91–100 of 395 posts
The world is moving towards cashless/mobile payments (albeit with the U.S. strangely behind), so why do you feel physical cryptocurrency is a step in the right direction? Do you expect Kong to face greater challenges for adoption (compared to other cryptocurrencies) since it needs a higher critical mass of users?
IMO this breaks the entire security model of cryptocurrency. If these bills are intended to be spent hand-to-hand in meatspace without cryptographic validation on a computer, then it is no longer a cryptocurrency. It is another paper currency like the U.S. Treasury's. The innovation of Bitcoin was money as a purely digital artifact that cannot be double spent. As a merchant accepting Kong bucks, I have no idea how ma…
The bills are intended to be spent hand-to-hand in meatspace with cryptographic validation. See section 2.1 [1] The innovation of Bitcoin was decentralized electronic peer-to-peer cash. Kong does not remove any of those elements and makes the overhead of the peer-to-peer bit easier. Physical cash is still the dominant form of payment. The advancement here is figuring out how to issue physical cash without needing a c…
Then what problem is it solving?
>Physical cash is still the dominant form of payment. The advancement here is figuring out how to issue physical cash without needing a central entity.
It has to be physically manufactured. You're now the entity.
So, I'm Scottish, and still often have problems in London (and indeed abroad!) when I hand over a Scottish bank note. Scotland and England are of course both part of the UK, and while, yes, technically Scottish bank notes are not legal tender, they have been defacto legal tender since forever. How do you plan to tackle this mentality, where there is such hostility to anything in the slightest bit unusual?
Why would drug cartels prefer this over existing cash? I'm phrasing the question facetiously but the underlying intent is there: how is there more anonymity, usability, etc.?
We're not interested in doing business with drug cartels. What is a lovely property of Kong is the only digital breadcrumb is leaves is when notes are loaded at creation and unloaded at de-circulation. Every person to person transaction of the instrument leaves no digital record or footprint. Usability is superior for new users - everyone understands how cash works.
That's true of cash as well, but that doesn't mean it's totally untraceable, as bills still have serial numbers. I think what GP is getting at is, Kong notes must completely lack any sort of persistent unique identifier in order to be an improvement over cash in anonymity. Can Kong make this claim?
Not sure if this is a common problem but their contact link just dumps you to the gmail 'about' page.
FYI: Your website is broken on the latest Firefox with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger. The email 'request access' thing doesn't work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very common misconception, there is no requirement for Scottish banknotes to be accepted as payment anywhere in the UK (including Scotland!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterlin...
I have no misconceptions here - I know Scottish bank notes are not technically legal tender, and thus, technically , nobody is under any compulsion to accept them. But in the real world, they are absolutely defacto legal tender - as above, every bank in the UK (and even many beyond) accepts them.
However, the old Swedish notes had not lost their value because they could still be redeemed.
In a formal legal tender situation, you could to some extent require a private party (within the relevant jurisdiction) to accept the notes in payment of a pre-existing debt. You could contrast this with "having value", "being redeemable", "being in circulation", and "being widely accepted", maybe.
I don't get it. Is it some sort of concept art? What's the point? Sure, it can be used as money (assuming what authors say is correct). Virtually any physical items that are hard to fake can be used as money, as long as people believe it's worth something. And if we are okay with complicated and rather expensive manufacturing process (since Kong isn't something you find in the forest), it really is a non-problem to c…
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're putting it out there as a toy.