261–270 of 395 posts
Hi folks, I’m one of the contributors at Kong — https://kong.cash/ . Kong is a physical cryptocurrency that looks, feels and works like traditional cash. You can think of it as an ultra-secure, time locked cryptocurrency wallet with a fixed face value — no one can access the token except for the holder of the note after a period of several years. It consists of a secure element and NFC chips mounted on a flexible PCB…
I don't understand any of this.
Could you elaborate a little on how this is different or better than past projects like BitBills? Also what do you mean by "after a period of several years"?
For lack of an epistemological framework, we can call Kong a 4th generation wallet. If you'll bear with me: Paper Wallet were 1st gen - one couldn't guarantee the person giving you a paper wallet didn't have two copies or kept a copy of the private key for themselves. Probably ok for personal use assuming you trust your printer firmware. Hardware Wallets were 2nd gen - seed phrases made recovering from device loss ni…
In other words, just like almost every other smartcard (including EMV).
View keys can be printed as a mnemonic seed (a set of meaningless English words).
Would printing of view keys mnemonic not be equivalent to this? With the added advantage that printing is not centralized?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can only print Kong; we cannot remove it from circulation. This isn't strictly true; you can buy notes from people. > We likely will need to have another document detailing how the lock drop works. The short version is that you lock up Ethereum in a smart contract for between 30 and 365 days; when you prove that fact to a given Kong lock drop contract instance you receive Kong token (at the end of the period). I…
> This isn't strictly true; you can buy notes from people. Haha, sure. > It sounds like the basic idea is that you "preorder" Kong with Ethereum, and then you visit a physical location (the "contract instance") to receive your cash ("Kong token"). If my understanding is correct, then this isn't outside of your control at all — you (or the "contract instance") can simply refuse to issue the cash. Nope, it's in a smart…
But I would be receiving a physical object, correct? Which means one of the following must happen:
- you give me notes in a manner that is not controlled by you (e.g. in the mail) assuming I'll fulfill the contract in good faith
- you give me notes in a manner that is controlled by you (e.g. at a bank-like location) to prevent theft
- we introduce an oracle (i.e. centralization in a third party)
> You need to duplicate the private key from a secure chip designed not to reveal the private key.
Yeah, this is an example of a problem that becomes much more likely if you share "printing rights".
Ultimately, I remain unconvinced — this is as proposed today a centralized currency that is almost strictly worse than a government currency, with the possibility of new drawbacks were printing ever to become decentralized.
Hi folks, I’m one of the contributors at Kong — https://kong.cash/ . Kong is a physical cryptocurrency that looks, feels and works like traditional cash. You can think of it as an ultra-secure, time locked cryptocurrency wallet with a fixed face value — no one can access the token except for the holder of the note after a period of several years. It consists of a secure element and NFC chips mounted on a flexible PCB…
Which "secure computing element" are you using?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this not strictly worse than cash, then? It’s still a centralized physical currency, but instead of a government with checks and balances that is ostensibly accountable to its citizens, Kong is controlled by an opaque organization accountable to nobody. After reading the paper, I’m still not exactly sure how the lockdrop works. Could you elaborate on it? As for verifying transactions offline, I’m skeptical of how…
> but instead of a government with checks and balances that is ostensibly accountable to its citizens what government is this and can I vote my face onto their currency?
Monero has the concept of private view key and spend key. The view key only lets you check balance without loss of privacy. View keys can be printed as a mnemonic seed (a set of meaningless English words). Would printing of view keys mnemonic not be equivalent to this? With the added advantage that printing is not centralized?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kong has the useful property of peer-to-peer validation. Most paper currencies printed in your basement don't. Tokens loaded onto Kong Cash instruments and exchanged ephemerally in person between party A and party B are more anonymous than tokens sent directly from party A to party B electronically which will be recorded for everyone to see forever. It's programmable money. It's cooler than non-programmable money. We…
This is either some of the best satire in the world or I still don't get it. Probably the latter.
Are we not entertained?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make any sense. Can only preordained organizations print the notes? Then we’re back to centralized cash. Can anyone print the notes? Then they can also print duplicates. Do we verify electronically when we transact to prevent that? Then we're back to electronic transactions. What am I missing? How is this not fatally flawed?
Today, Kong's printing is centralized to the Kong project (similar to a premine) because we cannot guarantee that someone else will use a secure element which conforms to section 2 of the paper (which would preclude the creation of duplicates). If anyone else wants to print Kong, and we can verify they source a secure element conforming to section 2 of the paper, then we'll share "printing rights" with them. The Kong…
Can you comment on the history of the name, printed as 港 on the bills? For those unaware, the character means "harbour"; it's the Kong in Hong Kong – is there any relationship to the HKD?
Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21758004