Hi folks, I’m one of the contributors at Kong — https://kong.cash/. Kong is a physical cryptocurrency that looks, feels and works like traditional cash. You can think of it as an ultra-secure, time locked cryptocurrency wallet with a fixed face value — no one can access the token except for the holder of the note after a period of several years. It consists of a secure element and NFC chips mounted on a flexible PCB with a full color print. There are several gold elements that also serve as direct i2c interfaces to challenge the secure element’s authenticity by signing information with its private key.
Kong is based on two primary observations; (1) it’s really difficult to use and secure cryptocurrency for most people and (2) cryptocurrency has been useful as a means of speculation, but poor for actually buying goods and services. It’s our hypothesis that by making cryptocurrency more like cash it may be possible that people ultimately use it as a means of exchange.
Our background is in secure embedded hardware (Lockitron, YC S09); over the past year we did a deep dive to really consider how cryptocurrency key material is handled today. We found that cryptocurrency has a unique challenge and corresponding opportunity; unlike IoT products where the cost of a breach might be difficult to quantify, breaking a hardware wallet can yield clear rewards to the hacker.
We developed Kong around the notion that security should be isolated to the smallest possible footprint — in the case of Kong, to an individual single purpose secure element chip. Doing so removes additional layers of firmware and software in order to limit the attack surface (it also broadly questions how good are our existing secure chips today).
This doesn't make any sense. Can only preordained organizations print the notes? Then we’re back to centralized cash. Can anyone print the notes? Then they can also print duplicates. Do we verify electronically when we transact to prevent that? Then we're back to electronic transactions.
What am I missing? How is this not fatally flawed?
Today, Kong's printing is centralized to the Kong project (similar to a premine) because we cannot guarantee that someone else will use a secure element which conforms to section 2 of the paper (which would preclude the creation of duplicates). If anyone else wants to print Kong, and we can verify they source a secure element conforming to section 2 of the paper, then we'll share "printing rights" with them. The Kong recurring lockdrop, section 4.2, is outside of our control and open to anyone.
We start to explore how someone could participate in printing Kong freely, without our influence, in section 5.1 but there are massive unsolved challenges to tackle here.
There is a significant distinction between verifying a note electronically and conducting an electronic transaction. The former can be done in an offline fashion; the latter cannot and, in the case of credit card networks, Ethereum and, Bitcoin, incurs a fee.
It's a zero coupon bearer bond, that's all. With some very elaborate anti forgery. Nothing wrong with an organization printing bonds, it's just that these aren't a debt but represent locked up economically inactive etherum.
A user accepting these "verifies" them by assuming that two properties hold if they connect over NFC or via pogo pins to the "gold elements", send a challenge over this connection, and receive in response the challenge signed with a public key associated with locked Kong tokens.
1. the relevant private key is known to only a Kong note's secure element. this is (hopefully) enforced by the secure element's, uh, security, and by the issuer.
2. the relevant private key is known to the secure element on the specific physical Kong note the user has been given.
2 is unenforced in your current design, from what I can see. A crafted note can relay all communication to the secure element of another note (e.g. over low-power RF from a single-use battery or small ultracapacitor).
better, a "dead" Kong note which performs no NFC communication can be given to a merchant; then, a high-power NFC transceiver can be used to pretend to be the note wirelessly (from a handful of meters away, but in a lot of situations that's more than enough). Of course, this one only works if the verifier is using NFC, but... This one is particularly nasty because it's relatively straightforwards to "weaponise" - imagine buying a "kit" off AliExpress which contains fifty dead notes, a ProxMark, and an amplified antenna. Then, in any situation where you're close enough to the person who'll be verifying your notes... just give them a dead one and relay communications. Verification passes, but what the merchant ends up putting in their cash drawer is worthless.
This specific man in the middle attack is risky in that it requires very close range, face to face interaction with your target, a fairly unreliable chance of success, and may only work on one of the four validation mechanisms. If effective the money is unlikely to propagate much further as the next user will fail to validate.
You could fix 2 by having a verifier that puts the note in a Faraday cage. While that's more work than just scanning with your phone it could still be cheap and worth it if you were receiving a lot of notes.
