[HN Gopher] Show HN: The Bitcoin Note - Secure, Self-Custodial B...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: The Bitcoin Note - Secure, Self-Custodial Bitcoin Wallets
in Cash Form
Author : paulgerhardt
Score : 225 points
Date : 2022-06-07 13:11 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.offline.cash)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.offline.cash)
| kerblang wrote:
| Is that a goddess in an astronaut suit? :/
| BLanen wrote:
| This is just centralized, as every solution to a decentralization
| problem.
|
| Defeats the purpose.
| rchaud wrote:
| > centralized
|
| That's where the money is.
| EGreg wrote:
| How would it possibly know if the holder cut the note? What if
| they pasted it back together later, and passed it off?
| jameshart wrote:
| If the value of this is locked in the scannable NFC chip...
| what's the point of all the antiforgery measures on the paper?
| cortesoft wrote:
| How can you know that someone hasn't transferred the bitcoin out
| of the wallet before they give it to you?
| Vladimof wrote:
| > How can you know that someone hasn't transferred the bitcoin
| out of the wallet before they give it to you?
|
| How can you know someone hasn't transferred the money out of
| their bank account when they hand you a check?
| zerocrates wrote:
| "As bad as checks" is possibly the lowest of low bars.
| [deleted]
| mbesto wrote:
| You don't, but thats why we have:
|
| 1) Credit cards with transaction fees (which crypto people
| hate) that protect against this and have replaced the needs
| for checks
|
| 2) You take checks from people you trust
|
| 3) You have banks that compete with each other for storing
| your dollars and provide services to protect against fraud.
| jrockway wrote:
| Credit cards are pretty meh for people that accept them. A
| % of your money disappears. The customer can say, for 60
| days, "nah I didn't want that" and the money is taken away
| from you, no questions asked.
|
| There was this big push in retail a few years ago to get
| customers to stop using credit cards. I knew it was going
| to fail, but merchants are looking for alternatives here.
| banannaise wrote:
| This is not a fundamental property of credit cards. It is
| a method of dispute resolution.
|
| Retailers dislike dispute resolution processes that favor
| the consumer by default. Their alternative, for the most
| part, is a process wherein they simply control the whole
| process and can decide in favor of themselves on a whim.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > The customer can say, for 60 days, "nah I didn't want
| that" and the money is taken away from you, no questions
| asked.
|
| This is a gross misunderstanding on how chargebacks work
| and is factually incorrect.
| mbesto wrote:
| > Credit cards are pretty meh for people that accept
| them. A % of your money disappears.
|
| > There was this big push in retail a few years ago to
| get customers to stop using credit cards.
|
| Really, says what retailers? EDIT: saw your note below
| about MCX. Noted.
|
| - Your revenues go up because people are spending money
| they may or may not have in the future
|
| - You don't lose out on a sale because someone is a 5c,
| 12c, 18c, etc. short
|
| - You don't have to deal with physical cash (armored
| transportation to banks, miscounting, theft, etc.)
|
| I personally think CC fees are egregious, but pretending
| they add little to no value to the extent that they
| aren't useful for the merchant is pretty myopic.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Stores easily make up for the CC fees on volume because
| it is so much easier for consumers to impulse buy. In
| fact stores are now happily offering "buy now, pay later"
| deals that cost them much more in fees than CCs because
| it boosts volume even more than CCs. CC companies are
| scrambling to catch up there.
|
| Merchants grumble because that's what merchants do, but
| they are coming out way ahead anyway. There was (maybe
| still is) a cash only restaurant/bar in Boulder back when
| I lived there. The food and beer were great. They
| probably could have done an order of magnitude more
| business if they charged $0.18 more per burger and took
| CCs. Instead they had an ATM that probably charged the
| customer 10%. They weren't sticking it to the man, but
| they sure were sticking it to their customers.
| cortesoft wrote:
| That seems contrary to the trend I have seen here, which
| is more and more stores going 'cashless', and only
| accepting credit cards. The cost to handle cash is more
| expensive than the percentage that the credit cards take.
| [deleted]
| jrockway wrote:
| I'm talking about this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Customer_Exchange
|
| Obviously, this was the best of both worlds; a payment
| network with no fees to the merchants, and no cash to
| handle.
|
| As for things like SaaS, the alternative to credit cards
| is a signed contract and ACH.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I think the fact that it never got off the ground shows
| that the ask is pretty impossible... it is really hard
| and expensive to securely run a payment system like that.
|
| If you aren't charging merchants fees, how do you sustain
| it?
| cortesoft wrote:
| The title of the post is that this is in `Cash Form`, not
| `Check Form`. Checks are a form of credit, which is why
| checks aren't called cash.
| Vladimof wrote:
| Then you could ask how many people can easily detect fake
| bills?
|
| But either way, checks aren't credit even if you say it
| is...
| cortesoft wrote:
| > Then you could ask how many people can easily detect
| fake bills?
|
| Most people can, unless the fake is high quality. There
| are a ton of easily checked security features that don't
| require any tool or network access. These bills do not
| have any of those.
|
| > But either way, checks aren't credit even if you say it
| is...
|
| It is a form of credit if you think about it.
|
| It is a piece of paper that promises the payment of money
| from one person to another person... the technical term
| is "Negotiable Instrument"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument).
|
| If you are accepting the check, you are extending short
| term credit to the person who gives you the check... they
| are promising to pay the amount at a later date, even if
| that later date is only the few days that it takes for a
| cashed check to be settled. That is credit.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| A very large number of organizations won't accept checks from
| random people precisely because of this problem.
| Vladimof wrote:
| Do you have any examples? I don't really use check
| nowadays...
| _fizz_buzz_ wrote:
| In Germany I have a hard time of thinking of a place that
| does accept checks as payment. I did get a check a couple
| years ago from an insurance company that reimbursed me.
| But besides that I haven't ever used a check in Germany.
| cortesoft wrote:
| At this point it would be a better question to ask who
| DOES accept checks. In the US, most grocery stores still
| accept them, but I don't know of any other stores that
| do.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Can't you instantly run the check electronically since the
| routing/account numbers are right there. I suppose you
| would need to pay for a POS terminal that does that, which
| might not be worth it.
| stavros wrote:
| How easy is it to attack this by cutting the specific part of the
| note that releases the key but making it look like it's whole?
| Couldn't I cut the note in half and tape it together again and
| fool someone who doesn't know much about it? Or couldn't I cut
| the specific bit with an Xacto knife, take the funds and still
| circulate the bill?
| simonw wrote:
| My guess is that this is why the verification mobile app that
| scans the NFC code is going to be critically important.
| stavros wrote:
| But then that kind of invalidates the "offline" claim, I
| don't think they'd make it if they needed the app? Then
| again, maybe you need the app but it doesn't need network
| access.
| Imnimo wrote:
| I'm also unclear whether being cut is truly the only way to
| trigger the release. Could the note be damaged in other ways to
| get it to think it's been cut? The website is extremely light
| on details.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| The value of this is significant. Great work.
|
| If authoritarian governments want to take away cash, this gives
| an incentive and mechanism for privately minted cash that will
| change the dynamic. I wonder though, how to mitigate against
| physical forgery. I get the feeling that this could work out
| _much more_ trustable than even the best anti-counterfeit
| technologies presently used for cash currency.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thank you -- as another commenter noted we cannot act as the
| Secret Service to remove counterfeit notes from circulation, so
| the implication probably is that folks need to get into the
| habit of scanning notes prior to acceptance.
| rchaud wrote:
| The private sector has done orders of magnitude more to make
| societies cashless than any government ever could.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| An authoritarian government can just seize the centralized
| servers that are needed to run this whole system.
| arlort wrote:
| > If authoritarian governments want to take away cash
|
| If an authoritarian government is taking away cash they've
| already passed the step at which making/importing this kind of
| object is illegal
|
| And if you can import this kind of privately minted note then
| you can also import foreign cash whose value people can trust
| without having to destroy it and for which they don't have to
| remember a password (for each note I imagine, it's not clear
| from the website how any part of it works)
|
| There are use cases for these kind of tokens but I can't find
| one which is efficiently solving a problem not uniquely
| tailored to rich free countries
|
| Just in case, by tokens I am (in this comment) just referring
| to the notes, not the concept of bitcoin in general
| Termitiono wrote:
| Either you can use the internet than you don't need that note.
|
| You need internet to actually verify and take ownership of the
| value of it.
|
| It only helps if the giver doesn't have internet.
|
| And sure it's easier to smuggle this one note over a border
| than a suitcase bout you could smuggle actually anything with
| an offline wallet in it like USB stick, CD etc.
|
| Why is this significant in your eyes?
|
| I'm lost
| danShumway wrote:
| Am I missing something about how cutting notes works, or am I
| correct in saying that cutting notes relies on a centralized
| single-company-controlled server being both online and releasing
| a decryption key?
|
| This entire release seems a little bit light on technical details
| so it's not clear to me exactly what notes are doing when they're
| transferred, but it does seem like on first glance there are a
| lot of red flags here. I would love to see a more detailed
| technical breakdown on that website that isn't just promotional
| material.
|
| ----
|
| Even ignoring the centralization angle, all of the verification
| advice I'm seeing boils down to "scan each note and cut it when
| you receive it." And if everyone is going to do that, what's the
| point of using a physical note instead of an app? The promo
| images and descriptions clearly expect that this is going to be
| used like cash so that technical burdens are lessened for people
| who aren't good with more traditional cryptocurrency transaction
| methods.
|
| But if non-technical users use it like cash, they're not going to
| scan anything. And if you think you can teach them to scan every
| bill in their wallet with a phone, then... why not just teach
| them to use the phone?
| godelski wrote:
| The only use case I see to this is a non-electronic cold
| storage. Which is cool, but then do we really need all the
| fancy note cutting?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Gifting cold storage is the main case we see here. Namely to
| someone who might throw out a printed private key. We spoke
| with many Bitcoiners who know that friends and family lost
| coins they gave them in the early days simply because a
| printed private key doesn't have much gravitas.
| dsr_ wrote:
| What advantage does this have over a thick, pretty foil
| envelope with nice embossing telling people what the
| printed code/long barcode/micro-SD card inside is for?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The psychology of cash and how people hold and spend it
| is unique from any other physical financial instruments.
| They keep it safer and spend less than they would with
| credit cards or debit cards.
|
| A completely foreign object with a printed key might be
| kept safe -- but it isn't intuitive to do so. We heard
| multiple stories of people gifting Bitcoin at events like
| weddings only for private keys to be tossed out with
| cards.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Why not just give the newlywed couple a dump truck full
| of coal, which is much harder to lose track of, so they
| can burn it to mine their own bitcoin?
| prox wrote:
| Isn't this also just a full circle, where we are back at
| printing a currency?
|
| I already have a secure, self custodial wallet, it's
| called cash in my wallet.
| cyphertruck wrote:
| Except apparently you need to be online to send them the info
| after you cut the note. So its not really cold storage. What
| if their company shuts down?
|
| You can do cold storage by securing seeds on metal, such as
| titanium, or any robust material you like.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| No, still cold storage. If the company shuts down you can
| use the plaintext user key to claim the funds from the note
| after January 3rd 2029.
| dgrove wrote:
| Is this because you have a time-locked transaction to
| move the funds from the P2MS to a P2PKH? How does that
| work when it's "re-keyed"? Wouldn't each re-key move to a
| new P2MS and have a transaction fee associated with it as
| well as have a second transaction for the HTLC
| transaction?
| danShumway wrote:
| How are you doing time-lock encryption in this instance?
| Is it based off of a separate blockchain contract or is
| it one of the more traditional methods?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY in the multisig.
| dgrove wrote:
| Sure, so you add it as part of the P2MS script but that
| doesn't solve the issue of every re-key costing money
| godelski wrote:
| But why time lock it?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The time lock lets you optimistically circulate the note
| prior to the expiration date as even if previous holders
| know the user key they cannot use it to claim the Bitcoin
| alone.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > Am I missing something about how cutting notes works, or am I
| correct in saying that cutting notes relies on a centralized
| single-company-controlled server being both online and
| releasing a decryption key?
|
| That's correct.
|
| > Even ignoring the centralization angle, all of the
| verification advice I'm seeing boils down to "scan each note
| and cut it when you receive it." And if everyone is going to do
| that, what's the point of using a physical note instead of an
| app? The promo images and descriptions clearly expect that this
| is going to be used like cash so that technical burdens are
| lessened for people who aren't good with more traditional
| cryptocurrency transaction methods.
|
| Not quite; rather than cutting the note you could re-key it and
| store it. Or, if you are planning to use the note immediately
| or near term in commerce, you might have sufficient confidence
| that our re-key service won't shut down (but yes, this
| obviously implies _some_ trust if you hold notes without re-
| keying of claiming).
|
| > But if non-technical users use it like cash, they're not
| going to scan anything. And if you think you can teach them to
| scan every bill in their wallet with a phone, then... why not
| just teach them to use the phone?
