Because Paypal can be easily reversed.  


INSTA REVERSE  

Seller loses coins and funds.  You have 5 posts and want to do only large transfers using Paypal.  

Hmm...  Maybe you are legit but maybe you aren't.  The fact that you falsely claimed a gift can't be reversed isn't a good sign.

So if he builds 3TH/s (30% of current network) and through higher difficulty and lower block rewards difficulty falls to say 6TH/s he is going to idle some % of his multi-million hashing farm to keep himself below the 30% cap?  Really?

Given how variable network hashing power is (min of 3GH/s, max of 15GH/s, avg of 8GH/s just in last year) do you really think a <30% of total network cap is realistic?

The stupidest part is that once designed the per unit cost of an ASIC is negligible.  So he pays the massive upfront cost, takes all the risk and then intentionally limits the # of chips he produces ensuring he has a high cost per chip, lower profit and more risk?  Combine all that higher cost and risk with the need to idle some % of farm based on what other people (he has no control over) do with their hashing power?

Some people will believe anything.  IF one wanted to maximize the # of units, the amount of hashing power, and profits they would simply produce 10TH/s of chips and sell them on the open market at a 300%+ markup.  The network would be more secure, more efficient and no player would have more than a couple % of network hashing power.

The only limits Vlad would be facing would be market demand.  So the question is why isn't he doing that?  To take more risk for less profits?

Nope but not using Centos.  Have 3 copies running 1 on Win7 and 2 on Debian.  They support a farm running p2pool.  Haven't had a single crash on any instance.

Yes you are wrong.    (well you asked).

It holds fiat currency nothing more.  Initially the only supported currency is Canadian dollars (CAD) but the hardware itself does support multiple fiat currencies so it is possible in the future the MintChip ecosystem could support YEN, USD, EURO, and CAD for example.  

There is no new currency, no deflation, no intermediary.

Initially if you have 10 CAD on your MintChip conversion becomes a non-issue.  There is only one supported currency.  A broker would allow you to move 10 CAD in your checking account (or maybe Paypal or credit card) to 10 CAD on your MintChip and back again.

IF other currencies were added you would need a broker to exchange them for you. If you have 10 USD and you want Euros a trusted broker (only entities authorized by Royal Mint) could remove 10 USD from your MintChip exchange it for x Euros (likely for a fee and poor exchange rate) and then load x Euros back to the MintChip.

This isn't a new currency it is simply a new way to use existing currencies.

Hypothetically BTC (and/or micrograms of Gold) could be one of the supported currencies but I doubt that will ever happen.

What deflation?  This isn't a new currency.  It will be exchanged 1:1 with physical Canadian dollars.

Best of luck.  Hope you can bring the sense of "community" back to this interesting potential market for Bitcoins.

GGBTC had such potential, started off promisingly and then rapidly went downhill into something worthless IMHO. 

I'll call him a scammer.

If you take someone's money and don't deliver the product and don't give a refund you are a damn scammer and a thief.

Pure and simple.  Getting your feelings hurt is not sufficient reason to keep someone else's money you haven't earned.  Period.  I don't care if his customer cursed him out to his face and make jokes about his children.  If you take someone else's money and intentionally neither return the money nor deliver what is promised you are a thief and a scammer.

This.

The private key is on the chip but inaccessible to end user.  As long as the chip is never hacked then double spends are impossible.  Of course the history of "the secret is on the chip" it littered with failed security schemes but they think they will be successful.

The weird/scary part is that as a central bank they can simply treat any double spend like any central bank treats any counterfeiting.  It just adds to the money supply and increases the rate of inflation. 

So unless in bitcoin where in a double spend one of the receivers won't get paid in a MintChip double spend both receivers would get paid the attacker would just illegally be minting money out of thin air.

If it is like similar venues I would say 60%:40% pimp:analysis ratio.  Still pretty good

The protocol would seem to indicate that is the case.  The chip stores an irrevocable keypair.  The chip signs tx with private key which can be verified by other uses with the public key.  The chip decryments the value on spends and increases value on payments. 

Still the underlying problem still exists.  The attack vector is to remove private key(s) from the chip.  Once you do that you can forget payment tx which can't be detected by the other party.  Essentially print money out of thin air.  All the profit of counterfeiting without all the physical printing overhead.

You obviously have never been to the DMV.

Still it likely will have lower fees that Paypal.  Paypal is just abusing its monopoly posistion.  If anything MintChip is theoretically more of a competitor to Paypal than Bitcoin.  If MintChip is successful and has lower fees than Paypal then Paypal may need to lower fees.

It all depends on how much fraud MintChip has to ammortize.  Given those chips WILL be broken I wonder how much the first widespread organized attack will cost them.  Every dubious "secret of a chip" system in the past has been broken I doubt this will be any different.

