Live data from Hacker News

Coin: A step in the wrong direction

techendo.co

101–110 of 193 posts

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a doubt. Coin actually increases the complexity of an already complex and archaic system. The product manages to create more headaches for the consumer and the merchant by consolidating various credit cards in a digital device with a nice "cool" factor but lacking any real solution to the many problems associated with the complex back-ends in the payments space. Conceptually, it's not a bad product, and it su…

The product manages to create more headaches for the consumer I have 4 credit cards in my wallet. If this consolidates down to 1 then I don't care what else it does.

Is making it easier to carry around and use multiple credit cards really a good thing?

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#102
post #45

>> Visa requires that merchants ship a product prior to charging any Visa debit card This is very new to me. This source here: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guide... States: >> You should not bill the customer until merchandise has been shipped That is a best practice, not a requirement.

That's an interesting document. One would think that Coin would be used in "Card Present Transactions," however, none of the security features of a real card can be verified using a Coin, since they don't exist. Why would a merchant accept Coin?

This is an excellent point. You could make a series of purchases with your Coin set to your credit card, use an obviously fake signature, then dispute them all. The merchant can't claim that they checked the signature because they obviously don't match, so any merchant that lets you use your card has little recourse in the case of chargebacks.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#103

Two issues with Coin. One is this has been done before, exact same approach, and it did not work out because the card issuers didn't buy in (a credit card is also part of the issuing bank's brand). Maybe that's changed in the past few years, but I am skeptical. The second issue is it's solving a problem that isn't really a problem. I use two cards on a regular basis. I have others but rarely need to carry them with m…

> One is this has been done before, exact same approach, and it did not work out because the card issuers didn't buy in The card issuers don't have to buy in to anything. You program the Coin yourself using your existing cards. > I use two cards on a regular basis. I have others but rarely need to carry them with me. So I can reduce two slots in my wallet to one. Doesn't seem like enough of a benefit to me. Ah, the o…

>cashiers have never so much as glanced at my cards

Depends on where you shop. Some stores (particularly big box stores -- Best Buy comes to mind) always ask to see the card and ID. If they do, it's a showstopper for it to not be real. There's NO WAY a store with that policy would let you buy something with an anonymous black "card".

Not only does this scream "FRAUD!", it almost certainly WILL be used for fraud, almost immediately on release. Think of how easy it would be to allow a server at a restaurant to "steal" someone's card -- photo and a swipe, and POOF, you can use their card the next time you go somewhere that doesn't look at the card. How long will it be before stores that DIDN'T ask to see it before start asking, and specifically disallowing the use of these fraud-enabling devices?

Regardless, there's no way I'd risk getting to the point of purchase somewhere and finding out at that point they won't accept my card. And I AM part of their target market: I probably have 8 cards in my wallet, maybe 10. It's complicated, but they all have a unique need that makes me carry them.

I'd love to have something like this that "just worked," but I doubt this would be it without orders of magnitude more education and many layers of security protection to prevent fraud -- probably enough layers to be an impediment to people actually signing up to use it (receiving physical mail being required to register a new card comes to mind).

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#104
I know the OnlyCoin guys, so maybe I am biased, but for me this is about reducing the risk that I don't have a card, or that I leave a card behind.

Combine this with the "you can't sniff my card through my pocket" capabilities and I am very excited.

This is just a troll post by someone who either doesn't understand, or has sour grapes.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#105
post #65

Coin is absolutely a step in the right direction for one simple reason: it offers a convenient transition option. Its most immediate use is to consolidate physical cards into one, but its true killer feature is the ability to instantly act as a physical proxy to a digital account (i.e. BitCoin, Paypal). Do you own a Blu Ray player? It's more than likely to also play DVDs. If it takes a lot of time to get consumers to…

It can only act as a physical proxy to a digital account which uses magnetic stripes as its primary physical form of transaction.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#106
post #8

To clarify about the pre-order issue: There's nothing inherently wrong with asking for funds to push the development of a product forward. Kickstarter has done a great job of promoting that model, and the world has seen a lot of good come out of it. However, Kickstarter has also done a lot of work to educate the public about the risk of this type of funding (certainly to their own legal benefit or otherwise), and thu…

Actually this is very much illegal. You cannot charge someone for a product and then not deliver it. Kickstarter doesn't charge you for a product, you pledge or donate to a project on Kickstarter and if it's successful, you get the item(s) for the level you pledged to for free.

It's not illegal but it might run afoul of your merchant account terms.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#107
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of chips is they can't be cloned. This whole product works by cloning.

It's probably too strong to say that they can't be cloned, but I don't think the banks would be very happy at all with someone selling chip skimmers to end users. I'm not sure if users should be happy with that either.

It's not too strong to say that - they've been used for many years, there are decent financial incentives for organized crime to clone the cards, but the industry hasn't seen any "chip skimmer" yet.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#108
I am always paranoid when it comes to technology and money, and this will be no exception. BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) has been around for 2-3 years now, but I still consider it to be in it's infancy. This is especially true when it comes to security. A quick Google Search produced two examples [1] and [2] of potential security flaws with BLE pairing and authentication, and I'm sure there are many more I'm not aware of. Building new payment technology based on new and cutting edge communication frameworks does sound exotic and cool. It's probably one of those "cool points" that gets investors excited. But for the security minded folks out there, this is likely a red flag. Instead I see it as building payment related technology on an un-proven communication framework, and it just does not sound like a great idea. And it is because of this that I will probably never personally use something like Coin regardless of how useful it might be. All it takes is one person to create an effective exploit, and there goes both your money and your trust in the Service. In any event, good luck to Coin with this new Product, and I hope they prove me wrong. If they are looking for a recommendation (which I'm sure they're not), I would recommend a sharp focus on securing the BLE connections between the Coin Wallet and the Smartphone Device.

[1] http://lacklustre.net/bluetooth/

[2] http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/309.pdf

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the 'hate' is coming from places (eg. Canada) that have already moved on to chip cards (which won't and probably can't work with this) and are now slowly moving on to nfc. It's just already late for this kind of development. 5 years ago? I'd have been all over this. Now? I'm just waiting for Apple to adopt NFC so we can all move forward on better solutions.

Their FAQ says that future versions will support chip cards. https://onlycoin.com/support/faq/

I have no confidence they will be able to support EMV cards. I'm sure they'd like to, but consider that Square hasn't managed to yet and their business / funding / engineering talent is considerably larger than Coin's. There are many, many regulatory issues involved with EMV.

Re: Coin: A step in the wrong direction

#110

The hating on Coin is unbelievable. It seems like a great first step towards backwards-compatible card consolidation. Are there going to be issues with it? Of course. Will it last in the long run? Well, the phone thing is obvious, kids. I bet these guys are aware of that and have a plan. Regardless, its an innovative piece of hardware that moves the ball. That's better than any of the shit I've built.

When it comes down to it, having a few plastic cards is just not that big of an issue compared to the advantages of multiple, simple plastic cards.
Post reply on HN