|
| Because with a phone alone they need to store their keys
| locally. With re-keyed notes (or notes from family members who
| have re-keyed them), they can immediately store notes in a safe
| place without the problem of phone hacks or loss.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| > That's correct
|
| Doesn't sound very "self-custodial" to me.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We can't transfer the funds under any circumstance. Custody
| always reverts to the user key on the note.
| danShumway wrote:
| > Or, if you are planning to use the note immediately or near
| term in commerce, you might have sufficient confidence that
| our re-key service won't shut down (but yes, this obviously
| implies some trust if you hold notes without re-keying of
| claiming).
|
| Does this mean that your private servers have the ability to
| re-key notes? What prevents someone from scanning the chip or
| storing the user key that they generated, handing the note to
| someone else, and then walking around the corner and
| immediately using the scanned information to re-key it?
|
| Without understanding more about the technical details, this
| feels like unless a user is using an app to re-key
| immediately at the time of transfer that it's significantly
| less secure than normal cash. I guess I'm not completely
| clear on what you're doing with user keys.
|
| ---
|
| > Because with a phone alone they need to store their keys
| locally.
|
| But they have to do that here too, or is the assertion that
| they don't need to back up the user key necessarily and that
| it's not secret? Is the user key just plain-text readable?
|
| If the user key is accessible from the chip just via scanning
| (not cutting), and isn't a user-defined secret that only they
| know (which seems like would require some form of backup),
| then does that mean an attacker can just walk past my wallet
| with a reasonably powerful RFID reader and then rekey every
| single one of my bills?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > Without understanding more about the technical details,
| this feels like unless a user is using an app to re-key
| immediately at the time of transfer that it's significantly
| less secure than normal cash.
|
| We will have a security overview doc up soon, we ran out of
| time to have it ready today. Long story short, there are
| pending key rotation states and the latest holder can
| always re-key the note again. But it is indeed distinct
| from cash; we can't just _state_ a note has value like
| governments do, by fiat.
|
| We have to provide users with sufficient information to
| assess the veracity of that claim relative to the functions
| of Bitcoin and the information we provide on the note.
|
| > But they have to do that here too, or is the assertion
| that they don't need to back up the user key necessarily?
|
| Not necessarily; in the condition where a user is confident
| they are the only ones that can claim, they can place the
| notes in a safe the same way they might printed Bitcoin
| keys or Opendimes (I would recommend a fireproof safe).
| yupper32 wrote:
| What do you mean you ran out of time? Was this a race?
| spicybright wrote:
| The fact they couldn't wait a few days to make a post
| here makes me think "move fast break things" at best, and
| a flat out scam at worst.
|
| Would the security details have ever been worked on if
| people weren't commenting here?
|
| Are they going to take orders before putting it up?
|
| Are they aware of how prevalent crypto scams are and how
| vitally important it is to distance yourself if you want
| to be taken seriously?
|
| This kind of impulsivity is exactly what I don't want
| from people dealing with money.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| > This kind of impulsivity is exactly what I don't want
| from people dealing with money.
|
| You're going to be really disappointed to hear how most
| fintech startups, and non-startups, and non-fintech
| software companies, and non-startup companies, operate
| then.
|
| Yeah its bad, but lets not act like the bar was ever high
| to begin with.
| throwaway92394 wrote:
| > We will have a security overview doc up soon, we ran
| out of time to have it ready today.
|
| I mean this respectfully - why would you release a
| cryptographic method of transferring money - without
| going into detail of how it actually works? That's kinda
| the entire point of cryptocurrency, that we have a way to
| be mathematically confident the money is safe - but you
| didn't tell us the math. Especially on HN were a lot of
| the audience is technical enough to want to and be able
| to verify it to some degree.
|
| I see you have patent US10896412B2, which honestly I have
| to ask how this is any different from any other hardware
| wallet?
|
| > A physical cryptocurrency may comprise a physical
| medium and an attached processor.
|
| I read some of the details (admittedly not all) and I'm
| still unsure how this is different from any other
| hardware wallet. AFAIK this is just a hardware wallet
| that exposes it's public key, then exposes it's private
| key when you cut the wire? Then we still need your
| signature to transfer the crypto, which is so double
| spend is prevented?
|
| Also, if your servers go down or you're hacked or rm -rf
| dir/ * happens, will all the notes become unusable? Are
| we relying on you to maintain servers indefinitely?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > I mean this respectfully - why would you release a
| cryptographic method of transferring money - without
| going into detail of how it actually works? That's kinda
| the entire point of cryptocurrency, that we have a way to
| be mathematically confident the money is safe - but you
| didn't tell us the math. Especially on HN were a lot of
| the audience is technical enough to want to and be able
| to verify it to some degree.
|
| As noted, the app will be open source as will the (brief)
| Bitcoin script for audit. For the sake of simplicity
| 2-of-2 multisig that downgrades to 1-of-2 multisig over
| time should capture the essence of how these notes work.
|
| > Also, if your servers go down or you're hacked or rm
| -rf dir/ * happens, will all the notes become unusable?
| Are we relying on you to maintain servers indefinitely?
|
| Nope. Users can always claim funds after the expiration
| date of January 3rd 2029 using the user key stored on the
| note.
| throwaway92394 wrote:
| > For the sake of simplicity 2-of-2 multisig that
| downgrades to 1-of-2 multisig over time should capture
| the essence of how these notes work. > Users can always
| claim funds after the expiration date of January 3rd 2029
| using the user key stored on the note.
|
| Interesting, thank you. That does seem more reasonable to
| me. Best of luck with your project.
| barkingcat wrote:
| Does "cutting" a note mean taking scissors to cut it
| physically? Can you cut it in the corner or it has to be
| "across" a sensor boundary somehow breaking connectivity?
|
| Can you tear the note apart and have it work too, if you
| don't have scissors on hand for example?
|
| Maybe you can sell a kit that comes with the notes and a
| special cutter, like a cigar cutter with a box
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The synthetic paper we use is laughably difficult to tear
| -- it more readily deforms and stretches instead. You need
| to cut across a trace.
|
| I like the idea of a note "humidor" with included cutter --
| instead it's fireproof and includes EMF shielding.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| Meaning the cutting part is literal and the notes are
| basically single-use?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yes, literal cutting -- if not cut, the notes can be re-
| keyed and recirculated until the expiration date in 2029.
| noduerme wrote:
| What happens after the expiration date?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| At that point in time the note downgrades to a 1-of-2
| multisig where only the user key on the note is needed to
| create a transaction. Cutting the note isn't required/is
| irrelevant as the second encrypted key has no function at
| that time.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| I assume this is a technical limitation rather than a
| business decision to sell more notes. But I do wonder (as
| someone who doesn't quite understand cryptography and
| multisig beyond the basics of how Bitcoin works), barring
| a protocol update, is it technically impossible to have
| reusable notes or was this a trade-off/design decision?
| If it is possible, is the trade-off it requiring an on-
| chain transaction to update the multisig every time the
| note change hands?
|
| This looks like a cool gift, but the necessity of
| destroying the note to move it, or otherwise trust the
| giver didn't copy the key, makes it a bad currency (I
| understand that cold-storage is the aimed use-case, not
| currency). My first thought on the landing page was that
| the keys were inaccessible to the holder without
| destroying the note for moving it to a known address
| (which would be somewhat alike trading in US dollars for
| gold, back in the day). I.e., that you could trust the
| note holds it's denomination as long as it is not cut.
| That would make it a proper offline and trustless
| currency. Is there a future where such notes will exist
| and does it require a major protocol update?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > I assume this is a technical limitation rather than a
| business decision to sell more notes. But I do wonder (as
| someone who doesn't quite understand cryptography and
| multisig beyond the basics of how Bitcoin works), barring
| a protocol update, is it technically impossible to have
| reusable notes or was this a trade-off/design decision?
| If it is possible, is the trade-off it requiring an on-
| chain transaction to update the multisig every time the
| note change hands?
|
| This is a trade-off; we could issue notes that never
| expire and do not require cutting to claim (and could be
| reloaded), however, this would require perpetual trust
| that we remain in existence without a fallback. Creating
| an expiration date mirrors how real money wears out after
| use. Our intent here isn't to sell more notes; in a
| medium-confidence scenario our hope is that after a long
| life in circulation the final holder of the notes re-keys
| them and puts them in a safe place until 2029 at which
| point they claim without cutting the notes (and retain
| them as collectable artifacts with no Bitcoin value
| thereafter). Our goal is not to sell more notes because
| they are cut/expired, but rather because we have new
| designs and denominations.
|
| > This looks like a cool gift, but the necessity of
| destroying the note to move it, or otherwise trust the
| giver didn't copy the key, makes it a bad currency (I
| understand that cold-storage is the aimed use-case, not
| currency). My first thought on the landing page was that
| the keys were inaccessible to the holder without
| destroying the note for moving it to a known address
| (which would be somewhat alike trading in US dollars for
| gold, back in the day). I.e., that you could trust the
| note holds it's denomination as long as it is not cut.
| That would make it a proper offline and trustless
| currency. Is there a future where such notes will exist
| and does it require a major protocol update?
|
| If there is anything beyond zero trust that we exist in
| some form into the future, the goal is that the recipient
| can re-key a note from an untrusted giver without cutting
| the note. In a medium trust world you can assume that a
| note hold value without scanning it so long as the
| expiration date is not past. But this requires several
| things -- (1) trusting that we will continue to exist and
| facilitate key rotation and (2) that the previous holder
| carried out some validation and is somewhat trustworthy
| -- e.g. potentially a bank or large retailer. For low
| value notes this doesn't seem completely unreasonable,
| but I appreciate why no one would treat the notes that
| way without some track record. Given a theoretical new
| chip which doesn't exist there are some additional
| possibilities here.
| Termitiono wrote:
| Your physical note itself expire 2029?
|
| What? Why?
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Decirculating old currencies can either happen
| intentionally or unintentionally.
|
| Intentionally decirculating old currencies is called
| demurrage. Think Swiss bank notes. They tend to recall
| old notes every 30 years when they issue a new generation
| of notes. They are currently on generation nine and just
| recalled generation eight. Bitcoin Note is on generation
| one.
|
| While it is somewhat common in centralized printed
| currencies like the franc or the pound it is an important
| feature of decentralized printed currencies to help
| dirciculate old notes as there is no central mechanism to
| cull old notes. One wants to put economic pressure to
| dicirculate old notes for a variety of reasons but
| perhaps one of the most important ones is because chips
| become less secure over time. (Analogously one wants to
| put economic pressure on miners to upgrade to the latest
| bitcoin network (such as when taproot came out).)
|
| It's important to note, the Bitcoin stored on the note
| doesn't "disappear" after 2029 - but rather the multi-sig
| on the note reverts from 2-of-2 to 1-of-2 so the value
| can be claimed - in effect turning the note into
| something more like a claimable voucher or gift card. It
| contains value, you just generally wouldn't circulate it
| after then.
|
| For a casual overview see:
| https://beyondmoney.net/monographs/demurrage-is-it-a-
| good-id... - that article doesn't talk about economic
| levers on non-centrally issued currencies because those
| are frankly quite novel.
|
| Unintentionally dircirculating old notes is called
| revolution.
| alx__ wrote:
| I feel like it's a visa gift card.
| rchaud wrote:
| More like a "commemorative gold coin" ad you see at 3AM.
| Fargoan wrote:
| So it's like Open Dime but with printed bills instead of a USB
| stick?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yeah -- similar. Open Dime is focused on securing a single key
| until it's tampered with; we use a multisig with timelock
| instead for a couple reasons; (1) the chips we use are simpler
| and entirely powered via NFC (2) our notes are intended for
| broad circulation over a long period of time.
| Fargoan wrote:
| Very cool. I'm on the reserve list. How much will you charge
| per pack?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We don't have pricing ready just yet -- roughly in the
| Opendime territory.
| devmor wrote:
| This is really cool from a technical standpoint but I don't
| really see a use case for it.
| rchaud wrote:
| I feel like I just saw the CS-pandering version of those late
| night ads for "collectible gold coins".
| jl6 wrote:
| Who are the classical statuesque faces in your designs? Do they
| symbolize anything?
|
| And is that a `hexdump -C` I see?