Is it more risky than getting a fake cash from someone? Is it difficult to validate NFC with say...your phone (make sure the NFC signal changes when you bring it close to your phone)?
For 2) I get the part about relaying communication but regardless of that, what makes you think any sort of communication will cause it to output the private key?
As far as high powered NFC, I am not sure that would work to begin with (someone who knows radio explained it to me but I cannot recall) but even if it did how is it different than existing mobile phone NFC payment?
You also gotta keep in mind,this is in-person. If someone defrauds you, they face several risks including law enforcement,legal,phsyical altercation(violence) and more.
Better would be nice but I can live with "as good as cash" or "as good as mobile nfc payment" when it comes to security.
Are there any solutions to the relay attack you describe?
Perhaps by having the secure element "lock" and "unlock" each time the note changes hands, so that an attacker who uses a a relay will still have his note locked in a way that makes it useless unless he gives it to the recipient to unlock?
I'll try to sum it up: Kong notes are electronic devices which allow whoever has access to them to use a smart contract which after a given date can retrieve a given amount of cryptocurrency. They hold a key which allows them to operate on this smart contract, but don't reveal it, and are designed to be physically impractical to tamper with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_cryptoprocessor).
So if you use a 500 Kong note to someone for a 10 Kong item, they will have to make 490 Kong in change. 4x 100 Kong notes, 1x 50 Kong note and 2x 20 Kong notes...etc.
I love this. I have been wanting something like this for a while. Personally, I desired a coin instead of a bill. 2-3CM thick coin made with material good for radio security and longevity would be neat. A phsyical 'coin'. Any plans for something like that? Any reasoning against it?
Kong is very new. Only a few thousand are out there. Frustratingly, or perhaps amusingly, it doesn't yet have an agreed upon value. I don't think it's appropriate for us to set one.
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 create a new "government-independent currency", print it and sell it. Nobody really gives a fuck about that, because money is worthless unless you can spend it. And as long as Costco doesn't accept Kong (or any other made-up currency), it would be hard for you to spend
it on anything other than unique hand-crafted chairs or cocaine. And it would be hard for them to start accepting Kong notes, while being a government-compliant entity that pays taxes, as every physical bill they get must be accounted for and put into a cashier machine.
And, by the way, since every Kong bill is unique, it isn't any more anonymous than dollar bills: i.e. pretty much anonymous as long as they change hands without touching real cashier machines or ATMs, which, as it happens, is not so long, because people don't generally exchange unique hand-crafted chairs for cocaine, they buy/sell it, then go to Costco to get some more conventional goods or services.
Kong has the useful property of peer-to-peer validation. Most paper currencies printed in your basement don't.
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.
If you're handing off physically then just use cash. How is this any better?
The exit to real currency will always reveal Kong transactions at some point. Real cash is more anonymous because it's seamlessly transacted everywhere.
Maybe kind of a valid point, but... I don't know, maybe that varies from place to place a lot, but fake money doesn't feel like a huge problem around here. I mean, unless I am a tax-paying entity with a cashier machine, I don't even really care if a bill is fake or not: it is not fake, if somebody else accepts it. And I'm pretty sure somebody will, if I accepted it after looking at it. It doesn't only concern how bill was actually printed: it happened more than once that I had to worry about a bill because of its condition (tears, dirt, etc.)
> more anonymous than tokens sent directly
Yeah, as much as dollar bills are. That's why Monero is better than Ethereum, BTW.
I see so many people here frustrated with the fact that the creators are giving nonsense answers. It's important to remember that this is a money-making scam. Asking them how their technology provides any value to users is like asking a Nigerian prince about the philosophy behind constitutional monarchies.
Usually I would agree with you but this is an intriguing concept. They explicitly state in the white paper that this is an experiment, so treat it as such. All I’m hearing is a lot of “contempt prior to investigation”.
I agree that it is an intriguing concept. But at the same time they seem to be ready to sell Kong for $$$. And they don't explain why there are three tiers of rarity to the cash - shouldn't 500 KONG == 500 KONG all the time every time? Seems like a mechanic to raise more money, just like 'rare' cosmetic items in video games.
