malevolent
can into space
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3472
Merit: 1721
|
 |
May 27, 2012, 01:25:59 PM |
|
A 'pro' RFID reader/writer. |
Signature space available for rent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed
timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It
takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but
hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
May 27, 2012, 01:32:05 PM |
|
A 'pro' RFID reader/writer. Ah, I see. A bitcoin card can't be a passive RFID. It has to be an active id by it's nature. Good luck cloning those. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
benjamindees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 27, 2012, 02:01:59 PM |
|
Ah, I see. A bitcoin card can't be a passive RFID. It has to be an active id by it's nature. Good luck cloning those.
Just to nitpick, I know you're trying to say that the card must be "active" in the general sense that it must perform computation, which is true. But "passive" and "active" refer to the power source, which is technically irrelevant. The power source could be passive. The thing that prevents cloning is the design and the user interface. Simplistic RFID tags are not designed to be secure and obviously lack a secure user interface. |
Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
May 27, 2012, 03:09:54 PM |
|
How are you going to do a Bitcoin tx when neither party has access to the internet?
<sigh> Do some research on the matter. No thanks. No reason for a smartphone to have internet when you don't want it to. "Airplane mode" disables all radios at the device level. Kinda hard to be online when you have no signal.  Unless you intend to carry a second phone to actually make calls, texts or use the Internet while mobile; you're going to turn that mode off eventually. I'm not concerned about a live hacker taking my money, I'm concerned about a worm or virus that steals android wallets. That only takes a few seconds. So what is the difference between 1 phone + 1 phone being used as a dedicated bitcoin device vs 1 phone + dedicated bitcoin device. My point is the hardware already exists. It is called a smartphone. It has everything you need including connectivity and software. For most casual users a single device is fine for the paranoid just carry two. |
|
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 27, 2012, 03:25:30 PM |
|
How are you going to do a Bitcoin tx when neither party has access to the internet?
<sigh> Do some research on the matter. No thanks. No reason for a smartphone to have internet when you don't want it to. "Airplane mode" disables all radios at the device level. Kinda hard to be online when you have no signal. Unless you intend to carry a second phone to actually make calls, texts or use the Internet while mobile; you're going to turn that mode off eventually. I'm not concerned about a live hacker taking my money, I'm concerned about a worm or virus that steals android wallets. That only takes a few seconds. So what is the difference between 1 phone + 1 phone being used as a dedicated bitcoin device vs 1 phone + dedicated bitcoin device. My point is the hardware already exists. It is called a smartphone. It has everything you need including connectivity and software. For most casual users a single device is fine for the paranoid just carry two. The aim here is to provide (maybe a niche but I think not) a device that has better properties then a smartphone for bitcoin. 1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50 2) size - no smartphone fits in the wallet 3) security - maybe through obscurity but most of the smartphones that COULD run a BTC transaction are running Android and would be more susceptible to a hack then the bitcoincard. Malware may be on as much as 20% of all Android phones making it a bad place for the masses to store BTC. |
|
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
May 27, 2012, 03:44:54 PM |
|
1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50
It will be far under $50 |
|
|
|
|
minorman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 945
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 27, 2012, 04:15:17 PM |
|
1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50
It will be far under $50 Really?? That would be totally awesome. Can't imagine a better tool for blowing away my bitcoin-sceptical friends. I would immediately order a couple of units at a sub-10 btc (lets quote prices in real money!) price point. Can't wait for june 10-15 to come round... |
|
|
|
Yankee (BitInstant)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem
|
|
May 27, 2012, 06:39:23 PM |
|
1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50
It will be far under $50 Really?? That would be totally awesome. Can't imagine a better tool for blowing away my bitcoin-sceptical friends. I would immediately order a couple of units at a sub-10 btc (lets quote prices in real money!) price point. Can't wait for june 10-15 to come round... The workshop starts on the 11th! |
Bitcoin pioneer. An apostle of Satoshi Nakamoto. A crusader for a new, better, tech-driven society. A dreamer. More about me: http://CharlieShrem.com |
|
|
|
World
|
|
May 27, 2012, 06:47:19 PM |
|
Just one idea ,what about to open small BitcoinCard company in GLBSE and support the project? The card have huge potential.
|
Supporting people with beautiful creative ideas. Bitcoin is because of the developers,exchanges,merchants,miners,investors,users,machines and blockchain technologies work together.
|
|
|
proudhon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1311
|
|
May 27, 2012, 06:52:21 PM |
|
How are you going to do a Bitcoin tx when neither party has access to the internet?