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| The world has apparently gone full crazy, as we're now back to
| where we started, with the (rather big) difference that we've
| replaced sovereign-backed currencies with ... what exactly?
| fleddr wrote:
| Where we started, cash, was infinitely better.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| I don't think it's irrational to disagree with your personal
| beliefs about monetary systems. There's evidence both for
| modern practices being beneficial as well as detrimental so I'd
| reserve judgement until it plays out.
|
| Besides that, what's wrong with a private entity issuing its
| own scrip? It's how our current system of currency got its
| start with private banks issuing promissory notes which were
| eventually adopted by the state. You probably personally hold
| quite a lot of it in the form of debt or reward programs. This
| goes a little further in that it is redeemable for an alternate
| form of currency not backed by a state but that's not really an
| argument against it, historically people have used all kinds of
| alternate currencies. It really just comes down to what two
| individuals agree is an appropriate medium of exchange whether
| it's bitcoin, dollars or cigarettes.
| Agamus wrote:
| "Besides that, what's wrong with..."
|
| Nothing 'wrong' with it, per se. But the whole concept reads
| like a bad Saturday Night Live skit.
| programmarchy wrote:
| ...something other than a military, which is a step forward.
| notahacker wrote:
| Except of course, that most central banks function perfectly
| adequately despite the nation in question having very limited
| military power, and it isn't as if Bitcoin mining operations
| don't depend on there being enough use of force behind the
| rule of law for property to still be enforceable.
| jdhn wrote:
| Like another user said, I really like the design. Are there any
| plans for larger denomination notes?
| substation13 wrote:
| Very cool! Can you offer "partial notes" where n of m notes can
| be combined to spend the note? Could be interesting for people
| who want to leave an inheritance in an untrusted regime.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| That's a super interesting idea. We've been somewhat purist
| about the notes being bearer by nature (not ideal, like digital
| Bitcoin, for fleeing from oppressive regimes), so any other
| entanglements challenge that notion.
|
| That said I could imagine a run of "bond" notes instead that
| rely on a multisig across notes rather than redemption at a
| bank or with the Treasury.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Secure, anonymous, peer-to-peer, self-custodial? I think you're
| just describing plain old dollar bills.
| jacobmarble wrote:
| > Printed on a synthetic paper that can't easily be ripped or
| torn like fiat, Bitcoin notes are designed to be durable for
| years to come.
|
| Is this similar to "plastic" cash like Australian and New Zealand
| bills? Nearly impossible to tear, don't wear out nearly as fast
| as US bills.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| It sounds like an innovative way to add a different type of
| pollution (microplastics) to a bitcoin transaction.
|
| US bills are a cotton/linen blend, and the larger denominations
| don't age nearly as quickly. We _should_ embrace $1 coins, but
| we won 't.
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Having gone to the currency printing industry events the
| environmental impact of polyethylene currencies appears to be
| lower and the plastic currencies appear to last longer.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Interesting. I'm kind of skeptical of claims made at
| industry events, though. Did they also talk about the
| recyclability of their plastics?
| andrewmutz wrote:
| I'm not a fan of anything crypto, but I have to give you credit
| on this: the visual design of the currency really is gorgeous.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thanks for the kind words -- it was incredibly fun to go
| through the design process of something like cash since we're
| all intimately familiar with the end product.
|
| It was a pleasure to work with an actual banknote designer, Tom
| Badley, to accomplish this.
| kens wrote:
| I like the "portrait" layout of the currency, compared to
| "landscape" for regular currency.1 It makes it clear that
| there's something unusual about this money, a feature that I'd
| always taken for granted but suddenly is different.
|
| 1Does anyone know of a country use portrait layout?
| timbit42 wrote:
| Canada's 10 dollar bill does
|
| https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/11/10-dollar-bill-canada/
| przemub wrote:
| That would be Switzerland!
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Swiss_franc
| Kaze404 wrote:
| They look too similar to the Real bills in my opinion
| spicybright wrote:
| Frankly it seems like the best use is putting them in a
| display case as a curiosity.
| Agamus wrote:
| This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious about what other think
| here.
|
| I like the aesthetic of US cash. I find it elegant and pleasing.
| It was better before they made all the heads huge, but I have
| learned to live with it.
|
| I cannot stand the off-sized, party-coloured money in Europe. I
| don't like how it feels in my hand, and I don't like how it
| looks, at all.
|
| I suspect that I am in a very small minority!
| wedn3sday wrote:
| Personally, I love that euro notes aren't all the same size. It
| makes it a heck of a lot easier to tell apart notes of
| different denominations, especially for people with visual
| impairment. Imaging for a second how you would count money USD
| with your eyes closed.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We did debate this, but decided to stick with same size notes
| for a couple reasons -- (1) they're easier to produce in low
| volume and (2) there is a bit of sensation from the raised
| print on the large "1", "2", "5" and "10" numbers.
| Agamus wrote:
| I haven't needed to count cash with my eyes closed yet, with
| several decades behind me. Aside from how awesome it must be
| for people with visual impairment, I can't think of how else
| it is beneficial (though that is definitely enough of a good
| reason). Are there other benefits?
|
| I suspect it's an effect of OCD, but when I have a mess of
| different sized bills in bright multi-color... my mind is
| just not at ease.
| sschueller wrote:
| So you hold the keys until they expire? What happens when your
| key expires if the user has added funds and does not re-key the
| note before that time?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We don't hold any Bitcoin key material; all of it lives on the
| note. One of the keys you contribute, the other one is
| encrypted by a key that we store (and release when the note is
| cut).
|
| If the note expires then only the user key on the note can
| claim. However, this is an important risk to consider -- if you
| have notes on hand that have expired and you haven't re-keyed
| them, there will likely be a race at expiration to claim for
| anyone has encountered the note.
|
| We recommend that if you don't plan on spending a note right
| away (as cash) that you re-key first to ensure that you're the
| only one who can claim at the point of expiration.
| natch wrote:
| You don't explain anywhere what you mean by "cut."
|
| And what is a "sewer" in your world? (Edit: I think it's a
| typo for "server.")
| ryukafalz wrote:
| What does that re-keying process do exactly? Surely it's not
| just updating the key on the device itself, because then it
| wouldn't do anything to stop people claiming encountered
| notes at the point of expiration, if I'm understanding this
| correctly. But it can't be moving the funds to a new wallet
| either, because you don't have control of the second private
| key yet. So... what exactly happens there?
| [deleted]
| jacobmarble wrote:
| How did you choose the people portrayed on the notes? Also, who
| are they?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Pablo Escobar, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Francis Drake, and the
| Koch Brothers?
|
| Celebrating drug runners, malicious state actors and pirates,
| and environmental disaster.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We used Greco-Roman god statues -- Apollo, Venus, Minerva and
| Neptune (some of the model statues were Greek, others Roman).
|
| We decided that because of the anonymity of Bitcoin it didn't
| feel right to 'select' portraits of real people representative
| of Bitcoin, but rather choose aspirational portraits of
| mythical figures.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Doesn't this go against the whole point of bitcoin by relying on
| a central entity that prints, validates, and transfers the notes?
|
| Wondering if this requires a money transfer agent license in the
| US, since you are holding funds in custody and issuing scrip?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The construction of the multisig is such that (1) the key we
| generate and store encrypted on the note can _never_ access the
| funds alone -- and we don 't store it because we don't want to
| be custodians and (2) the end users load the notes, we never
| touch BTC.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I think you need a better explanation of the multisig
| procedure and how you are not a central authority, capable of
| spending the bitcoin, etc. I've seen multiple comments here
| confused by this.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback -- agreed, that's definitely become
| apparent.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yes, people need to know:
|
| 1. What are the steps to purchase it.
|
| 2. What are the steps to spend it.
|
| 3. What are the steps to receive it, including
| verification.
|
| 4. Convince me I won't lose my funds by accident.
|
| 5. Convince me I won't lose my funds by hack of protocol.
|
| 6. Convince me I won't lose funds if a hacker gains
| access to your centralized system.
|
| 7. What happens if I lose the note(s)?
|
| 8. Processing fees.
|
| 9. Can I give someone a note and avoid the Bitcoin
| transaction fee? (I am guessing yes as nothing needs to
| happen on the chain. But if I receive a note can I be
| sure I won't be swindled).
| spicybright wrote:
| Frankly it seems weird you even need this pointed out to
| you.
|
| If I wasn't giving you the benefit of the doubt, it
| really smells like your typical crypto scam to trick
| people that don't understand the technology fully into
| giving you money.
| [deleted]
| s-xyz wrote:
| While its an interesting project, aren't we going towards a
| cashless society? I don't know how its in the US, but in
| countries like in Sweden there are almost no places where you can
| pay with cash.
| phreack wrote:
| Coming from a very cashfull society, this comment terrifies me
| about Sweden. Everything can go so wrong with electronic
| systems in everyday usage, it sounds very limiting.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yes, and we would argue that has grave implications. Cash is
| useful for the young, the old, those who can't participate in
| commercial banking, etc.
|
| We don't believe that this trend will necessarily reverse, but
| rather that a society with _no cash_ is risky to live in.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| This is not cash though. For example you'll never be able to
| buy food with it, or pay your rent with it. You can't store
| it under your mattress for 10 years because the servers they
| must talk to won't be around in 10 years.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| does this use taproot and schnorr signature style?
|
| I like the concept of multisig being indistuingishable from
| single sig or other scripts.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| If you made one with USDC I would probably buy some as gifts
| mouzogu wrote:
| It seems kind of complicated to me, but i guess its a niche
| novelty paper wallet (as opposed to using a paper napkin with
| your seed phrase).
|
| having the "cash" part might be a bit confusing too.
| lvass wrote:
| If users rely on your service to redeem and the printing really
| is secure, why not just print the bill and redeem manually? If
| you do it for ETH, you could store it staked and profit like
| Circle or Tether does with dollars, at least until you're in
| jail. Any russians or iranians want to start a business?
| hda2 wrote:
| Very nice! How much are the notes expected to cost?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We don't have pricing ready just yet -- think something in the
| range of an Opendime.
| padjo wrote:
| I don't understand the significance of the security printing etc.
| doesn't this all boil down to the data on the NFC chip?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yes -- that's correct. The security printing is really to
| highlight that these feel and look like real money which we
| believe is critically important. There is significant
| literature on the psychology of money and we believe that it
| has been a big missing piece for the adoption of Bitcoin.
|
| Had we just used a color laser printer and attached chips to
| standard paper the security of the Bitcoin stored would be the
| same, but the experience for someone holding it would be vastly
| different. Our goal is that you can gift one of these notes to
| a family member and they will keep it safe even if they don't
| fully understand it (unlike a printed QR code or ambiguous gift
| card).
| asciimov wrote:
| This is antithetical to the whole idea of crypto.
|
| I have to trust the bill is valid and that the person passing
| along the bill is honest. There is no central authority who will
| go after those that make counterfeit bills, like the FBI. There
| is no central bank that I can go to exchange the bill.
|
| Those producing the bills seems like a power grab. If people were
| to trust in a central authority to produce the bills, then that
| company has a whole lot of power over a decentralized currency.
| unmole wrote:
| > This is antithetical to the whole idea of crypto.
|
| There is no singular _idea_ of crypto currencies. You have
| ideas ranging from BTC to USDC.
| Vladimof wrote:
| > There is no central authority who will go after those that
| make counterfeit bills, like the FBI.
|
| Why? They go after people copying bits after all... i.e.:
| movies
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| If you don't trust the bill, scan it to validate the multisig,
| re-key the note or cut the note to claim the Bitcoin. If you
| can't validate the note, don't accept it.
|
| We don't store key material. We have 0 capability to spend any
| Bitcoin from the notes.
| beambot wrote:
| > We don't store key material.
|
| There's the centralized trust... How can you prove this?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We can't prove a negative, but we _can_ prove that we can
| 't spend the Bitcoin based on the construction of the
| multisig which the user sends funds to.
|
| I primarily state that from the regulatory perspective; we
| explicitly don't want to be a custodian.
| seibelj wrote:
| I don't think you read the website. You can verify the funds
| aren't spent via NFC chip and the blockchain itself. You then
| rotate the user key so only you can spend it after receiving
| the bill.
|
| A bit cumbersome but your criticism about trust is incorrect.
| ntoskrnl wrote:
| It's illegal to counterfeit more than just currency. You'll get
| yourself in hot water selling fake Rolexes or fake Magic the
| Gathering cards too.
| dralley wrote:
| dustractor wrote:
| Hopefully works out better than Escobar Cash ECH
| https://pabloescobar.com/
| basisword wrote:
| Cool idea, and the notes themselves look really nice. How does it
| work if I were to give someone one of these notes? To 'claim' the
| BTC (assuming they aren't passing the note around between people
| indefinitely) do they need the private key from the original
| owner of the note?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| All key material for the note must be written to the note so
| that it is fully bearer (otherwise it's invalid and our app
| will reflect as such).
|
| So, just like cash you can hand the note to someone and using
| the app they (1) can tap the note to see the public keys and
| verify it is loaded and (2) cut the note to claim (the fact
| that the note is cut is sent to us at which point we respond
| with a decryption key to unlock the second private key that
| lives on the note).