This seems incredibly disingenuous. Unless the founders have a history of fraud, your comment is way out of line.
And yea it is cool, this overriding principle defies any predefined business model or use case. Novel things come from
new things not incremental improvements like “Apple Pay”. Which those are explicable money making scams and schemes to control people’s banking info and insert yet another middle man to profit off the mere act of transacting.
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 many duplicates of a particular Kong note there could be out there. I could find myself in a race between many other people to move the Ether out of that private key. To rely on embedded chips and watermarks to prevent counterfeiting and double-spending seems like a huge step backward, like you're trying to make a better $100 Benjamin instead of a better cryptocurrency.
I get the idea of quick, zero-fee transactions. But there needs to be some finality or pseudo-finality. The Lightning Network uses a similar model as yours, but it has collateral. Analogously, in the way Lightning solved this problem, the merchant has 5 actual Ether on file for a customer that the customer sacrifices if they ever double spend a Kong buck at the store.
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 central entity.
I like Bitcoin but it is anti-privacy by specification. For small transactions I prefer cash. I would like the best of both.
> The bills are intended to be spent hand-to-hand in meatspace with cryptographic validation. See section 2.1 [1]
When I accept a physical note, do bits move on the Ethereum blockchain? If not, how do I know that it's really mine?
This reminds me of when people sold Bitcoin private keys ("paper wallets") on eBay. I've heard some people do OTC trades by swapping private keys when they don't want the transaction recorded, but I assume these people know each other well. You save money on miner fees and gain some privacy, but you sacrifice trustlessness.
>The bills are intended to be spent hand-to-hand in meatspace with cryptographic validation.
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.
I've been working in crypto for 10 years (well, the only "crypto" that existed back then was Bitcoin) and I agree with zelly's criticism.
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. So I need to verify each Kong note I receive by reading them over NFC using a smartphone. Not great for usability.
"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).
If I can't take your space money down to the diner and buy a plate of bacon and eggs with it, then as far as I'm concerned it's not real.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem that I think goes missed or unmentioned by all these crypto startups trying to piecemeal a "solution" to the centralized banking problem: in the monetary system, individuals have absolutely no power, because we're at the bottom of the hierarchy of spending.
Joe Schmoe's dollar has value because he can buy a soda at the diner with it. The diner takes the dollar because they can use it to pay their staff and buy more supplies. The supplier takes the dollar because they can pay their staff and and buy raw materials. And in between every layer, the banks store the excess operating capital and profits.
Decentralized currency can only work if it can occupy every layer at once, across the world. Anything less is just straight out worse than regular money from a usability standpoint, and that's before you mention that now we're all responsible for our own money security.
Yes, people out there have been wronged by the current system, but the average modern human's relationship with money can be essentially summed up as follows:
1. Perform labor
2. Receive paycheck
3. Deposit in bank
4. Purchase food, shelter, and netflix
So what is this kind of pseudo-money-computer-chip-paper for? No matter the fancy technology thats woven into its fibers, if I pay the Kong people for 10 Kongs, how do I, Joe Schmoe, turn 10 Kongs into a pizza? How do I, Jane Pizza-Maker, find a supplier that will sell me tomatoes and flour for 10 Kongs? How do I, Rachel Dough-Maker, find a wheat farm that will accept Kongs?
All of this has to happen simultaneously, because business owners are busy and don't have the time or the energy to incrementally work space money into their cash flow.
Yeah sure, centralized banking has issues. But a bottom-up approach is doomed to failure because we don't live in barter-based villages anymore. Every transaction is part of a hierarchy of money-transfers that extend from the local diner through dozens of entities across the planet and back again. Are you making enough Kongs for all of them?
By that definition, any foreign currency isn't real.
I might suggest an alternate definition: Money is a transferable record of debt valid for a period of time and amongst a network of peers.
Generally we think of money as local to a country and its government. However, one could imagine a 'minimum viable money' that could work in a space as small as a table and with only a handful of people - and for the purposes of a game like Monopoly, while the game is ongoing the money in the game serves a real purpose. From there things get pretty blurry as any World of Warcraft or Eve player will tell you.