<sigh> Do some research on the matter. No thanks. No reason for a smartphone to have internet when you don't want it to. "Airplane mode" disables all radios at the device level. Kinda hard to be online when you have no signal. Unless you intend to carry a second phone to actually make calls, texts or use the Internet while mobile; you're going to turn that mode off eventually. I'm not concerned about a live hacker taking my money, I'm concerned about a worm or virus that steals android wallets. That only takes a few seconds. So what is the difference between 1 phone + 1 phone being used as a dedicated bitcoin device vs 1 phone + dedicated bitcoin device. My point is the hardware already exists. It is called a smartphone. It has everything you need including connectivity and software. For most casual users a single device is fine for the paranoid just carry two. The aim here is to provide (maybe a niche but I think not) a device that has better properties then a smartphone for bitcoin. 1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50 But I already have a smartphone, and I'd be willing to be that most bitcoin users do too. 2) size - no smartphone fits in the wallet No, but it fits in my pocket, where I happily carry it around with me everywhere, everyday. 3) security - maybe through obscurity but most of the smartphones that COULD run a BTC transaction are running Android and would be more susceptible to a hack then the bitcoincard. Malware may be on as much as 20% of all Android phones making it a bad place for the masses to store BTC.
This, I think, is a valid concern. Right now, my solution is to use my phone (blockchain.info iPhone app) to keep as much money as cash I would carry in my physical wallet - so not much. For big online purchases, I'd rather do them from my home computer, where I have access to more money via Armory offline wallets, etc. |
Bitcoin Fact: the price of bitcoin will not be greater than $70k for more than 25 consecutive days at any point in the rest of recorded human history.
|
|
|
westkybitcoins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!
|
|
May 27, 2012, 07:01:59 PM |
|
1) cost - no smartphone I know of will be able to do a BTC transaction without costing over $100 or requiring a contract. I assume bitcoincard will be under $50
It will be far under $50 Really?? That would be totally awesome. Can't imagine a better tool for blowing away my bitcoin-sceptical friends. I would immediately order a couple of units at a sub-10 btc (lets quote prices in real money!) price point. Can't wait for june 10-15 to come round... The workshop starts on the 11th!  |
Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom test. It tells you who is giving lip service and who genuinely believes in it.
... ... In the future, books that summarize the history of money will have a line that says, “and then came bitcoin.” It is the economic singularity. And we are living in it now. - Ryan Dickherber... ... ATTENTION BFL MINING NEWBS: Just got your Jalapenos in? Wondering how to get the most value for the least hassle? Give BitMinter a try! It's a smaller pool with a fair & low-fee payment method, lots of statistical feedback, and it's easier than EasyMiner! (Yes, we want your hashing power, but seriously, it IS the easiest pool to use! Sign up in seconds to try it!)... ... The idea that deflation causes hoarding (to any problematic degree) is a lie used to justify theft of value from your savings.
|
|
|
Mushroomized
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1002
Hello!
|
|
May 29, 2012, 12:42:33 AM |
|
When can I pre order 50
|
hi
|
|
|
|
EhVedadoOAnonimato
|
|
May 30, 2012, 07:25:03 AM |
|
3) security - maybe through obscurity but most of the smartphones that COULD run a BTC transaction are running Android and would be more susceptible to a hack then the bitcoincard. Malware may be on as much as 20% of all Android phones making it a bad place for the masses to store BTC.
True, a bitcoincard would be much harder to hack, but it's easy to lose it, have it accidentally destroyed, or stolen together with your belongs. And if I understood it correctly, you cannot backup the keys. So, in what concerns safety/security, you should deal with it just like you deal with a smartphone wallet: do not put more money in it than what you can afford to lose. |
|
|
|
|
|
EhVedadoOAnonimato
|
|
May 30, 2012, 07:35:46 AM |
|
I just thought, the problem I mentioned above could be solved without having to backup the keys (in case the addition of a backup feature would represent a security risk).
