The Royal Canadian Mint just announced a new alternative to BitCoin

[Raoul Duke]

You've kept this Mint Chip advertisement on page 1 for long enough anyway.

WTF dude, I posted the thread, and it shure isn't an advertisement.
I did it to watch people diss on MintChip, not to advertise it.

[1713556918]

1713556918

[1713556918]

1713556918

[1713556918]

1713556918

[1713556918]

1713556918

[1713556918]

1713556918

[Raoul Duke]

You've kept this Mint Chip advertisement on page 1 for long enough anyway.

WTF dude, I posted the thread, and it shure isn't an advertisement.
I did it to watch people diss on MintChip, not to advertise it.

Sorry, didn't mean it to be interpreted that way. I guess my point would've been clearer if I'd worded it something along the lines of:
You've kept this Mint Chip advertisement on page 1 for long enough anyway.
You've (cunicula) been using manipulating this thread to promote your saboteur-ish views for long enough anyway.

I concur with your fix

[Phinnaeus Gage]

You've kept this Mint Chip advertisement on page 1 for long enough anyway.

WTF dude, I posted the thread, and it shure isn't an advertisement.
I did it to watch people diss on MintChip, not to advertise it.

Sorry, didn't mean it to be interpreted that way. I guess my point would've been clearer if I'd worded it something along the lines of:
You've kept this Mint Chip advertisement on page 1 for long enough anyway.
You've (cunicula) been using manipulating this thread to promote your saboteur-ish views for long enough anyway.

I concur with your fix

I don't have an alpaca in this race, but...

You've (cunicula) been manipulating this thread to promote your saboteur-ish views long enough anyway.

FTFY

~Bruno~

[niko]

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

This post by cunicula is so on point.

Definitely saving this for later usage.

On the other hand, perhaps it's too early for getting the ball to roll, and Bitcoin still needs a sheltered, hobby status until some technical issues are hammered out (as evident from the recent fierce discussions about various BIPs) and clients and network overlays mature and get tested.  Also, legal status will need to get clearer at least in the taxation domain.

I know this is a chicken-and-egg issue, but it seems to me that Bitcoin has grown quite dramatically in only a year, and I'm happy with the pace. I am neither a developer nor a businessman, but I do what I can - in my case by simply using Bitcoin in everyday life, thereby proving that it works, and works better than the alternatives.

But we went astray from the point of OP.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

The logical response to this is to buy some bitcoin and wait for someone else to make bitcoin succeed. If everyone waits simultaneously, then bitcoin fails. That is what is happening.

To get the ball rolling, you need to have an agency which is heavily invested in bitcoin (say to the tune of ten million USD) to spearhead and fund projects. They would have an incentive to do something professional because they could gain from currency appreciation. This needs to happen in order to get to the future where bitcoin can be big and profitable.

If an agency like this isn't created, bitcoin will continue to consist of hobby businesses. The profits from these businesses are so slim that even when they attract a reasonable amount of interest, the business owners often fail to maintain them. You certainly don't see them upgrading and becoming professional. That makes sense. There is no reason to invest money right now when there is no money to be made right now.

This post by cunicula is so on point.

Definitely saving this for later usage.

On the other hand, perhaps it's too early for getting the ball to roll, and Bitcoin still needs a sheltered, hobby status until some technical issues are hammered out (as evident from the recent fierce discussions about various BIPs) and clients and network overlays mature and get tested.  Also, legal status will need to get clearer at least in the taxation domain.

I know this is a chicken-and-egg issue, but it seems to me that Bitcoin has grown quite dramatically in only a year, and I'm happy with the pace. I am neither a developer nor a businessman, but I do what I can - in my case by simply using Bitcoin in everyday life, thereby proving that it works, and works better than the alternatives.

But we went astray from the point of OP.

That said, I'm pretty sure that's why Max and Tony desire to gain only one million new users for 2012, as mentioned at the Prague conference. (this post is not meant to be snarkish toward Max or Tony)

~Bruno~

[byronbb]

This is a clear sign that Bitcoin is ahead of it's time

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

Agree, decentralization is imperative. I don't see any top down e-money system that can be immune to rampant fraud by the issuer. If money has value based on trust then ANY breach of the system's integrity will have immediate destabilizing effects. 

[Dan The Man]

If Canada or any other country did roll out a centralized dollar-backed Bitcoin chain, it would be great for Bitcoin because it would mean putting in place all of the infrastructure needed to run Bitcoin transactions.

And there are still a lot of advantages to a cryptographically secured digital currency even if it is dependent on a central trusted node that provides the currency backing.

[molecular]

If Canada or any other country did roll out a centralized dollar-backed Bitcoin chain, it would be great for Bitcoin because it would mean putting in place all of the infrastructure needed to run Bitcoin transactions.

And there are still a lot of advantages to a cryptographically secured digital currency even if it is dependent on a central trusted node that provides the currency backing.

I you've got a centralized system, what's the purpose of a blockchain?

[Matthew N. Wright]

If Canada or any other country did roll out a centralized dollar-backed Bitcoin chain, it would be great for Bitcoin because it would mean putting in place all of the infrastructure needed to run Bitcoin transactions.

And there are still a lot of advantages to a cryptographically secured digital currency even if it is dependent on a central trusted node that provides the currency backing.

I you've got a centralized system, what's the purpose of a blockchain?

Triple Entry Accounting

http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html

[Dan The Man]

If Canada or any other country did roll out a centralized dollar-backed Bitcoin chain, it would be great for Bitcoin because it would mean putting in place all of the infrastructure needed to run Bitcoin transactions.

