3 ms·

> 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

> 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 contract that can be deployed into perpetuity. > What if someone counterfeits Kong not by wholesale faking currency, but by duplicating valid notes in circulation? The public key would be the same, so they would both pass offline verification. Section 2 in the paper explains how difficult this would be do. You need to duplicate the private key from a secure chip designed not to reveal the private key.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
> 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 an oracle (i.e. centralization in a third party) > You need to duplicate the private key from a secure chip designed not to reveal the private key. Yeah, this is an example of a problem that becomes much more likely if you share "printing rights". Ultimately, I remain unconvinced — this is as proposed today a centralized currency that is almost strictly worse than a government currency, with the possibility of new drawbacks were printing ever to become decentralized.
- ccamrobertson 7y ago
  > 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.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > 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. So what? As soon as you share printing rights the other party can. So can anyone else who has the private key. Not even by minting new Kong but by physically duplicating existing Kong. That's a much bigger problem than a well controlled 2% rate of inflation.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> 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 an oracle (i.e. centralization in a third party) > You need to duplicate the private key from a secure chip designed not to reveal the private key. Yeah, this is an example of a problem that becomes much more likely if you share "printing rights". Ultimately, I remain unconvinced — this is as proposed today a centralized currency that is almost strictly worse than a government currency, with the possibility of new drawbacks were printing ever to become decentralized.

ccamrobertson 7y ago
> 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.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > 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. So what? As soon as you share printing rights the other party can. So can anyone else who has the private key. Not even by minting new Kong but by physically duplicating existing Kong. That's a much bigger problem than a well controlled 2% rate of inflation.