it has no burden of proof that it ever received that value from somewhere else, it is simply trusted to only sign payments out of its balance and to not sign payments without sufficient funds. With a hacked chip or compromised private key, one could simply issue new transactions without limit, they wouldn't need to be double spends. Such fake transactions could be used to top up real non-hacked cards.

This seams plausible, I wish they would issue some detailed information about how it works so that we could determine the actual failure modes of the setup.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: casascius on April 05, 2012, 10:13:06 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

I would expect someone who gets a chip's private key could just mint their own money without needing to double spend. Afaik when a chip signs a message to transfer value, it has no burden of proof that it ever received that value from somewhere else, it is simply trusted to only sign payments out of its balance and to not sign payments without sufficient funds. With a hacked chip or compromised private key, one could simply issue new transactions without limit, they wouldn't need to be double spends. Such fake transactions could be used to top up real non-hacked cards.

where are you getting the information for the chips technical details?

are you just assuming it works like you think it would?

casascius

vip

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1136

The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

I would expect someone who gets a chip's private key could just mint their own money without needing to double spend. Afaik when a chip signs a message to transfer value, it has no burden of proof that it ever received that value from somewhere else, it is simply trusted to only sign payments out of its balance and to not sign payments without sufficient funds. With a hacked chip or compromised private key, one could simply issue new transactions without limit, they wouldn't need to be double spends. Such fake transactions could be used to top up real non-hacked cards.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 05, 2012, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

If I'm reading their specs correctly, if A manages to break the chip she could generate duplicate transactions for the full value stored on the chip to B and C and D (and E and F and...).

But she wouldn't be able to double-spend the same funds to B, because B's chip is able to detect that attempted double-spend.

That is my understanding also based on the limited information. My issue would be the track record of "secrets on a chip" is pretty bad. It really is only a matter of when not if the chip gets hacked.

Quote

I bet the Mint honors all of the the A -> B/C/D/... transactions, so B/C/D/... don't lose any money. The Mint eats the loss (it just shows up as inflation in the money supply, so really EVERYBODY pays for the fraud), and if the problem gets large enough they declare version 1.0 of their chips obsolete and come out with a New and More Secure version.

That is what I am thinking. Would they just raise fees (to remove the surplus currency from the economy) or would they eventually be forced to lower the exchange rate (i.e. 1 mintchip dollar = 0.97 physical dollars).

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2216

Chief Scientist

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 07:21:07 PM

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

If I'm reading their specs correctly, if A manages to break the chip she could generate duplicate transactions for the full value stored on the chip to B and C and D (and E and F and...).

But she wouldn't be able to double-spend the same funds to B, because B's chip is able to detect that attempted double-spend.

Eventually, I assume the Mint would figure out that the same funds were spent at B and C and D and... etc, just like the Mint eventually figures out when a lot of counterfeit paper notes are being spent in a particular area. And I imagine they'd deal with it the same way, interviewing merchants to ask them if they have a record of who made a transaction at a particular time, etc.

And assuming B/C/D/... did nothing wrong I bet the Mint honors all of the the A -> B/C/D/... transactions, so B/C/D/... don't lose any money. The Mint eats the loss (it just shows up as inflation in the money supply, so really EVERYBODY pays for the fraud), and if the problem gets large enough they declare version 1.0 of their chips obsolete and come out with a New and More Secure version.

It all looks pretty nifty to me, I hope it is a big success; it could be a great way to buy Bitcoins (non-reversible, cash-like...).

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on April 05, 2012, 07:09:39 PM

Well, there will be a ledger recording issuance and redemption I'm presuming, it just won't be real-time.

For instance, the broker will know which MintChip id the funds went to. So the Mint's "centralized ledger" will probably show that.

After that, the broker doesn't and can't know if the funds have then been spent to another MintChip though. Those transactions are from one MintChip to another MintChip and don't have to to be checked against a central ledger to see if the funds are good.

Only when a person or merchant redeems the funds on its MintChip back to a broker (in exchange for fiat) does the trail of transactions become known to the broker or Mint.

So technically there is a centralized ledger, it just isn't complete with real-time information as to which MintChip has what funds.

Well technicalities or not the point is that when User A is paying user B, user B is relying on the fact that user A "can't" break the chip. The chip ensures security. If User A has extracted private keys and can generate thousands or millions of duplicate tx at will there is nothing user B can do to detect that. To user B chip the tx looks as valid as any other valid tx.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: unabridged on April 05, 2012, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 11:24:12 AM

With MintChip there is no blockchain. There is no central ledger (centralized or decentralized).

Why do you think this? I thought the description made it pretty clear there is a central clearinghouse for all transactions. Your money is not on the chip, the chip is just an account# and keys to spend. The balance is recorded in the central clearinghouse.

Absolutely nothing indicates that. Nowhere in the docs, descriptions, API. Nowhere.

Tx are person to person.