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| I have a secure, self custodial note right here: it's called
| cash.
| jpmattia wrote:
| _Very_ interesting idea.
|
| I'm still wrapping my head around the multisig use, but there was
| one confusing point on the site:
|
| > _The stored Bitcoin is only claimable when the holder cuts the
| note._
|
| "Cuts"? Does that word mean "issues" or "spends"?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Oh, we need to show a better photo of this but there is a point
| on the note where the claimer needs to physically cut the note
| which trips a tamper sensor in the chip.
| jpmattia wrote:
| Aha. I was reading too fast (plus I deal with a lot of people
| who "cut a check", which means "issue a check" in accounting-
| speak.)
| simonw wrote:
| How can I ensure that the Bitcoin on the note isn't corrupted in
| some way such that it might not be accepted by certain exchanges
| - Bitcoin that has been through a tumbler for example. Will your
| mobile apps by able to perform those kinds of checks for me, or
| will that require me to take extra steps?
| bsedlm wrote:
| so you want bitcoin as non-fungible cash?
|
| isn't that a counter to the whole point of a cash-currency?
| simonw wrote:
| Yeah, I do find the fact that Bitcoins are not in fact
| fungible darkly amusing.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We have no checks in place like this today, but that's an
| interesting suggestion. Sounds like some sort of OFAC address
| checker?
| simonw wrote:
| I wonder if anyone's built an API that handles this kind of
| thing yet - seems like the sort of thing a company similar to
| Infura would offer.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Found one:
| https://docs.sanctions.trmlabs.com/#section/Introduction
| Termitiono wrote:
| That's just a joke I'm too stupid to get right?
|
| You make a physical representation of something digital which
| also changed denomination quite often the last 10 years?
|
| What do I do with it?
|
| I mean first of I need to check if the value is on that note so I
| need a smartphone. Now I have a smartphone why do I need a note?
|
| The only useful thing would be if I as the giver don't have a
| smartphone but than I also need to give away a printed object.
| How cheap can someone print something like this?
|
| Now Bitcoin makes even more garbage?!
| davidcbc wrote:
| You can't parody cryptobros
| godmode2019 wrote:
| What if your server doesn't exist in 5 years.
|
| Its not really 'offline.cash' when a user needs to ask permission
| to your server to access their funds.
| bambax wrote:
| Can't tell if this is satire or not. Must be some kind of
| elaborate joke that I don't quite get. But in case it's serious:
|
| > _censorship resistant money_
|
| Ordinary cash is very censorship resistant, that's why it's used
| by so many criminals. Ever watched Narcos?
|
| > _before you accept one of these things you should validate that
| it actually contains funds? > Yes; depending on who gives you the
| note you might trust that they have done this for you_
|
| So... much, much worse than actual cash, to the point of complete
| absurdity.
| staticman2 wrote:
| I like it in a cyberpunk dystopia sort of way.
| Agamus wrote:
| I used to love the cyberpunk distopia aesthetic, back in the
| 90s.
|
| Now I want less of all of the things in this article. Less
| digital money, less cellular telephones, less of all of it.
|
| By comparison, if it was depressing to see awesome or
| inspiring technologies get steamrolled and monetized by the
| MBAs in the early 2000s, this farce evokes despair.
| thiht wrote:
| > Can't tell if this is satire or not
|
| Me neither, I'm genuinely confused
| Hyolobrika wrote:
| > > before you accept one of these things you should validate
| that it actually contains funds?
|
| Where did you read that? I can't find it on the website.
| bambax wrote:
| It's a comment here, and the response to it by one of the
| makers of this thing.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31656090
| killdozer wrote:
| How is this better than https://www.jmbullion.com/1-utah-
| goldback-gold-note/?
| spicybright wrote:
| At least with that the note has intrinsic value, theoretically.
| thebeastie wrote:
| So, I assume before you accept one of these things you should
| validate that it actually contains funds somehow ?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yes; depending on who gives you the note you might trust that
| they have done this for you.
|
| We will have iOS and Android apps available (and we will open
| source them for peer review as well).
| simonw wrote:
| "depending on who gives you the note you might trust that
| they have done this for you"
|
| There is absolutely no way I would trust that - because even
| if I trusted that person's integrity I would also need to
| trust that they themselves had the technical knowledge to
| reliably make that confirmation. And that they hadn't made a
| mistake.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| There is one case, which I believe is a common one where I
| would argue this might not be true -- a crypto savvy family
| member is the first person to purchase and load the notes
| before gifting them to you.
|
| But, fair point. I would always err on the side of
| recommending someone scan a note rather than not.
| simonw wrote:
| Agreed, that's one case where I could see myself trusting
| someone here.
| Youden wrote:
| Note: I have very little exposure to the crypto ecosystem.
|
| I either don't understand the specifics of the keying or it
| doesn't make sense.
|
| There's some kind of private key. Makes sense. But there appears
| to be some kind of second key. At some point the note will
| "expire" and only the person who owns the second key can redeem
| the Bitcoin?
|
| If I understand right, either the person who physically holds the
| note can update the key (in which case what purpose does it
| serve) or the key needs to be transferred along with physical
| possession of the note (in which case what purpose does the
| product serve).
|
| Also what does it mean for the note to be "cut"? Like with
| scissors?
|
| Is this product just intended for hardcore crypto folks or is it
| intended for regular people too?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > Also what does it mean for the note to be "cut"? Like with
| scissors?
|
| Yes, exactly. There is a spot indicated on the note to cut it.
| This "tampers" the associated chip which can be reported back
| to us so that we release the encryption key to decrypt the
| local key.
|
| > Is this product just intended for hardcore crypto folks or is
| it intended for regular people too?
|
| Regular people too! The UX of our app will simplify a big part
| of this by indicating to folks the state of a note and their
| options with respect to claiming Bitcoin.
| meltedcapacitor wrote:
| Can one "glue it back" after "cutting" it, sell it to a mug,
| and double spend it before they notice?
| aftbit wrote:
| Does anyone remember Bitbills? They did something sorta similar
| to this very early in the BTC revolution. Instead of all of this
| advanced multisig tech, instead they put the public key and
| address in a QR code on the outside and the private key in a QR
| code held inside the bill. They were likely much more vulnerable
| to attacks, but they died because they were too early not because
| of that.
| danuker wrote:
| > but they died because they were too early
|
| Maybe they died because Bitcoin, a digital asset, is much
| easier to spend digitally than printing it and giving it
| physically to someone.
| ineedasername wrote:
| It's interesting, but it seems like it relies on technology a bit
| too much to really be a cash equivalent. Particularly the
| centralized server required.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| Another person saying "trust me with your crypto". People want to
| make money by putting fences around it. Not really offline or
| secure if you have to get the decryption key from someone else's
| servers... Interesting idea, though users need to understand the
| security tradeoffs they are making by using these.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| There are a number of circumstances where the notes can live
| "offline" without further contact with us -- the primary one we
| think of is gifting to non-crypto savvy family.
|
| Our denominations are also meant to imply this -- we aren't
| making 1 BTC notes on purpose. The goal is to provide another
| tool for onboarding and holding crypto.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| How does gifting to non-crypto savvy family change whether
| the note works offline or not? Because they don't understand
| it so they don't verify that it wasn't spent? Sorry I don't
| follow, and I'm not just trying to crap on the idea.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| In that circumstance they don't need to be online. The
| recipient can scan the note entirely offline, get the
| private key, create a transaction and broadcast it to the
| Bitcoin network when they are online.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| Ah, so they just assume it wasn't spent already because
| it was a gift. Yeah might make a fun gift.
| danschumann wrote:
| Those printed things are probably still cheaper than the transfer
| fees are in bitcoin, or did they did those?
| beders wrote:
| Have you done any market fit research before diving into this?
|
| Honestly: Spending money like cash and using a secure wallet on
| my phone is already very very easy. Why would I want to go
| through these extra steps?
|
| If the ONLY answer is "Because it is Bitcoin" then you might have
| a problem.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. What percentage of the world population is
| really bothered by centralized currency, banks and credit
| cards? Crypto is a solution searching for a problem.
| Kiro wrote:
| The only market fit research you can trust is launching your
| product and see the market's reaction.
|
| Everyone I know who has done an exit got told there would be no
| market for their product. Just follow your vision and ignore
| whatever people say.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Not just that, but Bitcoin acceptance is already pretty thin.
| There would be a subset of people who accept bitcoin who would
| accept this in person. I see this only being used to buy beer
| at Bitcoin meetups.
|
| That said if they can find an initial group of super
| enthusiasts it might go well. Maybe Nayib Bukele would be
| interested in the technology to license it to El Salvador.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| To gift Bitcoin to people who are not used to using wallets. To
| have small amounts of Bitcoin not tied your phone or other
| online device in the case of destruction/hacking/etc. To allow
| for immediate settlement of a Bitcoin transaction.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| I feel like most of these crypto products boil down to "just
| because" hobby money, rather than being a part of any well
| thought out business model.
| RickTM wrote:
| Theres also laws against minting private currency, as seen
| here:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20121205094219/http://www.fbi.go...
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Three reasons why this is probably irrelevant.
|
| 1.
|
| > Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998
| and the Liberty coins were marked with the dollar sign ($);
| the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In
| God We Trust)
|
| So that is not a great example, as it is currency designed to
| confuse people into thinking they are real dollars.
|
| 2.
|
| The USA is just one set of laws. Over the pond in the UK, it
| is fine.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i.
| ..
|
| 3.
|
| This isn't a new currency, it is a new key storage format for
| Bitcoin.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Wow, this is beautifully done.
|
| The site mentions the decryption key is released when the note is
| "cut". Does that mean there's something enclosed in the bill, and
| you have to physically cut it open to extract it?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thank you -- then chip has a tamper trace that needs to be cut
| (you cut roughly 1/4 of the note to slice it).
|
| Once the trace is cut the app can report that fact to us at
| which point we release the decryption key.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| I'm guessing it means you need to destroy the note in order to
| redeem it which makes sense as a way of remotely "redeeming"
| the note with the issuer. I'm interested in how secure this
| process is since the entire system would hinge on it.
| stalinford wrote:
| Regarding the multisig: Is it possible for a government to, say,
| point a gun at your head, and seize the bitcoin, even if the
| holder of the note remains safely out of their reach?
|
| (Either way, thank you for your service!)
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| No, this is a super important question to us as we don't want
| to hold Bitcoin key material.
|
| The encrypted key on the note can only be used in conjunction
| with the user key on the note. If we go away or our servers are
| seized, then in 2029 the user key on the note can access the
| funds without needing to decrypt the second key on the note.
| cyphertruck wrote:
| This requires too much trust of your service, and I don't see any
| significant benefits.
|
| If you want to give someone bitcoin, just send some over
| lightning.
|
| No need to add complexity and trust.
| pluc wrote:
| but then how do I get rich?
| highwaylights wrote:
| Be the receiver.
| nickphx wrote:
| why though?
| gauddasa wrote:
| As I understand, this requires two fold sanctity - one for the
| printed form and one for the NFC. For being not a counterfeit now
| two conditions have to be met independently and simultaneously.
| Has it been considered that while accepting it neither visual
| verification, nor electronic verification are enough alone given
| that it is meant to be circulated among strangers in all
| imaginable and unimaginable circumstances?
| amluto wrote:
| This is straight out of a fairy tale. An evil fairy can make
| money that looks just like real gold (I mean Bitcoin) and even
| passes the test when a lesser mage waves their wand (I mean
| smartphone) over it. But then it will evaporate in a while and
| will have no value at all.
|
| I love it!
|
| In other words, this whole scheme depends on the NFC chip doing
| exactly what it claims to.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Presuming you can read the user private key off the NFC chip at
| least _once_ then you hold Bitcoin after the expiration of the
| note. No fairy tale, just math.
| amluto wrote:
| You need to cut the wires to do this, as I understand it.
| But, more relevantly, this only applies to the person who
| made the note. If you want to buy something with this fairly
| gold note, the recipient has no way to verify that it's real
| unless they either trust the manufacturer or they cut the
| wires and transfer the Bitcoin, at which point one wonders
| what the point of the physical note is.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| No, after expiration of the note the wire does not need to
| claim funds from the note. Only the user key is required.
|
| If we as the manufacturer are perfectly untrustworthy, this
| is the final "backup" state. If we the manufacturer are
| partially trustworthy at any point in time, you can re-key
| the note then. In no case can we claim funds from the note
| ourselves.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > But then it will evaporate in a while and will have no value
| at all.
|
| This is true of the US dollar as well if you look at a 100 year
| time span.
| amluto wrote:
| A dollar is still a dollar in 100 years. The dollar may be
| worth less due to inflation, but that's a separate issue.
| This Bitcoin note might not be backed by any Bitcoin, meaning
| it may have no value whatsoever.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Alternatively, note could retain value while the underlying
| Bitcoin becomes worthless; the Internet may have become
| irreparably fragmented by the collapse of global
| civilization, and fancy rainbow paper money will carry
| value because you can see it, smell it, and hold it while
| numbers in a database will be worthless because you can't
| verify that database against anyone else's database over a
| nonexistent network fabric (and that's if you can even get
| enough electricity to run the algorithms to do the public-
| key verification).
|
| 100 years of future time can be just full of surprises.
| wvlia5 wrote:
| can some zk proof be printed visibly in the bill to prove that it
| contains the given amount of btc ?
| deedree wrote:
| This feels like a Rick and Morty episode to me. They just
| reinvented cash money, with extra steps.
|
| Only, without the oversight of a central bank.. Without the means
| to keep the exchange rate in check. They can't change the rate of
| interest or anything else.
|
| So far with crypto the only use cases seems to be criminal. To
| buy illegal stuff and for ransomware. Maybe it could be useful in
| countries where the currency is devalued like some in South-
| America. But then all the extra steps seem to be a big hurdle to
| me.
