Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

kong.cash

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 395 posts

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#281

Post by ccamrobertson »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #264
ccamrobertson wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Nope, it's in a smart contract that can be deployed into perpetuity. 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…

> But I would be receiving a physical object, correct?

Incorrect. The lockdrop is for completely virtual Kong token.

> Yeah, this is an example of a problem that becomes much more likely if you share "printing rights".

Correct, as elucidated above. Likewise each Kong self generates its own private key by design, as outlined in section 2 of the paper. By design, the key is non-extractable.

> Ultimately, I remain unconvinced — this is as proposed today a centralized currency that is almost strictly worse than a government currency

We can't inflate Kong infinitely unlike every other paper fiat currency. We can only print Kong for four years. After that the only digital Kong produced is via lockdrop.

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#283

Post by torgian »

qwtel wrote: post #249
ccamrobertson wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "tiers" are just bundle names. We could have been super dry but decided to make it more like collectable cards packs; our expectation is that most people will buy Kong since it looks cool (that's totally fine with us). Our margin on Kong is typical of other startup hardware projects; not great. We're not raking in cash from a digital token sale. We've made a physical product, we'll sell it to cover the costs of d…

I agree that they do look cool. They remind me of euro notes but turned up a notch or two. But I'm wondering what made you decide to go with the generic greek bust heads? Missed opportunity to depict some cryptography and computer pioneers imo.

They’d probably get sued if some of those portraits were of people still alive today.

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#284

Post by ccamrobertson »

elil17 wrote: post #276
ccamrobertson wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "tiers" are just bundle names. We could have been super dry but decided to make it more like collectable cards packs; our expectation is that most people will buy Kong since it looks cool (that's totally fine with us). Our margin on Kong is typical of other startup hardware projects; not great. We're not raking in cash from a digital token sale. We've made a physical product, we'll sell it to cover the costs of d…

Yeah see “startup” is the problem word there. That implies you have a product. You have a cool hobby project, but there’s no use case. I’m so curious why people think (and it’s certainly not just you, I see this attitude all over) that it is possible to run a business without providing value to customers.

We've sold and are selling products to customers. That seems to constitute utility for someone as well as fit into the definition of a "business".

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#285

Post by taywrobel »

tossAfterUsing wrote: post #235
taywrobel wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can be used just like cash? Apart from the needing to wait for up to an hour to get confirmation of payment. And having fees on every single purchase. Bitcoin is not currency. You even said it in your critique of ETH- “it's not a reliable store of value” Currency is NOT intended to store value. It’s intended to facilitate the transfer of value. In that regard, etherium and bitcoin fail equally.

look, you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. you may very well disagree with me, and that's your prerogative. cash has been variously shells, giant stones, glass beads, shiny metal, complicated paper, etc... fundamental to the hand-to-hand nature of this Kong nonsense, is the feasibility to be transferred offline. whatever Kong is, it's primary function will be a way to rip people off. and taywrobel: a…

Out of curiosity, how much of your background is in economics?

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#286

Post by ccamrobertson »

torgian wrote: post #273

I’m very skeptical. While the idea is nice ( I love physical cash and use it every day ) there isn’t much control over counterfeiting, etc. granted, this is also true for Fiat, but there are more controls involved. Make a currency exchanger that exchanges bits with a scan of your device, instantaneously, and you’ll have my attention.

> there isn’t much control over counterfeiting, etc.

Correct, this is the primary challenge of creating sound cryptocurrency and indeed why we go into length about the hardware we use in section 2 of the paper.

> Make a currency exchanger that exchanges bits with a scan of your device, instantaneously, and you’ll have my attention.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#288

Post by cortesoft »

newguy1234 wrote: post #186
cortesoft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not just use regular cash?

Because "regular cash" requires trust and that trust has been routinely violated by various governments of the world so I would rather have trustless currency instead. I trust math, science and verified algorithms rather than people or governments.

No amount of math, science, and verified algorithms are going to make someone else value your digital currency... you are still having to trust other people to maintain a somewhat stable value of the asset.

Since this is always going to be true, I am probably going to go with the best bets based on track record... I will use the currencies that have held pretty consistent value over the last 100 years.

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#289

Post by arcticbull »

darawk wrote: post #245
arcticbull wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but cash isn’t affected by water, freezing, bending, pressure, moderate temperatures above whatever the 70C limit is on these ICs, static electricity, ionizing radiation and microwaves. People don’t pass off counterfeit currency as real all the time either, that’s a false lead. Currently 0.01% of currency is fake and it’s actively sought out and removed from circulation [1]. That’s almost guaranteed way less tha…

I'm not sure what your point is. The comment I was responding to claimed that verification represented a regression in usability in relation to cash. This is not true, because cash also requires verification. I'm not claiming Kong is better in this regard, simply that it is equivalent.

Cash doesn't really require verification in most cases, if it looks good its probably good, your possession of the notes is almost certainly enough. You're not really looking for anything other than an obvious counterfeit note.

Whereas Kong requires verification because literally anything could have happened to the note that you can't determine through mere visual inspection (all the things I noted). That forces you through the awkward and painful flow of verifying each Kong note via NFC.

Re: Show HN: Kong – Physical Cryptocurrency

#290

Post by eat_veggies »

Can a Kong manufacturer build custom secure element chips that leak key material? It seems that a lot of Kong's security comes from the security of the little HSM, and if you don't trust the manufacturer then a lot of it seems to break down.

In addition, the paper cites the cost of decapping and side channel equipment as part of what makes double spends impractical. Given that they're fixed costs that undoubtedly many governments and labs already own, it still seems like it could be worth it for some people to extract Kong keys.

Post reply on HN