And there are still a lot of advantages to a cryptographically secured digital currency even if it is dependent on a central trusted node that provides the currency backing.

I you've got a centralized system, what's the purpose of a blockchain?

It also takes the work out of setting up a central server and secure administration system. Just start up your version of bitcoin and set it free. Run a minimum amount of hashing operations yourself and hope that transaction fees lure more computers. The only thing you really need is someone (the Mint) that you can trust to always exchange these new bitcoins for Canadian dollars at 1:1.

Since they created the new blockchain, they have the power to give themselves a monopoly of all of the new bitcoins that will ever be created. And since they are the Mint, hopefully they have lots of Canadian dollars too. Everything else could work the same way as bitcoin does now. It would make Canadian dollars a great reserve currency because they would suddenly be extremely easy to get and move around.

[zer0]

There is also a central authority which is the Royal Canadian Mint.  Kudos to them for taking this effort unlike other mints around the world.  But at this point I am skeptical.

Yes centralized
Normally I would recommend this but not with the current fed government here pushing for stronger snooping regulations

EDIt.. also seems like they are only interested in 'very low value transactions' according to the site, probably nothing over $5

Regardless lot's of opportunities for devs here to make money expanding and implementing this system, or destroying it's security using methods already implemented here years ago. Just make sure they pay you out in bitcoins or bullion not worthless mintcoins

[cbeast]

I really don't get why they are doing this. What can you even buy for ten bucks besides coffee and a muffin? If you try to buy any physical goods online, you'll pay that much just in shipping and handling. About the only thing you can buy are mpegs. I have a feeling that they were hoping for more but had to compromise.

[benjamindees]

This is amazing.  It looks like this whole system is designed for the very low transaction amounts of 1cent to $10, and for OFFLINE transactions from individual to individual.

I really don't get why they are doing this. What can you even buy for ten bucks besides coffee and a muffin?

Obviously the important feature here is the ability to make transfers without access to a central clearing house.  That's an advantage over Bitcoin.  And it doesn't seem that useful in a first world country.  I'm guessing this is designed for export, and will be aimed at developing countries with poor telecom/internet infrastructure.

If you can live as a tourist in India for less than $10/day, I would think that kind of transaction limit would be extremely useful to locals.  The average sub-Saharan African, for instance, could live for a week on $10.  Or perhaps I'm wrong and this is all aimed towards something like allowance for kids.  Chip your kids...

[Phinnaeus Gage]

This is amazing.  It looks like this whole system is designed for the very low transaction amounts of 1cent to $10, and for OFFLINE transactions from individual to individual.

Chargebacks come to mind. It'll be easilier and less painful to write off potential chargebacks for hundreds of ten dollar transactions then for hundreds, if not thousands (or tens of), of multiple hundred dollar transactions.

~Bruno~

[marcus_of_augustus]

Some guy called Eric just shot his bolt over how great MintChip is ....

http://envelopeeconomics.com/2012/04/11/canada-has-unveiled-the-bitcoin/


Small correction: digital Canadian dollars are traceable by design, therefore not fungible.

In the same light, until we see Mintchip showing up on SilkRoad as an acceptable means of payment you will know they are less fungible than Bitcoin. As much as society despises illicit or shady activities, they are the acid test for that most essential property of any money, fungibility. As it has been since time immemorable, yet somehow forgotten by modern monetary managers, when rolling out their meglomaniacal financial monitoring and tracking systems.

[cunicula]

Some guy called Eric just shot his bolt over how great MintChip is ....

http://envelopeeconomics.com/2012/04/11/canada-has-unveiled-the-bitcoin/


Small correction: digital Canadian dollars are traceable by design, therefore not fungible.

In the same light, until we see Mintchip showing up on SilkRoad as an acceptable means of payment you will know they are less fungible than Bitcoin. As much as society despises illicit or shady activities, they are the acid test for that most essential property of any money, fungibility. As it has been since time immemorable, yet somehow forgotten by modern monetary managers, when rolling out their meglomaniacal financial monitoring and tracking systems.

If Canada is developing technology to support illegal pseudonymous transactions, then he is probably correct to argue that bitcoin is dead. I'm kind of confused though, why does he think that Canada will develop technology to support money laundering and crime? This seems highly implausible. Is he just confused? Or is this a case of the Canadian gov't's left hand not knowing what the gov't's right hand is doing?

[benjamindees]

He's obviously confused.  He thinks it will be anonymous.  And he thinks it will be useful for large transactions.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

He's obviously confused.  He thinks it will be anonymous.  And he thinks it will be useful for large transactions.

1. Clearly, the technology is not open source
2. It is not decentralized.

End of story. This is in no way competition to Bitcoin at all.
It only may be useful as a suplement to Bitcoin.

[Technomage]

For me personally one of the biggest reasons to be involved with Bitcoin is that it is a real original currency that has, in my opinion, a better money supply model than currencies where the powers that be can simply devalue the currency at will. MintChip clearly goes to the latter category which means that I have little interest in it. There are also other reasons to prefer Bitcoin, namely that it is open source and that it's decentralized.

[cbeast]

http://envelopeeconomics.com/2012/04/11/canada-has-unveiled-the-bitcoin/

Once mints and central banks around the world start unveiling similar portable digital wallets, and developers swiftly move in to ensure that transactions can be done anonymously, the Bitcoin experiment will end.

I find it curious as to why an economist thinks or cares about the "end" of Bitcoin. He clearly doesn't even begin to understand that these technologies he describes are insignificant compared to Bitcoin's capabilities.