|
| Someone enlighten me on the merits of this idea.
| sbarbarian wrote:
| rick and morty is on-point, also:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAKOWcs8w54
| nsv wrote:
| > like some in South America
|
| Or Turkey, who's inflation is around 70% right now.
| rvz wrote:
| > So far with crypto the only use cases seems to be criminal.
| To buy illegal stuff and for ransomware.
|
| Given that E2EE encrypted messaging apps such as Signal give
| criminals, extremists and scammers a hiding place such that the
| messages are totally unreadable by anyone else, does that mean
| we should tell Google and Amazon to ban Signal off of their
| servers because they are enabling such a communication service
| that benefits these criminals, extremists and scammers?
|
| Also how does one 'hide' their transactions on a transparent
| ledger for everyone to see and trace even if they do use it for
| ransomware or illegal stuff? Is that why regulators haven't
| banned those cryptocurrencies yet and instead have targeted
| privacy-coins in new regulations requiring exchanges to de-list
| them? [0]
|
| Seems like Stripe [1], Moneygram [2], Checkout.com [3] etc
| still seem to see that _some_ of them have a use case. Perhaps
| that explains why they also waited for regulations before
| proceeding to use them [0].
|
| [0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20220309IP...
|
| [1] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-
| crypto
|
| [2]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-29/moneygram...
|
| [3] https://www.checkout.com/solutions/crypto#stablecoin
|
| [4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
| ipaddr wrote:
| I was reading an email exchange from Atari employees in 1984.
| There was one comment.. computers are not useful for anything
| but playing games. It's all marketing fluff.
|
| Here we are 40 years later communicating with computers. I
| wonder if in 40 years someone will read your comment and wonder
| how clueless some were in this era.
| unmole wrote:
| They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they
| laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
| the Clown.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| They laughed at Columbus and _they were right_! Columbus
| said "I think the earth is like half the size everyone
| else says it is and I'm going to sail around it" and
| everyone with reputable mathematicians said "Nope"
|
| If America didn't exist, and Columbus was relying on his
| plan, they all would have starved to death roughly where
| the East Coast is
| UncleMeat wrote:
| It is certainly possible. But there are a few important
| thoughts here.
|
| 1. That people have been wildly wrong about various
| technologies before is not evidence that a given specific
| technology will succeed.
|
| 2. Many critics don't doubt the technical capabilities but
| instead worry about the social harm of systems developed
| using cryptocurrencies.
| nathias wrote:
| No need to speculate, I'm wondering it right now.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I wonder if in 40 years someone will read your comment and
| wonder how clueless some were in this era.
|
| That reminds me of a line from a track by Apollo 440:
|
| "Mick Jagger came up to me and I said 'I've seen the future'
| and he goes 'Yeah, if there is one...'".
| rchaud wrote:
| It does feel like a Twilight Zone episode.
|
| In 2011, you could buy coffee and pizza w/ BTC (at non-
| conformist boutique shops but still). Now, not even those
| stores would accept it as a method of payment, and you'd be
| stupid to spend it on goods and services anyway, because BTC's
| value is wrapped up in the idea that it's a 'digital asset'
| instead of a currency.
| johnnymorgan wrote:
| I used dash to buy food for people in Venezuela during the
| height of the Maduro conflict (still ongoing really but this is
| while it kicked off) when all other methods had failed.
|
| It was farmer that turned his farm into direct sales, used an
| Uber like service to deliver and used DASH as point of sale and
| store of value...is what I did illegal??
|
| There are a ton of uses cases out there where blockchain tech
| can provide a faster better solution, not every single case but
| it's there.
|
| Even the 'criminal' side is nothing compared to the USD and how
| it's used. That same argue applies even stronger to fiat
| currencies.
|
| A bankless note isn't a new idea, ops solution is novel and
| well thought out and there are markets that it solves pain
| points.
| Termitiono wrote:
| I'm still questioning the real benefit compared to the
| downsides of it.
|
| Ordering food online vs. Terrawatts of energy wasted, Asics
| hardware and GPU prices and the created co2 of all of that.
|
| Mmhhh difficult very difficult
| nathias wrote:
| Money needs to be reinvented since politics has hijacked it and
| used it as a tool to deliver policy (at the expense of money's
| functions). I think it's evil to harvest the wallets of poor
| people for scraps, pile it together and give it to the richest,
| which is effectively what inflation is.
| sumy23 wrote:
| Cryptocurrencies are programmable money. Can you program
| traditional fiat currencies? No. Being able to program money
| should get hackers excited.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| What does it mean to "program money" in ways that aren't just
| moving money around with APIs, which is what we can do
| already with the existing system?
| sumy23 wrote:
| Isn't moving money around with APIs just moving money
| around by sending messages, which is what we can do already
| by sending a check in the mail?
|
| How many hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars
| of market cap is dedicated to providing: bank accounts,
| transfer services, security brokerage, options trading,
| credit default swaps, and other derivatives. You can easily
| implement the entire functionality of the entire global
| banking system on the blockchain. Rather than require
| hundreds of thousands of specialized bankers, you can do it
| with miners running nodes in the block chain. This is a
| huge efficiency improvement and allows for a more
| democratized system. You can think this is cool, or stupid,
| or dangerous, or all three. But if you aren't interested in
| the tech, why bother commenting on it?
| rchaud wrote:
| Ah yes, programmable money. The Do Kwon special.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| Except when someone who can program better than you can pick
| that money right out of your pocket (or so called "smart"
| contracts.)
|
| I identify as a hacker, and I don't think all things should
| be programmable. Votes should not be programmable or
| hackable. I'm almost certain that at certain point money
| shouldn't be either, given how rife the abuse can be.
| PKop wrote:
| It's a non-sovereign store of value (potentially). It's not
| meant to substitute completely for fiat credit for day to day
| commerce or transactions, just to be used a store of value to
| hedge currency debasement which _is_ coming due to so much
| sovereign debt. It 's gold in a more transmittable form.
|
| You spend and transact mostly in fiat, you borrow in fiat. You
| save some percent of your earnings in more finite stores of
| value (you and everyone else already do this so the concept is
| not controversial).
|
| The idea is explained here: Ctrl + F "two monies"
|
| http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2011/05/return-to-honest-money.htm...
| unmole wrote:
| > hedge currency debasement which is coming
|
| You're honestly going to claim that an asset that is down
| more than 40% YTD is a hedge against inflation?
| [deleted]
| PKop wrote:
| As long as Federal reserve keeps tightening monetary
| conditions, nothing will beat cash. The argument is though
| that they cannot continue down this path as the amount of
| debt in the system will result in everything breaking as a
| result of this tightening.
|
| Also, you do realize this point of view "muh down YTD" is a
| meme comment yes? Stare at any 6month period of any chart
| and you can make any argument you want. Are stocks not
| inflation hedges generally? Yet they are down YTD too. In
| the period of monetary expansion from 2020 through 2021,
| did not BTC do just fine hedging this monetary expansion?
| Even in Wiemar Germany, gold did not go up in a straight
| line, it was extremely volatile. BTC is more volatile than
| almost anything else that still long term has worked to
| hedge expansion of liquidity. BTC moves in line with growth
| or contraction of liquidity better than anything else. Just
| look at the charts.
|
| Additionally, my point is this is the framework. It can
| also be a failed experiment. But there is no scenarios
| where a finite asset can replace fiat currency. There _is_
| theoretical basis for same asset to replace other forms of
| scarce stores of value. In principle, BTC is a SoV asset,
| not a transaction currency or unit of account by virtue of
| its technical fundamentals (un-inflatable supply, expensive
| to transact, slow).
| unmole wrote:
| What do you actually mean by _hedge_?
|
| > BTC moves in line with growth or contraction of
| liquidity better than anything else.
|
| > In the period of monetary expansion from 2020 through
| 2021, did not BTC do just fine hedging this monetary
| expansion?
|
| How is it a hedge if it moves in line with liquidity?
|
| Why is _expansion of liquidity_ is something one would
| need to hedge against?
| PKop wrote:
| Because some portion of cost of living will expand with
| it..housing prices, other financial assets and therefore
| wealth of those investing in them, and in the future,
| costs of commodities and other consumption items as
| investors drain the stored energy in these "liquidity
| capacitors" and the money flows into the real economy.
|
| "mitigate the potential negative effects of" I guess..
|
| >How is it a hedge if it moves in line with liquidity?
|
| I don't know what you're asking? Liquidity expansion
| inflates assets, and BTC inflates more than almost
| anything, especially over a multi-year time frame.
|
| It hedges just holding cash. It hedges the opportunity
| cost of not investing while invest-able assets are going
| up in value, and wages on a relative basis are not.
|
| >Why is expansion of liquidity is something one would
| need to hedge against?
|
| Sort of a philosophical question lol. Maybe you don't. If
| one wants to invest at all (why though?) this is a
| framework for thinking about that process.
| lottin wrote:
| You can't expect to make sense of a complex phenomenon
| without having a proper conceptual framework and
| terminology.
| unmole wrote:
| A hedge is meant to control risk by taking an offsetting
| position. Whatever you're describing is most definitely
| not a hedge.
| [deleted]
| throwntoday wrote:
| Aren't like 90% of all bitcoin held by a few whales? Why
| would I want any part of that system it has worse
| distribution than fiat.
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm curious about those numbers for both cases myself, but
| I know that only one of them you can actually get the
| numbers from (although only the number of coins in wallets,
| not coins belonging to users, as a user can have many
| wallets), the other one is completely in the dark as no one
| can really say who has what.
|
| Since we can't know the numbers for fiat, we can at least
| try to understand it for Bitcoin. As far as I can tell,
| sources seem to point towards the number being closer to
| ~2% of wallets hold ~70% of all Bitcoin.
|
| If this is a better/worse distribution than fiat, we will
| never know.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| and all the gold is locked up at ft knox, I still want some
| for myself (:
| fartcannon wrote:
| I think thats generally believed to be hot wallets for
| exchanges, but if it is true, it's about the same as the
| stock market so you're probably already engaging in
| something like that: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-
| wealthiest-10percent-of-...
|
| Bitcoin is a nice mirror to look into. We need to eliminate
| money, go full star trek post scarcity utopia.
| yunohn wrote:
| > I think thats generally believed to be hot wallets for
| exchanges
|
| Could you source that claim? I find it absurd that you
| think such studies haven't considered crypto exchange
| wallets in their analysis...
| rchaud wrote:
| > We need to eliminate money, go full star trek post
| scarcity utopia.
|
| Electricity is scarce, and unholy amounts of it are
| needed to create this post-money utopia.
| spicybright wrote:
| If not infinite unless we really re-think how personal
| freedoms should work.
| newsclues wrote:
| So it's like paper certificates for gold!
| PKop wrote:
| Without looking at details too much, it's seems
| significantly different than paper claims on a separate
| physical asset held by a custodian 3rd party subject to
| counter-party risk.
|
| The control of the BTC is maintained with possession of the
| private key stored in the bearer asset cash.
|
| Holding gold certificates does not enforce any fundamental
| claim or control of the actual asset the backs the paper;
| possession of the physical gold does. You need to trust
| somehow that the holder will exchange the gold for the
| paper in the future, as well as actually have the gold at
| that time.
| yoavm wrote:
| Well, here you need to trust that their app will exist
| next year. And perhaps also that something will happen
| when you cut the notes, but I'm not sure I got that
| part...
|
| I don't know if it exactly like gold certificates, but it
| sounds pretty close to "I'll pay you with cashews" to me.
| It's not terrible - I bet a many people exchange goods
| like this every day.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| I guess, you can easily confirm if it's counterfit
| capableweb wrote:
| > Only, without the oversight of a central bank.. Without the
| means to keep the exchange rate in check. They can't change the
| rate of interest or anything else.
|
| You seem to have nailed the use case well. This is exactly
| why'd someone use something like this.
|
| I'm not saying it's a good idea (nor a bad one), just that
| those things are "features" in the eyes of the cryptocurrency
| users and proponents, not bugs.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| "for the crypto enthusiasts, the problem with the legacy
| financial markets wasn't that they were manipulated, it's
| that they weren't in on it." (reproduced here from memory)
| sunshinerag wrote:
| "For the fiat incumbents, the problem with crypto markets
| is it pulls capital away from their entrenched fiat scams"
| rchaud wrote:
| Brian Armstrong didn't buy his $133m compound with BTC,
| it was from the filthy, debased USD that he exchanged his
| Coinbase shares for.
|
| Everyone's a fiat incumbent in the long run.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I don't know. The people I know that said "I really want my
| currency to have an unchecked exchange rate, that would do a
| lot for me" is 0. I also don't feel that's an honest
| representation of why anyone has gotten into btc (although I
| am sure some claim that's why they did it)
| canjobear wrote:
| Replace the statement with "I don't want my currency's
| value to be controlled by a central authority" and you'll
| get >0 people.
| doliveira wrote:
| There's no such thing as a power vacuum...
| yunohn wrote:
| So... they'd rather it be controlled by rampant
| speculation and pumping-dumping?
| rchaud wrote:
| Libertarian maxis seem to think that negative
| externalities won't affect them personally.
|
| In lieu of an elected government and sane central bank,
| monetary policy will be controlled by a cartel of your
| locality's most powerful gangs and paramilitaries.
|
| There's a reason the example quoted is always Star Trek
| and not Somalia.
| capableweb wrote:
| The one I know who actually want to use Bitcoin et al
| and/or work in the space (not outside "investors" who just
| want to earn as much money as soon as possible), don't
| consider the exchange rate important at all and couldn't
| care less about it, as Bitcoin is not for exchanging it to
| USD/EUR/whatever.
| ivalm wrote:
| But presumably they care if bitcoin is still exchangeable
| to something (maybe goods and services?). The exchange
| rate to currencies determines the exchange rate to
| everything else. If they don't care about exchanging
| bitcoin for currencies or goods or services then what is
| the purpose of BTC? Both currency and store of value use
| cases depend on exchangability.
| arubania2 wrote:
| There is a concept called Bitcoin maximalism that means,
| in my understanding, that the whole world would switch to
| BTC so that the exchange rates to other currencies
| wouldn't matter anymore.
|
| It's easy to get paid in BTC if you land a crypto job,
| but it's the groceries part that I can't really imagine
| yet.
| ivalm wrote:
| But even maximalists care to be able to use bitcoin to
| buy goods and services (eg be able to spend it). Since
| other currencies are also capable of being exchanged for
| good and services then the exchange rate to other
| currencies determines how much goods btc can buy (or
| there will be an arbitrage opportunity).
