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

Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#71

Post by sajid »

softdev12 wrote: post #2

This is interesting because it's the first time I've heard about 21 and they have raised $116 million pre-launch. Given that companies who've raised an order of magnitude less are all over the news, it's surprising they have been so stealth. I'm also still not clear what 21 does. According to the article they are building out the blockchain into the internet of things (IoT). That sounds really vague. Plus, the articl…

The vision is to use bitcoin to enable automated micropayments between devices. One example that Marc Andreessen has talked about is sharing your network connection with neighbours:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/opinion-bitcoin-may-gets-us-rea...

21 aims to provide the tools and build the full stack infrastructure to make that happen.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#72

Post by comboy »

mrb wrote: post #34
comrade1 wrote: post #3

Are there ways to reduce the size of the block chain? Or will we get to the point where only large service providers can hold the block chain? I ask because I was maintaining my own wallet for awhile but stopped because the block chain database was getting unwieldy - it would take up to a week to resync if I ever turned my wallet software off for a significant amount of time. You know though... I actually don't care.…

Yes there is a solution. The reason it took you days to resync was because you ran the reference implementation, Bitcoin Core, which is meant for "full nodes" running 24/7. Simple users like you should instead run "thin client" or SPV wallets (Simple Payment Verification) which do not need to store the whole block chain, allowing your wallet to resync pretty much instantly. For a list of SPV wallets see https://bitco…

Hey mrb, I miss your blog posts.

(For those curious: http://blog.zorinaq.com/ )

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#73

Post by kordless »

It may be coincidental, but Qualcomm just announced a massive stock buyback.

My best guess is this is an IoT play targeting embedding cheap cell chips into devices which will carry their own wallets. The cell chips connections to the network can be funded with cryptocurrencies the devices carry, but the ultimate goal is likely enabling software delivery into the devices. Devices pay for the software downloads. Users fund devices using credit cards, etc. Think of it as a fancy licensing engine for the trillions of devices that will be hooked up.

My second guess would be a decentralized cell network, powered by cryptocurrencies.

Either of those is a massive market.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#74

Post by phodo »

softdev12 wrote: post #2

This is interesting because it's the first time I've heard about 21 and they have raised $116 million pre-launch. Given that companies who've raised an order of magnitude less are all over the news, it's surprising they have been so stealth. I'm also still not clear what 21 does. According to the article they are building out the blockchain into the internet of things (IoT). That sounds really vague. Plus, the articl…

> "These two things don't seem to obviously go together." That actually makes a lot of sense: if you consider some of the security challenges associated with IoT, e.g. an IoT door lock, then a smart contract where you have m of n signatures needed to unlock it (think of them like a modified escrow with policy side, too), then you can see the play here. The transaction to open the door gets signed only if that policy is met at each of the m signatures. You might have a lock device signature, a home signature, and a home owner signature. There are lots of microtransactions in IoT (good and potentially bad). Smart contracts can mitigate / isolate risk and ultimately reduce attack surface vulnerabilities. Block chain is a necessary part of this to work. For more info check out "bitcoin 2.0".

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#75

Post by sanswork »

venaoy wrote: post #68
s73v3r wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I stick with Amazon is, yes, they have my payment info saved. But they also have other things like Amazon Prime, and their reputation. People don't stick with Amazon just because they have payment info saved. They trust Amazon is going to keep their info secure, and if they're unhappy with the purchase, Amazon is going to make them whole. I don't have that trust and security using Bitcoin with a si…

Your comment reveals something often overlooked by the crowd shouting "OMG Bitcoin doesn't have chargebacks". Most people shop from merchants they trust, most merchants are honest, most disputes are resolved without chargebacks. Therefore chargebacks aren't really that needed or that important for most transactions. IOW: you would have no problem paying Amazon in bitcoins, because you trust them.

One thing most people who claim chargebacks are needed overlook is the impact the availability of chargebacks has on reducing the types of actions merchants take which might require one. The existence of the chargeback mechanism itself means merchants are more likely to ensure customer satisfaction to avoid them. That doesn't mean they aren't needed it could also mean they are incredibly effective at limited merchant fraud or laziness in dispute resolution.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#76

Post by mrb »

sanswork wrote: post #75
venaoy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reveals something often overlooked by the crowd shouting "OMG Bitcoin doesn't have chargebacks". Most people shop from merchants they trust, most merchants are honest, most disputes are resolved without chargebacks. Therefore chargebacks aren't really that needed or that important for most transactions. IOW: you would have no problem paying Amazon in bitcoins, because you trust them.

