Concept vs Project vs Business.... Yes, it's an interesting concept, but as a business it's flawed because your concept requires a developer to implement. If the developer is going to implement your concept, they don't really have to use anything you've developed to do it. In essence, you're selling lemonade to lemon farmers. Is OTP foolproof, sms, or email? No... but your system is still dependent on other systems with a wide attack surface as well. The server, database, network, dns, code, ports, etc can be probed for vulnerabilities.
The major problem though (for me to implement this into my own apps) is that most people don't understand the relationship between an account/wallet with a single bitcoin address. Most people would likely use an address that they either A) already know and have used or B) generate a new address from an existing wallet. The majority of bitcoin users don't really understand the concept of inputs and outputs, so they're going to unintentionally "unlock" some account when they buy alpaca socks. It's not something for your casual user, it's something that needs to be used by an experienced and educated bitcoin user.
It's obvious you're passionate about this, so keep going, creating, and plugging holes you find along the way.
Concept vs Project vs Business.... Yes, it's an interesting concept, but as a business it's flawed because your concept requires a developer to implement. If the developer is going to implement your concept, they don't really have to use anything you've developed to do it. In essence, you're selling lemonade to lemon farmers.Of course we have addressed this issue. There are many, many businesses that face this same issue, yet they are profitable.
Is OTP foolproof, sms, or email? No... but your system is still dependent on other systems with a wide attack surface as well. The server, database, network, dns, code, ports, etc can be probed for vulnerabilities.This is probably the strangest comment yet because it is posted on a site dedicated to bitcoin. The comment claims "our system" is insecure, but the security of our system is not "ours." The security of "our" system is bitcoin. If someone can hack a bitcoin address used to unlock an account, then that same person can hack any bitcoin address. That person could just steal $10 billion. But of course no person has or will.
The major problem though (for me to implement this into my own apps)ChainLock is not going to be implemented by individuals into their own "apps." ChainLock will be implemented by service provider websites such as banks.
is that most people don't understand the relationship between an account/wallet with a single bitcoin address.ChainLock does not limit the user in any way as to what bitcoin address they can use to lock an account. We used a "single" bitcoin address in the Mycelium wallet for the demo video so that the bitcoin address remains static. No doubt there is some complexity to bitcoin. Some amount of learning. But again, this is a bitcoin site. Doesn't everyone reading these posts already agree the complexity of bitcoin is about the same as a website browser? Doesn't everyone agree that the complexity of bitcoin will eventually be a non-issue?
Most people would likely use an address that they either A) already know and have used or B) generate a new address from an existing wallet.Our response to this comment is... what? First this commenter argues ChainLock is so simple the banks will just implement it without our help... then this comment which clearly shows an inability to understand the basic concept. Of course it doesn't matter what bitcoin address is used to lock an account. The user can use any bitcoin address. One they "already know and have used" or "generate a new address from an existing wallet" or whatever. In the demo video, we use a "single address" account generated by the Mycelium app. Generating a "single address" account really is not that difficult, but even if it turns out to be difficult for users, certainly wallet apps like Mycelium can make it easier to generate a "single address" account used to lock an online account. For example, they could change the menu command from "generate single address account" to "generate ChainLock address." Again, the complexity of our system is no more than the complexity of bitcoin. If users cannot figure out our system, then they cannot figure out bitcoin. Like most companies working in this space, we are counting on the ability of users to understand how to use bitcoin.
The majority of bitcoin users don't really understand the concept of inputs and outputs, so they're going to unintentionally "unlock" some account when they buy alpaca socks. Finally someone has made a comment that is interesting to read. Yes! You are right! There is a possibility that a user might unintentionally spend bitcoin from a ChainLock address, thereby potentially unlock an online account. We have designed ChainLock so that this scenario is not possible. It's one of the enhancement features we talk about in the above comments, as well as in our demo video.
It's not something for your casual user, it's something that needs to be used by an experienced and educated bitcoin user. If this comment is true, then bitcoin is doomed. If a user cannot understand how to use ChainLock, then they will of course not understand how to use bitcoin in general. Further, if a user cannot understand ChainLock, they probably should not be using bitcoin at all. Similarly, if an old person has dementia, they should not be allowed to carry a paper wallet because they no longer understand how to use paper money. Bitcoin is not that hard to use.