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trilemma.asp
|
| So given the trilemma then, it sounds like Bitcoin
| maximalism means fixed exchange rates (since all
| countries use BTC), and free flow of capital (since
| that's the BTC ideal), which means no country can set
| independent monetary policy.
|
| So you essentially have the Eurozone problems but across
| the entire world. Seems like many countries would try to
| avoid picking that side of the trilemma.
| yunohn wrote:
| But even in a purely BTC universe, wouldn't the relative
| value of goods/services stay the same? You'd still need
| more BTC, the same way you need more fiat today.
| fleddr wrote:
| That's not an accurate description of BTC maximalism.
|
| Usually a BTC maximalist means that within the context of
| crypto, they are BTC only and aggressively and
| passionately reject every other crypto token. This is
| what you call call a common maximalist stance.
|
| Out of that group, a small minority is a believer in
| "hyperbitcoinization". This is an event where BTC becomes
| the dominant asset class, at the expense of gold, bonds,
| etc, with a market cap prediction for BTC ranging from
| 10-100T.
|
| Even people with that (unlikely) hope, do not claim any
| currency replacement, only an asset shift.
| rchaud wrote:
| One of the few avenues for entertainment remaining on
| social media are watching BTC maxis and ETH bagholders
| argue that the other is completely useless.
| rglover wrote:
| > Only, without the oversight of a central bank
|
| Yes, that's a good thing.
|
| > Someone enlighten me on the merits of this idea.
|
| Currency that can't be manipulated or devalued by the state or
| central banks. In other words: eliminates the potential for
| _exactly_ what 's taking place worldwide right now.
| erulabs wrote:
| With inflation at the rate it's at, I can't help but laugh at
| "crypto is so volatile!" That argument made sense in the
| endless bull markets - but these days? What's not volatile?
| I-Bonds?
|
| The idea that the US Dollar is the eternal pinnacle of
| stability always seemed naive in principle, but now its
| clearly naive in practice.
| rglover wrote:
| It certainly could have been if our government didn't:
|
| 1. Unpeg it from a gold standard.
|
| 2. Use it as a geopolitical weapon.
|
| The power and greed were too intoxicating.
| gunshai wrote:
| I'm not really sure why people opine about not using the
| gold standard.
|
| Especially crypo-enthusiasts or even libertarians (I
| consider my self tangent to both these groups).
|
| Gold is terrible for the following reasons.
|
| * Supply is unknown so your market cap value is volatile
| to any sudden prospected windfall. This one is ESPECIALLY
| bad if you are a central government. Why would a central
| bank want to be beholden (with respect to purchasing
| power) to some random gold find that devalues the
| currency unexpectedly? (see wiki article about Mansa Musa
| who just went around destroying local economies because
| he just literally threw his gold around.)
|
| * Gold is not very divisible, in that there are real
| costs to trying to divide the mint.
|
| * Gold comes with high storage/security costs (especially
| if it is your currency back).
|
| * Gold isn't really that transferable, the stuff is a
| pain in the ass to actually move around.
|
| Gold has two things going for it.
|
| 1. It has manufacturing uses that provide real world
| value
|
| 2. Through out time people have a perception that it
| should have value. This perception spans across cultures
| and geography.
| rglover wrote:
| There's no opining about it. It was the best solution at
| the time and removing it eliminated the last remaining
| dam preventing absolute corruption of our money by the
| state.
|
| https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
| agentultra wrote:
| Goldbug libertarian extremist identified. Note that this
| site is a conspiracy theory and not representative of
| facts or recognized by any majority of experts.
| rglover wrote:
| I'm a Bitcoin maximalist and only a few notches away from
| an anarchist.
|
| A website showing charts that demonstrate a shift in data
| since 1971 is not a conspiracy theory. That requires...an
| actual theory.
| agentultra wrote:
| The collapse of the Bretton-Woods system was really bad.
| It got so bad that Nixon had to temporarily suspend
| exchange of notes for gold. It eventually dragged all
| currencies into a death-spiral. You can read all about it
| in the history books. Why should it be repeated?
|
| The Austrian school of economics radically simplifies
| economic theory to an absurd degree (I assume that's what
| you're signalling you follow given your statements). It
| treats empirical evidence as heresy. The only driving
| force behind all of their conspiracy theories and
| racist/anti-semitic dog-whistling is a belief that
| governments are evil and all inflation is bad. It's
| really reductive and anti-intellectual.
|
| Inflation isn't inherently bad and not all inflation is
| the same.
|
| In terms of geopolitics the collapse of the Bretton-Woods
| system has had many benefits. Much of the world
| eventually recovered by the mid-80s by the economic
| crises of the late-60s. Also in the history books.
|
| War and debt are bedfellows. Everyone knows this. Also
| well known are the economic consequences of creating such
| debt by going to war. It turns out mostly authoritarian
| psychopaths will go to war or make crypto-currencies
| official currencies despite the economic consequences and
| impacts it would have on their citizens.
| rglover wrote:
| > War and debt are bedfellows.
|
| Because fiat enables them to be as much. If you can print
| money, you don't need public consent to go blow people
| out of the water, nor to justify obscene spending on the
| military. Every war the U.S. has been involved in since
| Vietnam has been a banker war, not a state war.
|
| What's reductive and anti-intellectual is deluding people
| into believing that giving the government (or even worse,
| "economists" or central bankers) authority over their
| wealth is, somehow, going to multiply or protect it when
| we have ample examples to the contrary.
|
| To your point, governments historically _are_ evil and
| inflation _is_ bad (it 's arguably an inherent property
| of government as you're giving absolute power to the
| unproductive class). The idea that it's not (MMT) is the
| rationalization of a failed economic strategy that's put
| everyone's well-being in the crosshairs.
|
| The idea that any of that is untrue is a result of
| unrelenting propaganda and indoctrination (or, in certain
| cases, someone who has directly benefited from the
| scheme). Any way you shake it, to think that what's
| happening isn't the result of malfeasance is denial,
| wholesale.
|
| Mayer Rothschild codified the potential for this way of
| thinking with his Economic Inductance theory:
|
| > Currency, or deposit loan accounts, has the required
| appearance of power that could be used to induce people
| into surrendering their real wealth in exchange for a
| promise of greater wealth (interests). When applied
| gradually, the public adapts to its presence and learns
| to tolerate its encroachment on their lives until the
| pressure (psychological via economic) becomes too great
| and they crack up, depending on their resilience
| capacity.
|
| Flip on the television if you need insight into what
| people do when they "crack up."
| agentultra wrote:
| It sounds to me like you believe in conspiracy theories
| about finance and banking and the threatening powers that
| control them. I suppose you also take Ezra Pound's later
| obscenities about global finance and the reasons for war
| to heart. And therein lies the problem with the goldbug:
| the path to fascism.
|
| _All inflation is bad_ is a highly reductive argument.
| It is much more complicated than that and most economic
| models indicate that a certain amount of inflation is a
| good thing for overall growth. This is why, in the US,
| the Federal Reserve targets 2% inflation. There are a lot
| of positive effects to inflation and trying to control it
| so that it grows _moderately_ is a good thing. There are
| decades of research as to why this is the case even
| though I suspect it won 't sway you I suggest you try
| reading it if you are seriously interested in educating
| yourself about what you're talking about.
|
| Do I believe the current economic conditions are the
| result of a scheme among elite bankers? No. A conspiracy
| involving more than two people is not sustainable and not
| a conspiracy. Financial regulation is managed in most
| Western countries by democratic representation. In the US
| they created the Federal Reserve system. If you want to
| see what they get up to they publish their board meeting
| notes, research, reports, results of votes, etc. It's
| open information.
|
| If Americans have a problem with the system they're free
| to vote for representation that will introduce laws that
| will change the way the Federal Reserve is run...
| although in my experience very few people even know what
| the Fed does or that they have a website.
|
| I don't need the thought experiments of a long-dead
| banker who didn't live to see the formation of the
| Federal Reserve. The quote you're citing is antiquated.
| Banks today don't make money on deposits like they did in
| this Rothschild's day and people aren't worried about
| runs on a bank's reserves anymore.
|
| Although if they're invested in crypto via Tether or any
| other stable coin they ought to be.
| rglover wrote:
| > It sounds to me like you believe in conspiracy theories
| about finance and banking[...]
|
| Yeah, dude.
|
| > Do I believe the current economic conditions are the
| result of a scheme among elite bankers? No.
|
| You're their ideal customer.
|
| > A conspiracy involving more than two people is not
| sustainable and not a conspiracy.
|
| You, like many people, highly underestimate the role of
| hierarchy in a conspiracy. The people at the top don't
| have to tell you it's a conspiracy or explain why they're
| having you do what you're doing. They just say "hey,
| manager, go do this" (who wants to keep their job and
| will do something, even if it's irrational) and then that
| edict trickles down till you get to a lower-level worker
| who's only concern is "will I get my paycheck?"
|
| It's why it's possible and why it works. Most people are
| timid cattle that are deathly afraid of their "superiors"
| and this logic enables psychopathic behavior quite well.
| Couple that with folks like yourself who are desperate to
| explain away evil in the world and you have a pretty kick
| ass machine for corruption.
|
| > The quote you're citing is antiquated.
|
| Who decides that? You?
| agentultra wrote:
| Decide for yourself. Mayer Rothschild died 100 years
| before the creation of the Federal Reserve. Banking in
| his time was extremely different.
|
| Monetary policy in the US is federally regulated by the
| Federal Reserve. Their meeting minutes, votes, etc are
| all public information. We all benefit from this
| regulation. Because of it, banks are forced to disclose
| their finances as part of their SEC filings. Ever notice
| how they claim to care about the environment and the
| Paris Agreements and yet their investments in oil and gas
| have increased in the last couple of years?
|
| Some people have because regulation does work some times.
| fleddr wrote:
| I'd offer a less technical criticism on the economic and
| monetary system you defend.
|
| At the end of the day, now matter what happens, somehow
| the system always calibrates to ensure that the typical
| human being is a wage slave for life. Spectacular
| improvements in productivity and technology are somehow
| never returned to the worker, the system then just
| increases the cost of living, or creates new jobs, many
| of no real purpose.
|
| It's a system to both maximize work and consumption,
| which is as anti-economical as it gets. It's also a
| system that crashes when it doesn't grow. It's also a
| system that completely ignores every externality and
| wrecks everything in its path.
|
| But yes, I'm sure you're right that from within this
| system, everything you say is technically correct.