If I asked you for $10 and you offered me 10 CHF, I'd probably turn you down, as despite 10 CHF being worth more than $10, it's still effectively worth less to me, as my buying power from 10 CHF is significantly lower than it is with $10. I can't pay my taxes with it, I can't buy dinner with it, I can't pay my rent with it. I can't even store it in my bank, I have to pay to convert it first.
I suspect most people (especially in the USA, given how relatively few people even leave the country compared to other western countries) don't consider foreign currency to be real.
Heck, try spending Scottish Pounds in London (UK) and see what responses you get.
I get where you're coming from, and I do like the idea of a self-contained centralized physical currency powered by whatever kind of tech, but I think the minimum viable money is much, much larger than the scale of your initial announcement/launch seems to indicate you think it is.
The Monopoly example is interesting, because there's enough currency in the box to pick up the entire system and operate it. In that context, the money isn't the point, it's just a tool to operate the Monopoly game-system. Similarly, for us money isn't the point, it's just a tool that powers the human society-system.
I think it's better to frame it in terms of the minimum viable society. Figure out how much system it takes for an arbitrary group of humans to operate a society that is indistinguishable from any given slice of modern life, and then derive how much new money you'll need to make and distribute to make it possible to switch all at once.
Privately owned or rented homes, food purchased from a store, utilities, transportation, entertainment; all the things that being a human in society entails. All of it needs to be present and purchasable with the new money, or else the new money will have to be converted back to traditional fiat, which as many have said defeats the purpose and introduces a boat of security problems.
I like where you all are taking the concept of money, I like the Kong experiment, and I wish there was One Weird Trick to get past the adoption phase and into usefulness, but idk it just seems like all we have are ten thousand interesting experiments.
You are missing the point of crypto in general. It is a trust less fixed inflation and issuance decentralized non government controlled global currency
it is none of these things. The value of cryptocurrency swings wildly, the primary way to interact with it is through exchanges which are ordinary trusted institutions, and they are far from globally useable.
What you are missing is that I need to pay my bills in practice, not in theory. I measure the value of cryptocurrency against what it delivers in practice, not on the white paper of the people who are going to benefit from its adoption.
I really like the concept of physical electronic cash, but in practice nobody has figured out how to make it work.
There are many attacks to consider. The most obvious is to obtain the private key. If you did so, you could give the note to someone else in an environment lacking network access. This would enable double-spending - the main problem Bitcoin solves.
The attack can range in complexity from breaking into the secure element to physically separating the element from the note. The latter approach was used way back to pull private keys from Casascius coins by dissolving the adhesive on the security sticker.
I suspect not all of these kinds of attacks have been considered by the creators.
If it becomes necessary to verify Kong with a network connection, the main value proposition disappears. That can be done already without a physical note.
We have considered both of those attacks and address them in section 2.2 and 3.2 of the white paper respectively[1]. The short version is the key extraction attacks on this specific hardened chip are more expensive than the value they escrow, and in the event a key was extracted it creates a race condition at the period of claim not during the lifetime of its use - still providing some utility. What Kong does that Casascius didn't is provide guarantees that the minter never saw the private key.
> in the event a key was extracted it creates a race condition at the period of claim not during the lifetime of its use - still providing some utility.
So say the key was extracted, you would not be aware until the "maturity" or whatever time you can claim the real value?
How would one then know and trust that the note I'm holding on to won't be claimed by someone else at the period of claim? As far as I see it my best option would be to try and offload any Kong in my possession as soon as possible for real goods or other currency.
Question: since bills can be either loaded or unloaded (either because they haven't been put in circulation yet, or because they're counterfeit), doesn't that mean that e.g. a vendor taking my Kong who has no trust in me would have to individually check each bill via NFC or i2c to make sure that the contract backing the bill is valid (and the correct amount, etc.)? And that I would have to do the same for all the bills I get back as change? As a completely trustless transaction, this seems like it could be entirely too slow for most applications, without some kind of device to quickly verify multiple bills.
