4 ms·

Idea: “unlocked” public bitcoin wallets with autogenerated key pairs that can be given to someone without them needing a pre-existing wallet. 1) transactions a

Idea: “unlocked” public bitcoin wallets with autogenerated key pairs that can be given to someone without them needing a pre-existing wallet. 1) transactions are instant and free, ie giving over physical ownership of a pub/private key pair (this could be done via scan of a QR code) 2) no prior onboarding necessary (avoids the repeated question “do you have this wallet/app?”) Before, if I didn’t have cash, to tip a valet I’d have to ask them “do you have Zelle or Venmo?”, then I’d get their details, then send them money. Here, I could just pull out my wallet, create a new wallet with the specific amount, show them the QR code and say “scan this and it’s yours”. Basically bitcoin gift cards without the store-specific lock-in.

agentdrtran 5y ago
transactions are very much not free when paying with bitcoin, and this has been tried in a few forms already but none have been successful. how can they spend what you give them? are you going to sit there and explain bitcoin to the waiter?
- throwaway413 5y ago
  Let me clarify. Yes, you have to pay transaction fees when transferring money on the blockchain. I am proposing that no transaction would occur. Just like when you hand cash to someone, no external transfer needs to take place. You would essentially be giving them full access to said wallet, and giving up ownership. No transaction would need to be recorded to the blockchain because no actual wallet transfer would take place. Only the immediate physical ownership of the keys which could happen offline, instantly, etc. The rest of your questions are not answered so easily, and agreed, this still doesn’t answer the issue of onboarding to crypto in general. What it does solve though is the necessary onboarding to creating a wallet and understanding how to receive bitcoin. No one needs to “understand” how to receive cash. You stick your hand out and receive it. Should be just as easy as that with bitcoin.
mattnewton 5y ago
Wouldn't your valet example be even easier with venmo? Or is it because the money has a QR code instead of the account - that could easily be done with venmo, but isn't, it's true. With crypto I worry about the transaction costs dwarfing the utility of something like this. Without a central exchange avoiding fees for the tiny movement of crypto, you'd lose too much in transaction costs when setting up a new wallet to give away. But if you have a central exchange running it anyways why not just expose this UX over an existing cnetralized payment system like venmo?
- throwaway413 5y ago
  With Venmo, I still need to ask for their username. A two way transfer of information still has to occur. Same with current wallet-to-wallet transactions. Even if we are in the same app, I need to know your wallet username or address to send you money. With cash, you can leave a tip in a tip jar, with no “end destination wallet” if you will. This would aim to solve that issue. The key pair would be contained in whatever the handoff mechanism is (QR code?) so that only a one-way information transfer needs to occur, ie giving someone the QR code or handing them a gift card representation of it. The funds would be locked up in this handoff state until that person were to transfer the funds off or claim ownership another way. As for the fees, I covered this in my other comment, but basically there would be no on-chain transaction. The funds would never switch wallets.
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    With venmo you can just scan their account QR code to send them money, which is easily accessible in the app. I even have a card from them with my qr code printed on it. It requires them to have an account, but this seems no more onerous than understanding how to spend the new wallet you just got the keys to. When you create the wallet, and put money in it however, there have to be fees right? I understand transferring the wallet is not going to cost anything because you are just sharing a private key, but you still have to fill the wallet. And now the recipient also has to move the money out of the wallet on the blockchain to use it, paying transaction fees. (Worse, they have to do so before you do, since you made the wallet you still have the private key! This needs another centralized service to prevent you from spending money you tipped) I think the crypto angle is a red herring, what is really important to your idea is the QR-code flow that doesn't require the recipient to have done any setup. That's a good idea.
gbaygon 5y ago
check opendime: https://opendime.com https://opendime.com
- throwaway413 5y ago
  Bingo! Thanks for sharing
jameshart 5y ago
Since this amounts to handing over the password to a wallet, what guarantee does the recipient of the wallet have that they are now the exclusive holder of that password? You could easily have retained access yourself, so after you walk away you can yank the funds out of it. Or you could hand out access to the same wallet to a half dozen people. Without actually transferring the funds to a wallet you know you exclusively control, you have no way to know that you've actually received anything of value.
- throwaway413 5y ago
  Very true - this is elaborated on in the rest of this thread. Basically, the holder would have to be locked out of the private key from creation of the wallet, and there would have to be trust placed in a centralized regulatory body to issue and redeem these wallets.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    The holder of the QR code can't be locked out of having the QR code.
    - throwaway413 5y ago
      I am not sure I buy into your statement here. I believe there is a way.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        The blockchain itself is literally the way. That's why it's there. If you take it out, double spends.
DarylZero 5y ago
Vulnerable to double spends.
- throwaway413 5y ago
  How can you claim that this is vulnerable to double spends when we haven’t even finished defining the system? Double spending is a symptom of a broken system. Let us at least figure out the system first so we can determine if it is broken. Of course double spending is a concern that will need to be navigated in a system like this. Check out some of other discussions in this thread about where that leads - a centralized authoritative body responsible for issuing and “transferring” these wallets.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Payment by simple QR codes is inherently vulnerable to double spends. Because QR codes can be copied. If you give the same QR code to two people in the same taxi, literally nothing in the system can ever distinguish between them.
rezendi 5y ago
Similarly: https://btextc.com/send.html https://btextc.com/send.html
- throwaway413 5y ago
  This is spot on, and I like that you don’t need hardware for it unlike opendime. Phone numbers are a bit scary though, prone to SIM takeover hacks and other insecurities. And you still have to ask for/have their phone number. I’d prefer to manage the hand-off part of it myself through my medium of choice.