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, because tying deflation and inflation to the rate of
| 'how quickly do we mine gold' is a brilliant way to run
| an economy.
|
| Don't open enough gold mines? Here comes the deflationary
| spiral of death to strangle the economy. Too many gold
| mines? Inflation, inflation, inflation.
|
| Can we do anything to dampen either one? Nope.
|
| > 2. Use it as a geopolitical weapon.
|
| Sure as hell beats getting involved in an actual shooting
| war.
| not2b wrote:
| This was exactly the history of the American economy in
| the 19th century. Rapid episodes of deflation would
| regularly bankrupt farmers, who couldn't sell their crops
| for enough to repay their loans.
| rglover wrote:
| > Sure as hell beats getting involved in an actual
| shooting war.
|
| Until it backfires and creates the potential for a
| nuclear war.
| vkou wrote:
| Nobody's going to start a nuclear war over sanctions.
| banannaise wrote:
| Yeah, instead it's manipulated by an entirely different set
| of equally nefarious actors! We did it, everyone!
| rglover wrote:
| You don't understand how Bitcoin works, and that's okay,
| but you need to do your homework before you make foolish
| comments like this.
|
| Bitcoin's supply is regulated via a timed algorithm,
| meaning, it doles out an increasingly diminished amount of
| Bitcoin on a pre-timed cycle that will end in ~2140. In
| order to _get_ that Bitcoin, "miners" need to perform work
| (via calculation of a nonce which as an auto-adjusting
| difficulty of computation--the "proof of work") that can't
| be faked or manipulated.
|
| The beauty of that is that, unlike a central bank, no one
| can go and change a variable in a database to say "omg we
| have more money now!"
| danShumway wrote:
| Looking at how Bitcoin's price has fluctuated over the
| years, it should be pretty obvious by now that
| manipulating, inflating, and devaluing a currency doesn't
| only happen through releasing new notes. Bitcoin isn't
| immune from manipulation just because the supply is pre-
| decided.
| fleddr wrote:
| You need to be more accurate in your language.
|
| Bitcoin's supply cannot be manipulated, unlike fiat. The
| currency pair BTC/USD is very much manipulated, as is
| pretty much any asset paired to USD.
|
| These are two different concepts.
| garbanz0 wrote:
| Bitcoin's price relative to the dollar fluctuates, but it
| can't be inflated.
| rglover wrote:
| Bitcoin's price has fluctuated because of the same market
| dynamics that play out everywhere.
|
| Most people are panicky and hair-triggered, very few are
| patient. Especially with a new technology that has the
| potential to make outsized returns early on, of course,
| you're going to get a lot of gamblers entering and
| exiting the market.
|
| This is why you see dips when headlines like "China bans
| mining!" or "Crypto is doomed, look at Luna!" are
| printed. It conflates things and uses people's ignorance
| against them (not unlike traditional financial
| markets/instruments).
| danShumway wrote:
| Correct, and all of that stuff is subject to
| manipulation, often by powerful actors behind the scenes
| or by grifters playing off of people's insecurities, fear
| of missing out, etc...
|
| Controlling the supply of a coin does not mean the coin's
| actual value can't be manipulated by dedicated actors,
| and in the case of cryptocurrency, the "mystique" of the
| tech behind it, the ease of creating new systems on top
| of it that are complicated for ordinary users to
| understand, and the general fear people have of missing
| out on a speculative investment (as well as the general
| fear they have that they might be in a speculative
| bubble) make coins like Bitcoin particularly vulnerable
| to specific kinds of social manipulation, scams, and
| phishing, all of which end up affecting the price of the
| coin.
|
| The fed can't release new Bitcoins, sure, but in
| exchange, now random celebrities on Twitter can cause
| sell-offs and spikes in value; random Discord groups can
| pump coins so they can sell off and make a profit before
| they crash. You haven't gotten rid of currency
| manipulation, you've just changed who's doing it.
| rglover wrote:
| > The fed can't release new Bitcoins, sure, but in
| exchange, now random celebrities on Twitter can cause
| sell-offs and spikes in value; random Discord groups can
| pump coins so they can sell off and make a profit before
| they crash.
|
| This is why anything that isn't Bitcoin is referred to as
| a shitcoin, and why the conflating of Bitcoin with
| everything else is so problematic. The former is designed
| to prevent that manipulation, the latter _leverages_ it.
| danShumway wrote:
| Then we get back to looking at Bitcoin's price chart, and
| I still think looking at the level of volatility in
| Bitcoin's price over time shows that it is not really
| immune from the kind of manipulation you're saying it
| resists.
|
| I mean, if nothing else, shitcoins crashing/spiking
| regularly cause Bitcoin's price to adjust as well. Tera
| isn't Bitcoin, but that didn't make Bitcoin immune from
| volatility when Tera's price crashed; the manipulation
| techniques that work on shitcoins seem to fairly
| regularly have knock-on effects on Bitcoin as well.
|
| I don't buy that social manipulation has no influence on
| Bitcoin.
| rglover wrote:
| The focus on price relative to USD is too short-term of
| thinking. The reason I hold the opinion I do is related
| to scale. A system like Bitcoin if adopted at a standard-
| level (i.e., long-term prospects) would not see
| fluctuations in price because it wouldn't be able to--the
| market would naturally stabilize as people would be able
| to use it to pay bills, buy groceries, and the sheer
| scale of the market couldn't be dictated by a single
| "whale." Technically that can happen today, but there's a
| massive psychological gap that needs to be crossed.
| vkou wrote:
| Tether exists, and turning the magical Tether printing
| press on and off is how BTC is manipulated.
| rglover wrote:
| If Tether collapses, you can certainly expect a panic in
| all cryptocurrency markets, but it has no direct means of
| manipulating Bitcoin.
|
| Only 6.02% of their reserves are held in "digital
| tokens," the rest are held in traditional assets and
| cash: https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports (scroll
| down to "Reserves Breakdown").
| vkou wrote:
| > but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin.
|
| Imagine I am the director of Tether.
|
| I print $1 billion in Tether out of thin air.
|
| I then buy bitcoin with it on a UST/BTC exchange.
|
| Bitcoin price goes up.
| rglover wrote:
| That's not a direct means of manipulation.
| danShumway wrote:
| Direct or not, in that scenario the Bitcoin price is
| still being artificially increased for the benefit of a
| private malevolent actor.
|
| If you want to call that something other than
| manipulation, then :shrug:, more power to you. But my
| main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's
| original comment seems to be mostly accurate.
| rglover wrote:
| > But my main takeaway is still going to be that
| banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly
| accurate.
|
| I'd highly recommend taking the time to rethink that
| position. The systems being implemented now will
| permanently enslave you. Bitcoin is the only escape. And
| no, I'm not being hyperbolic.
| danShumway wrote:
| - "you can certainly expect a panic in all cryptocurrency
| markets"
|
| - "but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin."
|
| How do square these two parts of the sentence? The
| ability to cause a panic in the Bitcoin space on command
| by crashing another cryptocurrency sounds a lot like
| manipulation to me.
| rglover wrote:
| Direct implies that you can manipulate Bitcoin at the
| protocol/technology level.
|
| These are indirect effects as they are events that occur
| _outside_ of Bitcoin but cause people who have Bitcoin to
| sell or trade it.
|
| You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too.
| It's the exact same principle at play.
| yunohn wrote:
| Stock markets aren't manipulated at the technology level
| either - it's large flows of capital, insider trading,
| pumping dumping, and other shady business.
| danShumway wrote:
| As an end user, why should I care about a technicality
| over how exactly someone is manipulating a currency that
| I own? Why does it matter whether manipulation is direct
| or indirect?
|
| If the claim is that Bitcoin is only immune to
| specifically _direct_ manipulation (where direct is a
| narrow sub-category of manipulation techniques), then...
| sure, maybe that 's true, but it's also not that
| impressive and doesn't change all that much about the
| end-user's risks, since the more general forms of
| currency manipulation still seem to be entirely possible.
|
| > You can cause panic in traditional finance markets,
| too. It's the exact same principle at play.
|
| I don't think that's being debated, people are just
| pointing out that Bitcoin's price can be still be
| manipulated by powerful actors.
| rglover wrote:
| Bitcoin's price, yes, but not the actual currency itself.
| That will be the major psychological void to fill in for
| people: thinking about Bitcoin as a currency, not an
| investment or gambling device.
|
| I expect that to take decades as the government/media are
| and will continue to attack Bitcoin and influence public
| opinion as it directly interferes with their business
| model.
| beders wrote:
| You replaced trust in a bank with trust in this centralized
| service.
|
| Where's the merit?
| legutierr wrote:
| These bills look really cool, and if the tech is actually
| decentralized and secure, I could see myself using them.
|
| Can you share with us some of the technical details, though?
|
| First, exactly what is the mechanism by which the user key is
| rotated? Does that require a transaction to be added to the
| blockchain whenever the note is transferred from one owner to
| another? Does the new key need to be kept on a paper wallet or
| separate device?
|
| Also, when your website says that the decryption key is released
| when the note is cut--exactly how does that work? Does it require
| an interaction with your servers? And what is the mechanic by
| which expiration is enforced?
|
| And finally, your say that there is no requirement to trust your
| company. But you somehow have access to the encryption key
| yourselves. As far as anyone knows, you also kept a record of the
| encrypted multisig key before you distributed each note.
|
| Why should anyone trust that you are not keeping copies of all
| the information needed to access the bitcoin stored on the note?
| Can you step through how exactly you are blocked from accessing
| the bitcoin yourselves?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Great questions --
|
| > First, exactly what is the mechanism by which the user key is
| rotated? Does that require a transaction to be added to the
| blockchain whenever the note is transferred from one owner to
| another? Does the new key need to be kept on a paper wallet or
| separate device?
|
| Yes, for re-keying you need to carry out an on-chain action.
| The new key is stored on the note. I could imagine scenarios
| where people don't re-key a note every time, e.g. they expect
| to spend it in a short time period.
|
| > Also, when your website says that the decryption key is
| released when the note is cut--exactly how does that work? Does
| it require an interaction with your servers? And what is the
| mechanic by which expiration is enforced?
|
| Exactly, our servers are required here. The expiration is baked
| into the multisig on Bitcoin.
|
| > And finally, your say that there is no requirement to trust
| your company. But you somehow have access to the encryption key
| yourselves. As far as anyone knows, you also kept a record of
| the encrypted multisig key before you distributed each note.
|
| > Why should anyone trust that you are not keeping copies of
| all the information needed to access the bitcoin stored on the
| note? Can you step through how exactly you are blocked from
| accessing the bitcoin yourselves?
|
| This is good to highlight -- we could be lying and we could
| keep the encrypted private keys (again, for a clear statement
| here regarding custodianship: we don't). But in the case of the
| multisig the encrypted key only ever allows for access to the
| funds in conjunction with the user key. There is no scenario
| where it can claim funds alone.
| legutierr wrote:
| Thanks for your explanation. Some follow-up questions:
|
| > Yes, for re-keying you need to carry out an on-chain
| action. The new key is stored on the note. I could imagine
| scenarios where people don't re-key a note every time, e.g.
| they expect to spend it in a short time period.
|
| So, would this require the full balance of the note
| effectively to be "spent" and sent to a new multisig UTXO?
| Wouldn't you also need access to the decryption key from your
| server in order sign with both signatures? And who pays the
| TX fee? Is all the key rotation work done on your servers?
|
| Also, in order to rotate the key, a user would surely need a
| separate networked device able to interact with the note. I
| imagine one would also need to install your specific app as
| well.
|
| Would there be an open protocol by which a person could
| perform key rotation if you go out of business and shut down
| your servers? If your servers go down, I can't think of how
| there would be any way for a user to rotate the user key.
|
| How are you paying to keep the lights on so that these notes
| keep working though expiration? You all need a revenue
| source, but there isn't anything on your website that
| indicates how you would make money.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > So, would this require the full balance of the note
| effectively to be "spent" and sent to a new multisig UTXO?
| Wouldn't you also need access to the decryption key from
| your server in order sign with both signatures? And who
| pays the TX fee? Is all the key rotation work done on your
| servers?
|
| > Also, in order to rotate the key, a user would surely
| need a separate networked device able to interact with the
| note. I imagine one would also need to install your
| specific app as well.
|
| Effectively yes -- working on preparing the security
| overview here, but we need to be in the loop on the re-key
| procedure. We will open source that app so that in theory
| you do not need to rely on that, however, you will need to
| communicate with our server in this case.
|
| > Would there be an open protocol by which a person could
| perform key rotation if you go out of business and shut
| down your servers? If your servers go down, I can't think
| of how there would be any way for a user to rotate the user
| key.
|
| This is a great idea, however, it would require us to
| select another entity to hold the encryption keys (probably
| not unreasonable). Currently if there is no way to rotate
| the keys in this case.
|
| > How are you paying to keep the lights on so that these
| notes keep working though expiration? You all need a
| revenue source, but there isn't anything on your website
| that indicates how you would make money.
|
| One idea we have is charging a small amount to re-key the
| notes in addition to network fees. We have not implemented
| this. We do believe, however, that this would be reasonable
| and fund continued operation of the servers. I should also
| note that our _hope_ is to amortize some of the server
| costs in the notes since their operation isn 't
| particularly intensive.
| legutierr wrote:
| > Effectively yes -- working on preparing the security
| overview here, but we need to be in the loop on the re-
| key procedure.
|
| I'd love to see how you accomplish this. It seems tricky
| to be able to sign the replacement transaction without
| revealing the encrypted private key either to yourselves,
| or to the mobile app. I guess that you could have the app
| send the encrypted key up to your servers, where it could
| be decrypted locally for use and then discarded. But if
| you are going to do that every time the note changes
| hands, why not just hold onto the private key? Why mess
| with encryption keys?
