4 ms·

"Another simple flaw of Kong is that when I receive a Kong note, someone could have intentionally fried it with, for example, high voltage on the I2C contacts t

"Another simple flaw of Kong is that when I receive a Kong note, someone could have intentionally fried it with, for example, high voltage on the I2C contacts to damage the secure element without leaving any visible defects." That would "fry" the secure element chip entirely, thus destroying it precluding anyone from accessing the token in the future (NFC would fail as well).

arcticbull 7y ago
Right but asking people to verify every single note they receive is a regression in usability. It also makes the notes less reliable to store than a gold coin or a paper note, which can't be damaged by things like water, high-voltage or microwaves.
- darawk 7y ago
  You could make this same criticism of cash, though. It's not a usability regression, they just both have the same flaw. People pass off counterfeit currency as real all the time.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    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 than Kong bills that will become damaged and destroyed in the most ordinary of ways. We’re extending SFYL to IRL. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2004/april/money-supply-currency-counterfeit/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frbsf.org/education/publica...
    - darawk 7y ago
      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.
      - sooheon 7y ago
        Not all verification is equally costly.
        darawk 7y ago
        True, but you should be able to verify a Kong note via an app on your phone pretty easily.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        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.
        CryptoPunk 7y ago
        >>You're not really looking for anything other than an obvious counterfeit note. That's not because non-obvious counterfeits are not possible. It's just that not many of them are generated. The same could apply to non-obviously sabotaged Kong: theoretically it's possible to do, but in practice uncommon. Kong would have the added benefit of not financially rewarding the sabateur the way counterfeiting rewards a counterfeiter.
        arcticbull 7y ago
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    That flaw is mostly a non-issue with cash because printing it is difficult. Who prints Kong? I imagine prevalence of counterfeiting is more or less directly proportional to the ease of printing.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > That flaw is mostly a non-issue with cash because printing it is difficult. That depends entirely on how good your fake is. And it is most certainly not 'mostly a non-issue'. Counterfeiting happens all the time. > Who prints Kong? I imagine prevalence of counterfeiting is more or less directly proportional to the ease of printing. Nobody. Kong is printed algorithmically, like any other cryptocurrency.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > And it is most certainly not 'mostly a non-issue'. Counterfeiting happens all the time. How often have you had any real-life issues with counterfeit money? How often has anyone you know? How often have you even heard of it happening, relative to how often you see and hear of cash being used? A sibling comment provided a source that said that only 1% of 1% of cash is counterfeit. > Nobody. Kong is printed algorithmically, like any other cryptocurrency. What? Notes and coins are a human-made physical items. They’re manufactured by someone.
        darawk 7y ago
        > How often have you had any real-life issues with counterfeit money? How often has anyone you know? How often have you even heard of it happening, relative to how often you see and hear of cash being used? A sibling comment provided a source that said that only 1% of 1% of cash is counterfeit. Stores have issues with it all the time. That's why they don't often take large bills. I and my personal acquaintances don't accept a lot of cash in exchange for goods and services. You think 1% of cash being counterfeit is not a problem? That sounds like a huge problem to me. > What? Notes and coins are a human-made physical items. They’re manufactured by someone. Sure, the physical objects are made by someone. But the digital tokens to which they refer are produced algorithmically, and the digital tokens are the source of truth here.

arcticbull 7y ago

Right but asking people to verify every single note they receive is a regression in usability. It also makes the notes less reliable to store than a gold coin or a paper note, which can't be damaged by things like water, high-voltage or microwaves.

darawk 7y ago
You could make this same criticism of cash, though. It's not a usability regression, they just both have the same flaw. People pass off counterfeit currency as real all the time.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  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 than Kong bills that will become damaged and destroyed in the most ordinary of ways. We’re extending SFYL to IRL. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2004/april/money-supply-currency-counterfeit/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.frbsf.org/education/publica...
  - darawk 7y ago
    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.
    - sooheon 7y ago
      Not all verification is equally costly.
      - darawk 7y ago
        True, but you should be able to verify a Kong note via an app on your phone pretty easily.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      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.
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        >>You're not really looking for anything other than an obvious counterfeit note. That's not because non-obvious counterfeits are not possible. It's just that not many of them are generated. The same could apply to non-obviously sabotaged Kong: theoretically it's possible to do, but in practice uncommon. Kong would have the added benefit of not financially rewarding the sabateur the way counterfeiting rewards a counterfeiter.
        arcticbull 7y ago
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  That flaw is mostly a non-issue with cash because printing it is difficult. Who prints Kong? I imagine prevalence of counterfeiting is more or less directly proportional to the ease of printing.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > That flaw is mostly a non-issue with cash because printing it is difficult. That depends entirely on how good your fake is. And it is most certainly not 'mostly a non-issue'. Counterfeiting happens all the time. > Who prints Kong? I imagine prevalence of counterfeiting is more or less directly proportional to the ease of printing. Nobody. Kong is printed algorithmically, like any other cryptocurrency.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      > And it is most certainly not 'mostly a non-issue'. Counterfeiting happens all the time. How often have you had any real-life issues with counterfeit money? How often has anyone you know? How often have you even heard of it happening, relative to how often you see and hear of cash being used? A sibling comment provided a source that said that only 1% of 1% of cash is counterfeit. > Nobody. Kong is printed algorithmically, like any other cryptocurrency. What? Notes and coins are a human-made physical items. They’re manufactured by someone.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > How often have you had any real-life issues with counterfeit money? How often has anyone you know? How often have you even heard of it happening, relative to how often you see and hear of cash being used? A sibling comment provided a source that said that only 1% of 1% of cash is counterfeit. Stores have issues with it all the time. That's why they don't often take large bills. I and my personal acquaintances don't accept a lot of cash in exchange for goods and services. You think 1% of cash being counterfeit is not a problem? That sounds like a huge problem to me. > What? Notes and coins are a human-made physical items. They’re manufactured by someone. Sure, the physical objects are made by someone. But the digital tokens to which they refer are produced algorithmically, and the digital tokens are the source of truth here.