agentdrtran 5y ago

transactions are very much not free when paying with bitcoin, and this has been tried in a few forms already but none have been successful. how can they spend what you give them? are you going to sit there and explain bitcoin to the waiter?

throwaway413 5y ago
Let me clarify. Yes, you have to pay transaction fees when transferring money on the blockchain. I am proposing that no transaction would occur. Just like when you hand cash to someone, no external transfer needs to take place. You would essentially be giving them full access to said wallet, and giving up ownership. No transaction would need to be recorded to the blockchain because no actual wallet transfer would take place. Only the immediate physical ownership of the keys which could happen offline, instantly, etc. The rest of your questions are not answered so easily, and agreed, this still doesn’t answer the issue of onboarding to crypto in general. What it does solve though is the necessary onboarding to creating a wallet and understanding how to receive bitcoin. No one needs to “understand” how to receive cash. You stick your hand out and receive it. Should be just as easy as that with bitcoin.

mattnewton 5y ago

Wouldn't your valet example be even easier with venmo? Or is it because the money has a QR code instead of the account - that could easily be done with venmo, but isn't, it's true. With crypto I worry about the transaction costs dwarfing the utility of something like this. Without a central exchange avoiding fees for the tiny movement of crypto, you'd lose too much in transaction costs when setting up a new wallet to give away. But if you have a central exchange running it anyways why not just expose this UX over an existing cnetralized payment system like venmo?

throwaway413 5y ago
With Venmo, I still need to ask for their username. A two way transfer of information still has to occur. Same with current wallet-to-wallet transactions. Even if we are in the same app, I need to know your wallet username or address to send you money. With cash, you can leave a tip in a tip jar, with no “end destination wallet” if you will. This would aim to solve that issue. The key pair would be contained in whatever the handoff mechanism is (QR code?) so that only a one-way information transfer needs to occur, ie giving someone the QR code or handing them a gift card representation of it. The funds would be locked up in this handoff state until that person were to transfer the funds off or claim ownership another way. As for the fees, I covered this in my other comment, but basically there would be no on-chain transaction. The funds would never switch wallets.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  With venmo you can just scan their account QR code to send them money, which is easily accessible in the app. I even have a card from them with my qr code printed on it. It requires them to have an account, but this seems no more onerous than understanding how to spend the new wallet you just got the keys to. When you create the wallet, and put money in it however, there have to be fees right? I understand transferring the wallet is not going to cost anything because you are just sharing a private key, but you still have to fill the wallet. And now the recipient also has to move the money out of the wallet on the blockchain to use it, paying transaction fees. (Worse, they have to do so before you do, since you made the wallet you still have the private key! This needs another centralized service to prevent you from spending money you tipped) I think the crypto angle is a red herring, what is really important to your idea is the QR-code flow that doesn't require the recipient to have done any setup. That's a good idea.

gbaygon 5y ago

check opendime: https://opendime.com https://opendime.com

throwaway413 5y ago
Bingo! Thanks for sharing

jameshart 5y ago

Since this amounts to handing over the password to a wallet, what guarantee does the recipient of the wallet have that they are now the exclusive holder of that password? You could easily have retained access yourself, so after you walk away you can yank the funds out of it. Or you could hand out access to the same wallet to a half dozen people. Without actually transferring the funds to a wallet you know you exclusively control, you have no way to know that you've actually received anything of value.

throwaway413 5y ago
Very true - this is elaborated on in the rest of this thread. Basically, the holder would have to be locked out of the private key from creation of the wallet, and there would have to be trust placed in a centralized regulatory body to issue and redeem these wallets.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The holder of the QR code can't be locked out of having the QR code.
  - throwaway413 5y ago
    I am not sure I buy into your statement here. I believe there is a way.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      The blockchain itself is literally the way. That's why it's there. If you take it out, double spends.

DarylZero 5y ago

Vulnerable to double spends.

throwaway413 5y ago
How can you claim that this is vulnerable to double spends when we haven’t even finished defining the system? Double spending is a symptom of a broken system. Let us at least figure out the system first so we can determine if it is broken. Of course double spending is a concern that will need to be navigated in a system like this. Check out some of other discussions in this thread about where that leads - a centralized authoritative body responsible for issuing and “transferring” these wallets.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Payment by simple QR codes is inherently vulnerable to double spends. Because QR codes can be copied. If you give the same QR code to two people in the same taxi, literally nothing in the system can ever distinguish between them.

rezendi 5y ago

Similarly: https://btextc.com/send.html https://btextc.com/send.html

throwaway413 5y ago
This is spot on, and I like that you don’t need hardware for it unlike opendime. Phone numbers are a bit scary though, prone to SIM takeover hacks and other insecurities. And you still have to ask for/have their phone number. I’d prefer to manage the hand-off part of it myself through my medium of choice.