Ideally you should check every Kong note. In reality behavior would probably be similar how bills are verified now; businesses regularly check $100 and $50 notes under backlights and with special pens but don't worry about lower denominations.
A dedicated "Kong scanner" could do this very quickly.
Readit News
Kong is based on two primary observations; (1) it’s really difficult to use and secure cryptocurrency for most people and (2) cryptocurrency has been useful as a means of speculation, but poor for actually buying goods and services. It’s our hypothesis that by making cryptocurrency more like cash it may be possible that people ultimately use it as a means of exchange.
Our background is in secure embedded hardware (Lockitron, YC S09); over the past year we did a deep dive to really consider how cryptocurrency key material is handled today. We found that cryptocurrency has a unique challenge and corresponding opportunity; unlike IoT products where the cost of a breach might be difficult to quantify, breaking a hardware wallet can yield clear rewards to the hacker.
We developed Kong around the notion that security should be isolated to the smallest possible footprint — in the case of Kong, to an individual single purpose secure element chip. Doing so removes additional layers of firmware and software in order to limit the attack surface (it also broadly questions how good are our existing secure chips today).
To date we’ve handed out close to 2,500 Kong notes; we’re now exploring more ways to distribute physical crypto. Take a look at https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRNRCocj4PwKMXrd1jeUGw7ASQSuEk7BDJu5Ks... for an in-depth technical overview.
What am I missing? How is this not fatally flawed?
We start to explore how someone could participate in printing Kong freely, without our influence, in section 5.1 but there are massive unsolved challenges to tackle here.
There is a significant distinction between verifying a note electronically and conducting an electronic transaction. The former can be done in an offline fashion; the latter cannot and, in the case of credit card networks, Ethereum and, Bitcoin, incurs a fee.
1. the relevant private key is known to only a Kong note's secure element. this is (hopefully) enforced by the secure element's, uh, security, and by the issuer.
2. the relevant private key is known to the secure element on the specific physical Kong note the user has been given.
2 is unenforced in your current design, from what I can see. A crafted note can relay all communication to the secure element of another note (e.g. over low-power RF from a single-use battery or small ultracapacitor).
better, a "dead" Kong note which performs no NFC communication can be given to a merchant; then, a high-power NFC transceiver can be used to pretend to be the note wirelessly (from a handful of meters away, but in a lot of situations that's more than enough). Of course, this one only works if the verifier is using NFC, but... This one is particularly nasty because it's relatively straightforwards to "weaponise" - imagine buying a "kit" off AliExpress which contains fifty dead notes, a ProxMark, and an amplified antenna. Then, in any situation where you're close enough to the person who'll be verifying your notes... just give them a dead one and relay communications. Verification passes, but what the merchant ends up putting in their cash drawer is worthless.
For 2) I get the part about relaying communication but regardless of that, what makes you think any sort of communication will cause it to output the private key? As far as high powered NFC, I am not sure that would work to begin with (someone who knows radio explained it to me but I cannot recall) but even if it did how is it different than existing mobile phone NFC payment?
You also gotta keep in mind,this is in-person. If someone defrauds you, they face several risks including law enforcement,legal,phsyical altercation(violence) and more.
Better would be nice but I can live with "as good as cash" or "as good as mobile nfc payment" when it comes to security.
Perhaps by having the secure element "lock" and "unlock" each time the note changes hands, so that an attacker who uses a a relay will still have his note locked in a way that makes it useless unless he gives it to the recipient to unlock?
So how does a transaction work? Do I exchange a 500 kong note for a 10 kong item and 490 kong worth of notes?
So if you use a 500 Kong note to someone for a 10 Kong item, they will have to make 490 Kong in change. 4x 100 Kong notes, 1x 50 Kong note and 2x 20 Kong notes...etc.
Are you in a non extradition treaty country? This could be a relevant question for you soon enough
I love this. I have been wanting something like this for a while. Personally, I desired a coin instead of a bill. 2-3CM thick coin made with material good for radio security and longevity would be neat. A phsyical 'coin'. Any plans for something like that? Any reasoning against it?