The bitcoincard could generate a "time locked" transaction (nLockTime) to an address in control of the owner. Say, 6 months in the future. If the owner remains in control of the money, before the deadline he can revert the transaction to himself, and send a new time locked one. If the card is lost/destroyed/stolen, and supposing it requires a code for spending, then the owner only have to wait for the time locked transaction to unlock.
|
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
May 30, 2012, 12:55:07 PM
Last edit: May 30, 2012, 01:28:14 PM by DeathAndTaxes |
|
I just thought, the problem I mentioned above could be solved without having to backup the keys (in case the addition of a backup feature would represent a security risk).
The bitcoincard could generate a "time locked" transaction (nLockTime) to an address in control of the owner. Say, 6 months in the future. If the owner remains in control of the money, before the deadline he can revert the transaction to himself, and send a new time locked one. If the card is lost/destroyed/stolen, and supposing it requires a code for spending, then the owner only have to wait for the time locked transaction to unlock.
Well the blockchain doesn't work that way. It would be useful but only for cold storage. Remember the blockchain doesn't use "account/address balances" that is merely an abstraction for the end user. All tx inputs are unspent prior tx outputs (except coinbase txs). An example might help: Say you have a wallet w/ single address abc with value of 100 BTC. It comes from a single unspent tx (A). from blah 100 BTC to Address abc <- unspent output A. Your wallet "knows" it is worth 100 BTC because it scans for all unspent outputs sent to Addresses it has private keys for (in this case only this one unspent output A for address 123). Now you could create an nLockTime tx Input: unspent output A Output: Recovery Address Options: nLockTime (~ 6 months - nLockTime is in blocks) The problem is as soon as you spent a single cent from this wallet. "Unpsent" tx A becomes spent tx A and the "recovery" tx becomes invalid. On edit:WAIT WAIT WAIT I think it could work IF the wallet regenerates the "recovery tx" (nLockTime) after every spend. This would be a pretty cool concept even for "normal" wallets. Example: Wallet has unspent output A. Wallet makes recovery tx (nLockTime) using outputA and publishes to network. User spends some coins using output A, creating unspent output B (change) Wallet makes recovery tx (nLockTime) using outputB. Wallet broadcasts both to network simultaneously. User spends some coins using output B, creating unspent output C (change) Wallet makes recovery tx (nLockTime) using outputC. Wallet broadcasts both to network simultaneously. User receives coins (a new unspent output D) Wallets makes a recovery tx (nLockTime) using unspent output D. Wallet broadcasts new recovery tx as soon as it receives "unprotected" coins. |
|
|
|
|
|
EhVedadoOAnonimato
|
|
May 30, 2012, 04:15:19 PM |
|
On edit:
WAIT WAIT WAIT
I think it could work IF the wallet regenerates the "recovery tx" (nLockTime) after every spend. This would be a pretty cool concept even for "normal" wallets.
That's what I meant. Is the nLockTime parameter fully implemented? I mean, will miners recognize it and all? I ask that because I haven't seen a single client making use of it so far. (sending transactions with nLockTime) |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
May 30, 2012, 04:22:38 PM |
|
Is the nLockTime parameter fully implemented? I mean, will miners recognize it and all? I ask that because I haven't seen a single client making use of it so far. (sending transactions with nLockTime)
No. I don't believe it is supported by any client/miner yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
EhVedadoOAnonimato
|
|
May 30, 2012, 04:26:52 PM |
|
Is the nLockTime parameter fully implemented? I mean, will miners recognize it and all? I ask that because I haven't seen a single client making use of it so far. (sending transactions with nLockTime)
No. I don't believe it is supported by any client/miner yet. But miners should at least "respect" blocks that contains it, right? Or is nLockTime just an idea for a future version of the protocol? |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
May 30, 2012, 06:19:28 PM |
|
But miners should at least "respect" blocks that contains it, right? Or is nLockTime just an idea for a future version of the protocol?
They don't respect it currently. To "replace" a tx requires making a new tx with a higher sequence value. All tx currently use a sequence of MAX_INT. Miners won't see anything else as valid. So if you make a nTimeLock tx w/ sequence MAX_INT it is "useless" as it can never be replaced (there is no valid sequence value higher). If you make anTimeLock tx w/ a sequence value other than MAX_INT it will never make it to the memory pool as it won't pass validation by current rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
EhVedadoOAnonimato
|
|
June 04, 2012, 02:44:01 PM |
|
That's a pity. nLockTime could have interesting applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