Receiver chip makes a request. Sender chip uses that to create a credit, sign it, and give it DIRECTLY to the receiver. Receiver chip updates internal balance and senders chip reduces internal balance.

Please indicate anywhere that indicates tx between users are recorded to a clearinghouse.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: unabridged on April 05, 2012, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 11:24:12 AM

With MintChip there is no blockchain. There is no central ledger (centralized or decentralized).

Your money is not on the chip, the chip is just an account# and keys to spend. The balance is recorded in the central clearinghouse. The devices are just able to check that transactions are signed by the certificate authority without having to ask the clearinghouse themselves,

Well, there will be a ledger recording issuance and redemption I'm presuming, it just won't be real-time.

For instance, the broker will know which MintChip id the funds went to. So the Mint's "centralized ledger" will probably show that.

After that, the broker doesn't and can't know if the funds have then been spent to another MintChip though. Those transactions are from one MintChip to another MintChip and don't have to to be checked against a central ledger to see if the funds are good.

Only when a person or merchant redeems the funds on its MintChip back to a broker (in exchange for fiat) does the trail of transactions become known to the broker or Mint.

So technically there is a centralized ledger, it just isn't complete with real-time information as to which MintChip has what funds.

unabridged

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 11:24:12 AM

With MintChip there is no blockchain. There is no central ledger (centralized or decentralized).

Why do you think this? I thought the description made it pretty clear there is a central clearinghouse for all transactions. Your money is not on the chip, the chip is just an account# and keys to spend. The balance is recorded in the central clearinghouse. The devices are just able to check that transactions are signed by the certificate authority without having to ask the clearinghouse themselves, basically it means the business you are transacting with can give you a receipt that proves they sent/received the money.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 05, 2012, 03:35:41 PM

Well three possible outcomes:
a) they crash and burn because it honestly is a real difficulty problem.
b) they figure it out and we copy them.
c) they figure it out but we can't copy them so we buy BTC with MintChips.

Honestly I think a is going to happen but any of the three is a win.

c
Western Union currently does this, they make it clear to banks any money sent to them is nonrefundable (they are large enough to negotiate such an arrangement unlike other smaller processors and thus banks have serious limits on how much they allow you to send to western union and probably more sensitive fraud detection) or they require you to hand money over in person. There is no reason why a government could not tell banks in its country that any money sent to mintchip cannot be reversed, and leave it to the bank to decide how much they want to risk.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tonto on April 05, 2012, 03:07:49 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on April 05, 2012, 01:47:13 AM

the thing is mintchip is just not as good as Bitcoin. It lacks some of the most attractive aspects of BTC.
But when is a movie with "2" in the title ever as good as the first?

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was much better than the original Star Wars.

But Episode 2: A New Hope was lame... The Phantom Menace was better. I don't agree that 5 was better than 4, but that's irrelevant to RodeoX's point.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Serith on April 05, 2012, 03:33:27 PM

Quote

Once the value message is created by the Sender's MintChip, the MintChip's balance is decreased by the corresponding value. This transaction is irrevocable. The Sender cannot stop or cancel the transaction after the value message has been created.

We can't buy bitcoins with PayPal or Credit Card because it's almost impossible ,or very very costly, to connect reversible and irreversible payment systems. Looks like developers of MintChip don't know that yet.

Well three possible outcomes:
a) they crash and burn because it honestly is a real difficulty problem.
b) they figure it out and we copy them.
c) they figure it out but we can't copy them so we buy BTC with MintChips.

Honestly I think a is going to happen but any of the three is a win.

Serith

sr. member

Activity: 269

Merit: 250

Quote

Once the value message is created by the Sender's MintChip, the MintChip's balance is decreased by the corresponding value. This transaction is irrevocable. The Sender cannot stop or cancel the transaction after the value message has been created.

We can't buy bitcoins with PayPal or Credit Card because it's almost impossible ,or very very costly, to connect reversible and irreversible payment systems. Looks like developers of MintChip don't know that yet.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

MintChip, meet Ice Cream.

Soon accepted at all Baskin Robbins in Canada.

List of Judges: http://mintchipchallenge.com/details/judging

Osama Bedier
Vice President of Payments, Google

Ian Bennett
President and CEO, Royal Canadian Mint

David Birch
Director, Consult Hyperion

Bob Borchers
General Partner, Opus Capital

David Crow
Chief Marketing Officer, Maintenance Assistant Inc.

Jeff King
Senior Director X.commerce Platform Partnerships, eBay

Amanda Lang
Senior Business Correspondent for CBC News and Anchor of The Lang & O’Leary Exchange

tonto

hero member

Activity: 609

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on April 05, 2012, 01:47:13 AM

the thing is mintchip is just not as good as Bitcoin. It lacks some of the most attractive aspects of BTC.
But when is a movie with "2" in the title ever as good as the first?

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was much better than the original Star Wars.

Topic: The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin - page 7. (Read 19904 times)