Deleted Comment
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 create a new "government-independent currency", print it and sell it. Nobody really gives a fuck about that, because money is worthless unless you can spend it. And as long as Costco doesn't accept Kong (or any other made-up currency), it would be hard for you to spend it on anything other than unique hand-crafted chairs or cocaine. And it would be hard for them to start accepting Kong notes, while being a government-compliant entity that pays taxes, as every physical bill they get must be accounted for and put into a cashier machine.
And, by the way, since every Kong bill is unique, it isn't any more anonymous than dollar bills: i.e. pretty much anonymous as long as they change hands without touching real cashier machines or ATMs, which, as it happens, is not so long, because people don't generally exchange unique hand-crafted chairs for cocaine, they buy/sell it, then go to Costco to get some more conventional goods or services.
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.
The exit to real currency will always reveal Kong transactions at some point. Real cash is more anonymous because it's seamlessly transacted everywhere.
Maybe kind of a valid point, but... I don't know, maybe that varies from place to place a lot, but fake money doesn't feel like a huge problem around here. I mean, unless I am a tax-paying entity with a cashier machine, I don't even really care if a bill is fake or not: it is not fake, if somebody else accepts it. And I'm pretty sure somebody will, if I accepted it after looking at it. It doesn't only concern how bill was actually printed: it happened more than once that I had to worry about a bill because of its condition (tears, dirt, etc.)
> more anonymous than tokens sent directly
Yeah, as much as dollar bills are. That's why Monero is better than Ethereum, BTW.
> It's cooler
... Oh, come on.
And that right there is the honesty that the rest of this thread is missing.
And yea it is cool, this overriding principle defies any predefined business model or use case. Novel things come from new things not incremental improvements like “Apple Pay”. Which those are explicable money making scams and schemes to control people’s banking info and insert yet another middle man to profit off the mere act of transacting.
As far as this specific project. The creators will probably need to show some physical notes, how they work and so on.
This appears to be an early-stage project idea so cut them some slack here.
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 many duplicates of a particular Kong note there could be out there. I could find myself in a race between many other people to move the Ether out of that private key. To rely on embedded chips and watermarks to prevent counterfeiting and double-spending seems like a huge step backward, like you're trying to make a better $100 Benjamin instead of a better cryptocurrency.
I get the idea of quick, zero-fee transactions. But there needs to be some finality or pseudo-finality. The Lightning Network uses a similar model as yours, but it has collateral. Analogously, in the way Lightning solved this problem, the merchant has 5 actual Ether on file for a customer that the customer sacrifices if they ever double spend a Kong buck at the store.
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 central entity.
I like Bitcoin but it is anti-privacy by specification. For small transactions I prefer cash. I would like the best of both.
[1] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRNRCocj4PwKMXrd1jeUGw7ASQSuEk7BDJu5Ks...
When I accept a physical note, do bits move on the Ethereum blockchain? If not, how do I know that it's really mine?
This reminds me of when people sold Bitcoin private keys ("paper wallets") on eBay. I've heard some people do OTC trades by swapping private keys when they don't want the transaction recorded, but I assume these people know each other well. You save money on miner fees and gain some privacy, but you sacrifice trustlessness.
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.
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. So I need to verify each Kong note I receive by reading them over NFC using a smartphone. Not great for usability.
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).
There's a chicken-and-egg problem that I think goes missed or unmentioned by all these crypto startups trying to piecemeal a "solution" to the centralized banking problem: in the monetary system, individuals have absolutely no power, because we're at the bottom of the hierarchy of spending.
Joe Schmoe's dollar has value because he can buy a soda at the diner with it. The diner takes the dollar because they can use it to pay their staff and buy more supplies. The supplier takes the dollar because they can pay their staff and and buy raw materials. And in between every layer, the banks store the excess operating capital and profits.
Decentralized currency can only work if it can occupy every layer at once, across the world. Anything less is just straight out worse than regular money from a usability standpoint, and that's before you mention that now we're all responsible for our own money security.
