The MintChip is not even comparable to Bitcoin: it's not decentralized; it's not resistant to a Byzantine Generals-type attack; the supply of coin is not fixed; security is implemented via "tamper-proof" (ha-ha) hardware... the whole scheme looks rather hackable. IMO it's not a real alternative to Bitcoin.
This strikes me as an attempt by the Royal Canadian Mint to disintermediate credit card companies by offering a new, low-cost, "irrevocable," centrally-controlled payment system.
True all that, but on the other hand Royal Mint - being a government agency - can't possibly be the source of a anonymous decentralized money initiative, can it? It'd be rather foolish to expect them to be. Nonetheless, this is a surprisingly innovative development to come from something as conservative as a money governance body.
> This strikes me as an attempt by the Royal Canadian Mint to disintermediate credit card companies by offering a new, low-cost, "irrevocable," centrally-controlled payment system.
This seems to be exactly what they're doing. From the Developer Guide, Background page: "The emerging digital economy must be able to accommodate small-value transactions, such as micro transactions (under $10) and nano-transactions (under $1). The Mint hopes that software developers and entrepreneurs will use MintChip to ignite trade and commerce for these very-low-value markets."
The title of this post equates MintChip to BitCoin, but the two appear to have significantly different goals. MintChip may end up being the digital equivalent of pocket change.
Having used this myself, the problems were numerous. First of all, it's effectively a new currency, so you have to explicitly convert your cash money into this form. This sucks. But because it's meant for small purchases, you'll only ever have pocket change on there, which means your balance runs out all the time. The card doesn't display its value, so you risk looking like an idiot and pissing off every customer behind you when they see you tried to pay the 'fancy way' and failed.
Of course, today things are different, and the web is hugely important, and most of us carry smartphones. But do you really want your ability to use money to be tied to your phone's flakey battery?
Yeah, I agree with this statement. The title comparing MintChip to BitCoin is probably somewhat misleading. MintChip won't provide the decentralized currency system that BitCoin does, but as an alternative to credit cards, it does seem very appealing!
I agree with the flaws. I find it interesting that they stress that the phone-connected hardware is for lower-value transactions and higher-value transactions would get the larger "hardware security module".
I think the real goal is that it offers offline digital user-to-user transactions.
That looked to be a Reuters article written out of London talking about Bitcoin traders, and only at the very end (after a long line-up of opinions from various traders) was the Mint's CFO asked his opinion. It seemed like a fairly objective criticism; hardly a declaration of war. If I asked Square's CEO what he thought of Bitcoin and the answer wasn't neutral or positive, would you conclude Square was declaring war on Bitcoin too?
Anything that takes away some of the ridiculous powers that credit card providers have is a plus (as long as it's not mandatory), though your right, this isn't even in the same ballpark as BitCoin.
This strikes me as an attempt by the Royal Canadian Mint to disintermediate credit card companies by offering a new, low-cost, "irrevocable," centrally-controlled payment system.