MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike • Hacker News Board

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#111

Post by flatline » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 1:55 AM UTC

highd wrote: post #59

superquest wrote: post #4

> "Nobody actually transacts in cryptocurrency," Goldbard says. "So making something that people can actually use is our first goal. And then we want to find additional ways that people can implement it over time. But initially all we want is to make it so people can actually complete transactions." Amen. Too few projects have this focus.

This is secondary to there being no benefit to the average user for transacting in crypto vs Visa. What incentive is there for an end user to use even a hypothetically optimal crypto system? Then is that incentive sufficient to overcome network effects? The appropriate and interesting applications of crypto seem to be totally leaving p2p cash behind - it just doesn't seem like a good fit.

Pseudonymity/anonymity, for one. You can freely transact across borders, for another.

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#112

Post by babaganoosh89 » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #30

tuccinator wrote: post #15

I feel like the real appeal of Bitcoin is the decentralized aspect. I am not totally intrigued at the idea of having a controlled system, even if it offers complete privacy and faster transaction speed.

If it works like Stellar (which it sounds like it does), it's still a decentralized network of nodes, but each individual user isn't a node. They pick a node to work with, and that node is then connected to a set of other nodes. Anyone can run a node, but there's just not any point to it for most users.

Kinda like bitcoin thin clients?

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#113

Post by Asdfbla » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

While yet another cryptocurrency doesn't sound so good, I think Moxie has at least proven himself enough with Signal (in terms of being pragmatic about usability while trying to get the maximum amount of security and privacy for users) that this sounds promising.

I'm also happy to see a currency with Byzantine agreement without proof-of-work being explored. While this may not satisfy the extreme threat model of Bitcoin etc., I'm not really convinced that this is even needed at all. (Not to mention that Bitcoin has failed as a currency anyway.)

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#114

Post by babaganoosh89 » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:00 AM UTC

jmtame wrote: post #98

I have a few questions: (1) When can we start using this? (2) How will you acquire the currency? I think #2 is the pain point, and I didn't see this addressed in the whitepaper. Most people talk about Bitcoin's transaction speeds, but Litecoin works incredibly well for doing transactions. The difficulty for a normal person is acquiring it. You need something like GDAX.

Litecoin is maybe 2-4x better, but still far from Visa’s transaction capacity unless the lightning network does fantastically well.

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#115

Post by corford » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:00 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #62

Stellar is run by a set of trusted third parties, which makes it permissioned. If it gains any sort of traction, it will undoubtedly come under the control of any number of governments, thus negating the "peer-to-peer" part of cryptocurrency, and making usage conditioned on approval from some set of intermediaries.

But isn't Mobilecoin just borrowing stellar's approach to consensus? And what stops anyone from setting up a full node?

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#116

Post by smichel17 » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:14 AM UTC

highd wrote: post #86

wmf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing cost and price. Let's say the cost of a Visa transaction is 0.1% and the price is 2.5% while the cost and price of a MobileCoin transaction are 0.2%. It costs more but it's still cheaper for merchants.

Cash is cheaper for merchants, but people have only continued to use credit cards more. Further, if crypto becomes attractive from a cost perspective Visa will just be forced to bring down fees and stay competitive. It's pretty near impossible to imagine crypto with costs less than Visa's database.

Credit cards are more convenient than cash. If crypto can be equally convenient (which I think it can -- see venmo), I imagine people will use it. Are the savings of centralization really enough that Visa will be able to stay competitive and profitable?

I don't doubt Visa will continue to be used, but I imagine it will be for fraud protection rather than cost.

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#117

Post by nebulous1 » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

Asdfbla wrote: post #110

Confiks wrote: post #25

To repeat an earlier comment, this scheme encourages a centralization of trust into a private key managed by processor manufacturers. You might say that by integrating SGX mechanisms into your security model, you create a set of 'feudal lords' [1] who can wield their power over you. A manufacturer may 'legitimately' establish an enclave in your most trusted hardware which you may not audit or even measure. And if tha…

I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. And reducing your trust to the manufacturers of secure enclaves (whose products can also be audited to a degree) is surely an improvement still, even if it doesn't have the radical threat model of conventional cryptocurrencies (which inevitably run into scaling proble…

Bitcoin uses proof-of-work for its consensus system, but not all cryptocurrencies do. Bitcoin is a technological wonder, but it's ultimately not as advanced as its younger brethren.

The Stellar Consensus Protocol, which MobileCoin say they're using, uses something more akin to a web of trust rather than proof-of-work. You do not need the SGX to get rid of proof-of-work.

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#118

Post by oculusthrift » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:21 AM UTC

Nrbelex wrote: post #31

> "9. Bob's MobileCoin node sends Bob's client a message, which can then calculate the private key that corresponds to the generated one-time public key." >" 10. Bob has now successfully received a payment." If I'm reading this correctly, Bob's client (e.g. mobile app) must be in contact with the node for his address to receive the payment. This is pretty different from what I think will be Mobilecoin's closest compe…

how is the need to be in contact with the node different than the need to be in contact with venmo’s servers?

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#119

Post by Cyberdog » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:24 AM UTC

jerdfelt wrote: post #57

Cyberdog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell us all about all the problems Lightning Network fixes once it is actually implemented.

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that Lightning Network is vaporware, but there are currently three implementations that pass the integration tests: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://cdecker.github.io/lightning-integration/

Oh, please. You and the other replier knew what I meant by "implemented."

Re: MobileCoin: A New Cryptocurrency from Moxie Marlinspike

#120

Post by rjromero » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 2:35 AM UTC

qznc wrote: post #75

rjromero wrote: post #46

Anyone have any links to read more about SGX? What's stopping someone from intercepting everything going down their and just doing the operations on their own while watching?

Essentially, the CPU has a private key. Using the corresponding public key you can send code to the CPU to execute and the CPU prevents even the OS from looking at the decrypted code. You can also check the signature of the CPU against a public Intel key to verify it is indeed an Intel CPU you are sending code to.

Ah I see. I'm seeing that you have 2 128-bit private keys on the enclave, one known to Intel and what that is not.

Can you not use the one not known to intel to do your own code signing against another client with ECDH? Why does it seem like they are pushing this "Intel Attestation" service? Wouldn't that cause Intel servers to be a single POF incase they aren't around to give a proper reply for the attestation request? (Imagine 100,000 nodes on the network all running smart contracts, or perhaps 10 years down the line they discontinue the service.)