One thing most people who claim chargebacks are needed overlook is the impact the availability of chargebacks has on reducing the types of actions merchants take which might require one. The existence of the chargeback mechanism itself means merchants are more likely to ensure customer satisfaction to avoid them. That doesn't mean they aren't needed it could also mean they are incredibly effective at limited merchant…

Chargebacks are just one of many methods that customers can use to maintain uprightness among merchants: legal actions (eg. small-claims courts), complaints to FTC or BBB, online reviews, etc.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#77

Post by sanswork »

mrb wrote: post #76
sanswork wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing most people who claim chargebacks are needed overlook is the impact the availability of chargebacks has on reducing the types of actions merchants take which might require one. The existence of the chargeback mechanism itself means merchants are more likely to ensure customer satisfaction to avoid them. That doesn't mean they aren't needed it could also mean they are incredibly effective at limited merchant…

Chargebacks are just one of many methods that customers can use to maintain uprightness among merchants: legal actions (eg. small-claims courts), complaints to FTC or BBB, online reviews, etc.

None of those are really comparable in effort, cost, or effectiveness compared to just calling my credit card and having the charge reversed and the threat that I have the option to do that if they don't deal with my orders or issues appropriately.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#78

Post by imaginenore »

comrade1 wrote: post #3

Are there ways to reduce the size of the block chain? Or will we get to the point where only large service providers can hold the block chain? I ask because I was maintaining my own wallet for awhile but stopped because the block chain database was getting unwieldy - it would take up to a week to resync if I ever turned my wallet software off for a significant amount of time. You know though... I actually don't care.…

What are you talking about?

Blockchain is now 30GB. A 4TB drive costs around $120. So it literally costs you 90 cents to store that data.

If 30GB bothers you, use MultiBit or Electrum.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#79

Post by anilgulecha »

puranjay wrote: post #33
comrade1 wrote: post #3

Are there ways to reduce the size of the block chain? Or will we get to the point where only large service providers can hold the block chain? I ask because I was maintaining my own wallet for awhile but stopped because the block chain database was getting unwieldy - it would take up to a week to resync if I ever turned my wallet software off for a significant amount of time. You know though... I actually don't care.…

I'm in India and I can't even buy it easily. Paypal hates it, as does India's Reserve Bank. Too much effort for too little reward. Right now, the only thing I'd actually want to buy with BTC is illegal stuff off the darknet. There is virtually nothing else I need that bad that normal cash can't do.

unocoin seems to make it quite easy to buy /sell in India.

Re: Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play

#80

Post by macns »

macns wrote: post #60
ajross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No, no, no. Cold storage is exactly as secure as the physical storage used to keep it. Unless that physical safe (or deposit box, or mattress) in which you put the printout or USB stick was launched on an interstellar rocket, then no. It's true that it's inaccessible to the internet. It's not true that it's more secure than physical storage, because ultimately it is physical storage. I await your "But you can m…

Well regarding bitcoin theory obviously you skimmed through the basics, but I'll make an effort to counter your arguments. A (public) bitcoin address is useless without the private key. Suppose you do find one, you'd just knew the transactions referring to it(by looking up the blockchain). One can easily have thousands of addresses. Many people generate a different address for each transaction, so good luck finding t…

OK my bad, having just read myself this morning I'll admit I got confused along the way.

But still: > Cold storage is essentially isomorphic to keeping treasure in a safe

Though I don't like this analogy, if we must use it then it's the key that you keep in a safe[0]. As previously mentioned, one can have many keys and simply stealing one doesn't mean their "treasure" is stolen, whereas a safe is easier to be found and opened.

[0]:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage

A simple example of deep cold storage is opening a safe deposit box and putting a USB stick containing an encrypted wallet file in it. The public (sending) addresses can be used any time to send additional bitcoins to the wallet, but spending the bitcoins would require physical access to the box (in addition to knowledge of the encryption password).

Post reply on HN