Yes, people out there have been wronged by the current system, but the average modern human's relationship with money can be essentially summed up as follows:
1. Perform labor
2. Receive paycheck
3. Deposit in bank
4. Purchase food, shelter, and netflix
So what is this kind of pseudo-money-computer-chip-paper for? No matter the fancy technology thats woven into its fibers, if I pay the Kong people for 10 Kongs, how do I, Joe Schmoe, turn 10 Kongs into a pizza? How do I, Jane Pizza-Maker, find a supplier that will sell me tomatoes and flour for 10 Kongs? How do I, Rachel Dough-Maker, find a wheat farm that will accept Kongs?
All of this has to happen simultaneously, because business owners are busy and don't have the time or the energy to incrementally work space money into their cash flow.
Yeah sure, centralized banking has issues. But a bottom-up approach is doomed to failure because we don't live in barter-based villages anymore. Every transaction is part of a hierarchy of money-transfers that extend from the local diner through dozens of entities across the planet and back again. Are you making enough Kongs for all of them?
I might suggest an alternate definition: Money is a transferable record of debt valid for a period of time and amongst a network of peers.
Generally we think of money as local to a country and its government. However, one could imagine a 'minimum viable money' that could work in a space as small as a table and with only a handful of people - and for the purposes of a game like Monopoly, while the game is ongoing the money in the game serves a real purpose. From there things get pretty blurry as any World of Warcraft or Eve player will tell you.
And that's why you generally can't pay for your eggs & bacon at the diner in Wisconsin using British pounds.
The difference here is that you can trivially go to your bank and exchange those pounds for US dollars. Good luck getting them to exchange your Kong.
I suspect most people (especially in the USA, given how relatively few people even leave the country compared to other western countries) don't consider foreign currency to be real.
Heck, try spending Scottish Pounds in London (UK) and see what responses you get.
The Monopoly example is interesting, because there's enough currency in the box to pick up the entire system and operate it. In that context, the money isn't the point, it's just a tool to operate the Monopoly game-system. Similarly, for us money isn't the point, it's just a tool that powers the human society-system.
I think it's better to frame it in terms of the minimum viable society. Figure out how much system it takes for an arbitrary group of humans to operate a society that is indistinguishable from any given slice of modern life, and then derive how much new money you'll need to make and distribute to make it possible to switch all at once.
Privately owned or rented homes, food purchased from a store, utilities, transportation, entertainment; all the things that being a human in society entails. All of it needs to be present and purchasable with the new money, or else the new money will have to be converted back to traditional fiat, which as many have said defeats the purpose and introduces a boat of security problems.
I like where you all are taking the concept of money, I like the Kong experiment, and I wish there was One Weird Trick to get past the adoption phase and into usefulness, but idk it just seems like all we have are ten thousand interesting experiments.
But its hard to get funding or user buy-in if you say that.
Why should anyone buy a crypto currency you can barely use anywhere in physical form if I can just use regular cash?
What you are missing is that I need to pay my bills in practice, not in theory. I measure the value of cryptocurrency against what it delivers in practice, not on the white paper of the people who are going to benefit from its adoption.
There are many attacks to consider. The most obvious is to obtain the private key. If you did so, you could give the note to someone else in an environment lacking network access. This would enable double-spending - the main problem Bitcoin solves.
The attack can range in complexity from breaking into the secure element to physically separating the element from the note. The latter approach was used way back to pull private keys from Casascius coins by dissolving the adhesive on the security sticker.
I suspect not all of these kinds of attacks have been considered by the creators.
If it becomes necessary to verify Kong with a network connection, the main value proposition disappears. That can be done already without a physical note.
[1] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRNRCocj4PwKMXrd1jeUGw7ASQSuEk7BDJu5Ks...
So say the key was extracted, you would not be aware until the "maturity" or whatever time you can claim the real value?
How would one then know and trust that the note I'm holding on to won't be claimed by someone else at the period of claim? As far as I see it my best option would be to try and offload any Kong in my possession as soon as possible for real goods or other currency.
Wouldn't this mean that if the notes are destroyed the value of the other notes would increase?
A dedicated "Kong scanner" could do this very quickly.