Note: I ignored your usually Bitcoin bashing.  Just not worth responding to.

Most services provided by the govt ARE inefficient.  They have no profit motive, no need for lower costs.   Like any govt agency it will become fat, bloated, and inefficient.  

Solar isn't free.

Tell you what I'll sell you all the free solar you want.
You pay me $10,000 per KW upfront and I will provide you lifetime "free" power.
How many "free" KW you want to buy right now?

Which is why Paypal already existed and it has low fees.   So problem solved? er wait.

There are only two outcomes with a centralized issuer:
Network remains small and utility is low.
Network becomes large and monopolistic, prices continually increase as the monopoly entity exploits this fact.

Honestly not really.   Fiat to fiat centralized currency has very little to do with Bitcoin.

It is like saying Paypal will drop their fees 90% because Bitcoin exists.  By your logic Paypal with their near monopoly position should have very low fees right?

Once again what "rules"?  Of course A will do what is in their favor.  By definition corporations are REQUIRED to maximize profits for shareholders.  In the US an officer (CEO, etc) of a corporation can be personally sued for failing to maximize shareholder value.  If a company can get x% incremental value without any increase  in production cost it is naive to think they won't take that "option".  Even if Vlad was a Bitcoin knight in shining armor a public company will be held accountable to the market, brokers, and fund managers.  They will want to see the "option" taken and if that means replacing Bitcoin friendly CEO with one who puts shareholder's interests first


Ask yourself this question?  How/why are banks "evil"?  Why do they load consumers down with heavy fees, borrow money for next to nothing, and charge high interest?  Shareholders demand it and they are in a position to get away with it.

There is only one issuer of MintChip.  Maybe you forget we are TALKING ABOUT MINTCHIP.  I know it may be confusing that the topic is MintChip in the fraking mint chip thread.

My point before you went off on one of your asinine derails is that ...

There is no proof #3 is true.  MintChip hasn't released any fee schedule and based on the fact they are a monopoly it is very unlikely that it will be true.

MintChip is issued by the Royal Mint of Canda.  There is a single issuer and single issuer only.  Good idea or not the reality is there is no competition.  Period.

What about reject 10% of the blocks to make a bonus 10%.  Give the market time to accept that and realize that monopoly or not the only way the mining company profits is it Bitcoin continues.  A year or two later start orphaning 15% to 20% of competing blocks randomly to boost profits to shareholders.  

Convince other miners to simply buy shares.  "See it is still Democratic shareholders control the network".  Then ramp up the orphan rate to 25%, 30%. Eventually making 1.5 BTC for every 1 BTC earned "fairly".  Who would't take 50% higher profits if they could.  In time market will accept the dominance of one entity and they can move to orphaning all other blocks.  

At that point one has maximized revenue and can boost profits further by turning off some hashing power.  If others try to mine just turn it back on so you are >51% again and orphan all their work.    One could cut operating costs significantly by having say 20TH/s but only using 2TH/s continually to protect the network (and profits).  The other 18TH/s is simply the "threat" to convince any attacker an attack is not economical.

It would mean the corporation is choosing lower profits over higher ones.  If the company is publicly traded and Bitcoin became large enough to the point that 51% vs 100% is tens of millions or even billions a year it is inevitable that the company will increase their profits by getting more revenue for the exact same amount of work.

The US govt COULD build a massive hashing farm with 51% of Bitcoin network and then use it to protect not hurt Bitcoin also.
Paypal COULD decide to cut their fees 90% next year.
The FED COULD decide to no longer inflate the US dollar.

Yeah lots of things COULD happen.

Ophan isn't instantaneous.  

The chain with the most hashing power will ALWAYS eventually the longest and orphan out any other competing chains.  Eventually is a given but how low is subject to variance.

Say one entity (A) has 51% hashing power.  Everyone else is (B) and has a combined 49%.

block #1000 is current block
B builds a block #1001  (we will call it 1001B)

If A builds the next block (1002A) it never risks being orphaned as long as it builds on the longest chain.
If B builds the next block (1002B) and A decides to abandon the block it is working on and build on top of 1002B then the chain continues
If B builds the next block (1002B) but A decides to continue its chain and publish 1002A then eventually 1002B will be abandoned.

Maybe team "B" even gets lucky and builds 1003B, 1004B, 1005B.  Sweet got 5 blocks despite A having 51%.  The victory is short lived because the math is unavoidable.  A has 51% of hashing power.  The 1% is like house edge in a casino.  Over a long enough chain of blocks A will build the longer chain and when that happens 1001B, 1002B, 1003B, 1004B & 10005B will all be orphaned.   It is inevitable and unavoidable.  It is the same dynamic in play with a 51% attack.

51% hashing power = 51% to 100% hashing power.  The miner with 51% can choose how many blocks to oprhan and how much profit they want to make.