[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)