|
| You might just need to bite the bullet and maintain
| custody of the secondary key server side. Is there a
| particular jurisdiction you are worried about that is
| motivating you not to want to maintain custody of the
| secondary key? In the US at least my recollection is that
| you are a cryptocurrency custodian only if you control
| all the elements necessary to transfer the bitcoin--
| meaning you wouldn't be a custodian because you wouldn't
| have access to the user key. I may be wrong about this,
| though.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| > I'd love to see how you accomplish this. It seems
| tricky to be able to sign the replacement transaction
| without revealing the encrypted private key either to
| yourselves, or to the mobile app. I guess that you could
| have the app send the encrypted key up to your servers,
| where it could be decrypted locally for use and then
| discarded. But if you are going to do that every time the
| note changes hands, why not just hold onto the private
| key? Why mess with encryption keys?
|
| I had to dig back into the architecture on this part
| since most of this was written last year waiting on
| notes. In this case you are correct -- we need to decrypt
| the key in RAM, use it to generate the new tx along with
| the new user pub key and send that back for the user to
| broadcast.
|
| Again, the distinction here is that we don't store it
| which, to your point _may_ or may not matter from a
| regulatory perspective. I would agree that it would be
| hand waving and, indeed, false if we claimed that we
| never _could_ store it at this point (or prior, at the
| time of creation).
| [deleted]
| rizoma_dev wrote:
| This reads like a parody
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > we write an encrypted private key to the note and don't keep a
| copy
|
| If the private key ever existed in your custody, there is no way
| to prove that it was not copied. Sorry. No amount of "trust us"
| is good enough here. Hell, you may not even know if it was copied
| if your process was compromised. The only way for a private key
| to be private is for it to never leave a secure device that
| generates it. (And even then, there are numerous caveats)
| tinnet wrote:
| Looking forward to the CCC talk of somebody using a homemade low
| powered xray machine to retrieve the code without cutting the
| note.
| jcfrei wrote:
| Cool idea! But how do you make sure that I didn't just pretend to
| cut the note? If I could fool you into believing I've cut it then
| I could pay someone with a worthless note.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I was really happy with my Kong cash (earlier project by same
| creators) and handed it out as gifts. It really does look and
| feel like money from the future. The wallets associated with my
| bills becomes unlocked october of this year, but I don't suppose
| the ERC20 Kong token is worth much atm.
|
| I thinking locking up mBTC makes a lot more sense - any reason
| you went with creating your own token the first time around ? Has
| BTC caught up with ETH in some matters of programmability ?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thank you, the Kong Cash notes were a labor of love and are now
| very limited in availability -- glad you got some! With Kong we
| wanted to create a completely new cryptocash from the ground up
| with Kong with the idea "what if a cryptocurrency started
| physical first". It was really a demonstration of the
| usefulness of secure element chips that generate their own keys
| -- work we've continued with Kong Land.
|
| Unfortunately the chips we use for Kong Cash rely on the P256
| curve rather than secp256k1. With Ethereum and the EVM we could
| bridge this via smart contract, however, Bitcoin script is too
| limited to achieve the same result (imo with good reason).
|
| We landed on a very different chip configuration for Bitcoin
| which has the tradeoff of some centralized elements, but also
| allows the user to introduce their own entropy (unlike the chip
| we used in Kong Cash which in theory has very good entropy, but
| still relies on claims from the manufacturer). The timelock
| concept from Kong, however, works incredibly well for the
| Bitcoin Note as a failsafe for conditions where we disappear or
| refuse to service notes.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| "Hey Dad, I need $10 of Bitcoin! Why do you need $15 of Bitcoin
| to buy an $8 of Bitcoin charger?"
| superb-owl wrote:
| So I guess you have to...buy the bills? Which seems odd. But if
| they're not super expensive relative to their denominated value
| it could make sense. I might pay $1-2 per $20 bill for the
| novelty factor.
|
| This definitely seems more convenient than performing a 10m
| blockchain transaction. But what's the value prop over USD cash?
| Just novelty?
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| One of the co-creators here.
|
| The toy version of this is like buying a hardware wallet with
| the Bitcoin in escrow. The eventual flow is more like an ATM.
| There one kind of already "buys" cash in the form of a service
| charge (often refunded by one's own bank). Cash is the most
| common form of peer to peer payment. Bitcoin is the best form
| of peer to peer money. This combines the two.
|
| It allows for instant, anonymous settlement in regions with
| poor connectivity (El Salvador, Ukraine.) Lower barrier to
| entry for very old and very young users. Skips the complicated
| process of onboarding people into learning about key management
| - everyone already knows how to keep cash secure. Getting self-
| custody of Bitcoin is important but usability has always been a
| challenge. This attempts to solve for some of those problems,
| particularly in cash economies where Bitcoin adoption as a
| medium exchange is more popular.
|
| Basically let's get everybody using self-custodial, multi-sig
| hardware wallets with really, really good privacy properties
| but make them not intimidating by presenting them in a
| skeuomorphic cash form.
| ntoskrnl wrote:
| I love the idea behind this! Having said that, it will take a
| lot to convince experienced users to trust these over on-
| chain transactions. The info on your website is pretty sparse
| - there's not nearly enough info there to work out the
| security properties of these notes. I'm piecing together how
| it works from your various comments here, but you really want
| to have all that info in one place. I'm sure you know this
| already and I'm sure you're working on the website behind the
| scenes, and I look forward to reading when it's done!
|
| What's your business model? Do you plan to recoup costs by
| selling the physical notes, or is there some other plan?
| yunohn wrote:
| > allows for instant, anonymous settlement in regions with
| poor connectivity (El Salvador, Ukraine.)
|
| What percentage of your orders come from such disadvantaged
| regions?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yeah, given we have to manufacture the notes we are indeed
| selling them -- a bit odd. With scale this comes down
| significantly.
|
| For folks who want to hold/save/gift Bitcoin over USD, this is
| an easy way to do it.
| tibanne wrote:
| Question: how much is it going to cost you to spend your $5 note
| on chain when you finally want to redeem it as BTC on the
| network? $1, $2... maybe $50 in 2030. So now it's worth -$25.
|
| Just use Bitcoin Cash.
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Then treat this like a hardware wallet. It's really hard to
| make trustless, decentralized physical cash which is what this
| is.
|
| If cryptocurrency is to compete with fiat currency it should be
| able to do so through all the same mediums fiat can. You can
| hack these to load them with Bitcoin Cash and make a "Bitcoin
| Cash Cash" instrument. Previously one couldn't do this, now one
| can.
|
| Comments like this one are why this hardware technology
| matters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31656602
| jacobmarble wrote:
| Hey, this is a beautiful product, and a nice idea. If the value
| of Bitcoin ever stabilizes, then this could really work.
|
| From my perspective as a Bitcoin (and related) skeptic, here's
| what turns me off, probably an easy fix:
|
| > Secure your spot
|
| > Reserve your spot in line for one of the first 2100 Bitcoin
| Note packs shipping this summer. ...
|
| ...and...
|
| > Limited First Edition
|
| > The first release of the Bitcoin Note will only be 2100 packs
| of low serial number notes. ...
|
| This turns me off because I hear the same pitch in almost every
| other ICO-like event: "Get yours now, while it's still juicy and
| sweet".
| [deleted]
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback. Ideally we would have opened up sales
| right away rather than a waiting list (we have the notes
| manufactured), but we are waiting to wrap up a few key pieces
| like the mobile apps.
|
| We highlight the low serial notes as we know numismatists like
| to collect this sort of thing.
| conductr wrote:
| > we are waiting to wrap up a few key pieces like the mobile
| apps
|
| Interesting approach but this Show HN got some decent
| attention. Are mobile apps even necessary? Doesn't waiting
| for them blow the attention you're getting via HN today?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| The bitcoin collector community loves the low number stuff
|
| Its a small community but they've been around since the
| Casascius days, long predating crypto asset securities (which
| predates the ICO)
| atak1 wrote:
| Great product! Speaking of stable...is there any reason not to
| focus this product on stablecoins?
| yoavm wrote:
| As in... Cash?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The biggest challenge we have with stablecoins is justifying
| why when US Dollars are ubiquitous and "free".
|
| I think there are some good arguments for stablecoins in
| markets that desire dollars, but they are hard to get -- or
| for high denomination notes, however, we suspect there would
| be additional regulatory challenges here.
| jacquesm wrote:
| What happens to the notes if the issuer goes out of business?
|
| Do they lose their ability to be reclaimed?
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Functionally this like a hardware wallet. The tech keeps
| working long after the manufacturer disappears.
|
| The private key associated with the note is loaded on there by
| the end user and can be rotated by the next person to receive
| the note. The issuer has no ability to claim the funds on the
| note. The person holding the note can always claim the funds on
| the note.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ok, and how do I tell a reclaimed note from one that is still
| valid when someone hands me a note?
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Each note can be scanned with one's smartphone to check
| value and authenticity.
|
| We're positing the level of scrutiny matches our experience
| with fiat cash.
|
| I.e. I'm very cavalier with checking the authenticity of
| low denomination notes when getting change at the pool for
| an ice cream cone and fairly rigorous when selling my hi-fi
| system to a stranger on classifieds - perhaps even taking
| time to do the "highlighter test". Counter-party matters
| too - It may take some time before we can spend these at
| Bitcoin Beach in El Salvador but they have currency (in the
| literal sense) with family and friends.
|
| These notes have the same security features as traditional
| currency (UV watermarks, microtext, etc) but also have the
| embedded chip which is the real thing that matters. I don't
| think it's perfect but I do prefer it to regular cash which
| doesn't let me electronically validate it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ok, so you need a smartphone to be able to exchange the
| notes. That already makes it a non-starter for lots of
| people because not only do they now need something
| resembling cash, they also need a phone.
|
| Anyway, interesting project, curious to see where it
| leads.
| paulgerhardt wrote:
| Agreed. Smartphone or payment terminal like a cash
| register. ATM's could do validation as well. Getting into
| the spectrum of how cash is used this doesn't have 1:1
| parity with every way in which cash is used but does fill
| many of the same use cases and while it does need a
| smartphone to validate it does _not_ need network
| connectivity thanks to the nature of merkle trees.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think what wrong footed me about that is the artwork on
| the page linked, it shows people paying with the notes as
| if they are cash, there isn't a smartphone visible in the
| images as though a smartphone is not a requirement.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| But the private key is encrypted, and the decryption key is
| on the servers of the manufacturer.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Excited to show off something that we've been working on: the
| Bitcoin Note. The Bitcoin Note is a cash instrument that is
| backed by Bitcoin via multisig. Each note is printed with
| beautiful, currency-grade elements that use secure printing
| techniques typically reserved for government documents like
| microtext, raised print and foil. More importantly, each note
| includes a secure NFC chip which is where a multisig lives that
| allows you to claim the Bitcoin at any time.
|
| We were heavily inspired by OG Bitcoin physical money like
| Casascius coins, however, we wanted to created a design whereby
| (1) anyone can spend, gift and share the Bitcoin for years to
| come without having to worry a sophisticated attacker who
| extracts a private key from under a label or scratch off and (2)
| trust was minimized on that part of the printer (us).
|
| This lead us to the design we landed on for the Bitcoin Note
|
| 1) An NFC chip readable by nearly all modern smartphones
|
| 2) A two part multisig where (1) we write an encrypted private
| key to the note (and don't keep a copy and (2) you write a user
| key to the note in plaintext and then load the note
|
| 3) We only release the decryption key when someone cuts the note
| and reports this via an authenticated and encrypted way to our
| server
|
| 4) The multisig reverts to only your key after a printed
| expiration date on the note
|
| 5) You can re-key the user key on the note you receive if you
| want to hold it for a long time
|
| We believe that the result of this design achieves the goal of
| Bitcoin that's incredibly easy to use - like cash - but still
| preserves the important quality of self-custody. Take a look at
| http://bitcoinnote.com/ to learn more and reserve a spot in line
| for our release later this summer.
| mmastrac wrote:
| What happens if this service goes away? Are the bills worthless?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| No; this is a fantastic question and why the notes consist of a
| multisig with a timelock. After the timelock expires _only_ the
| user key on the note can retrieve the funds. So in the worst
| case scenario where we go away or refuse to validate notes day
| 1, you will be able to retrieve the funds after expiration (Jan
| 3 2029).
| simonw wrote:
| I'm going to go full science fiction here: if someone were to let
| off an EMP (so beloved by 1990s action movies) would any of these
| notes within range irreversibly lose access to the associated
| crypto?
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Yes, probably. I would also recommend carrying the notes in an
| EMF protected wallet.
|
| We have considered a feature which explicitly lets you back up
| the user keys from notes so that you have this as a fallback
| claim, but this might also encourage people to just "mine"
| notes in the hope that someone doesn't re-key. Given there is
| nothing we can do to prevent this...we might build it.
| mettamage wrote:
| I don't fully get it. Is it possible again to "void" the note and
| make the BTC purely digital again?
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| This is really cool, the notes have a wonderful design. Now I'm
| curious if this is possible with Monero.
|
| I could definitely see this being used at Bitcoin meetups or
| other crypto-events
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Thank you; I don't know too much about Monero -- while I see
| that it does have multisigs, I can't tell if they can change
| over time. This is pretty important to ensure that we as the
| note issuer can never block someone from ultimately claiming
| the funds off of the note.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-07 23:00 UTC)