Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Bitcoin Magazine | May 18, 2013

Scroll to top

Top

  • EUR

  • 93.79
  • High: 98.02
    Avg: 94.2
    Low: 90.51
  • GBP

  • 79
  • High: 81.4
    Avg: 79.01
    Low: 76.24
  • USD

  • 122.77
  • High: 125.56
    Avg: 123.25
    Low: 119.04
11 Comments

The MintChip: The Canadian Government’s Answer to Bitcoin

The MintChip: The Canadian Government’s Answer to Bitcoin

Picking up on the emergence of innovative payment solutions appearing in the US like Square and projects like Bitcoin, The Royal Canadian Mint decided to get in on the game as well with its own digital currency project: the MintChip, seeking to offer the key benefits of electronic currency backed by the Canadian dollar. “Until now,” the website reads, “there has been no electronic solution that cost-effectively addresses the very-low-value transaction markets, protects privacy, is available to everyone and emulates the characteristics of cash.” And MintChip seeks to address this. The product “works online and offline, at the physical Point-of-Sale, on mobile devices, and enables easy person-to-person payments.” There is no requirement for external authorization or intermediaries, payments are irreversible, and it has the cost-effectiveness, privacy and accessibility that current digital payment solutions do not. It even has a few advantages over Bitcoin; secure transactions are instant, it’s backed by the Canadian dollar and it even manages to solve the double spending problem even without connecting to the internet. At first glance, it seems like the Mint has managed to implement all of the major features of Bitcoin and even improve upon the concept.

So how does such a system work? On the surface, the security model is similar to Bitcoin: payment is done by sending a “value message” from the sender’s MintChip to the receiver’s, bearing the receiver’s unique ID and a digital signature to prove that the message came from the sender. Once the value message is created by the sender’s MintChip, the MintChip’s balance is decreased by the corresponding value.

The question immediately obvious to any Bitcoin afficionado is: how does the system prevent double spending – what prevents the user from sending a payment, resetting the state of the chip to a previous state and sending the payment again? Here, however, the answers become much less satisfactory. The core of MintChip “is an integrated circuit that holds electronic value and transfers value from one chip to another in a secure fashion”; essentially, proprietary tamper-resistant trusted hardware. The chip would store the user’s balance and handle transactions internally, but would be designed to prevent users from going in and modifying the balance themselves. Such systems are nothing new, and time has shown them, like all other forms of digital rights management, to be far too insecure to build an economy around. About two years ago, the supposedly “unhackable” Infineo chip was hacked by Christopher Tarnovsky using an electron microscope, needles and acid, and one can only imagine how quickly such a feat would be repeated when doing so gives you essentially gives you an unlimited license to print money. The paradox of simultaneously giving users’ devices the ability to arbitrarily modify their balance and denying that ability to the users themselves, even while the devices are in the users’ hands, seems far less compelling a basis for a sound digital currency system than cryptographic digital signature algorithms and a proof-of-work based distributed public blockchain.

There are other aspects of the system that Bitcoin users are likely to object to. The currency creation model is centralized: value is originally injected into the system by the Royal Canadian Mint and customers can purchase value to spend by going through trusted brokers. The system is designed to be able to force upgrades, giving the Mint the power to introduce onerous tracking features over time if it so desires. Innovative means of value storage like paper and brain wallets are out of the question, since nothing can be done without the physical chip, and it’s impossible to have an online wallet that does not require trusting the provider.

However, the system gets a lot of things right. MintChip is a massive improvement over the existing bank and credit card-based model of finance, as payment verification is based on Bitcoin’s digital signature model rather than central providers. Bitcoin’s ease of use, lack of significant transaction fees, irreversibility and other cash-like properties are all present. The level of privacy is comparable to Bitcoin since although transactions are stored in the chips the various MintChip devices would be purchasable without ID, and cheap enough for individuals to purchase multiple “wallets” to further secure their privacy. Also, if users are willing to accept unbacked currency, as Bitcoin has shown people are, the system can even theoretically survive without any trusted parties except the chip manufacturer. As for the implementation, the Mint is making the system accessible to developers right from the start, releasing APIs in Java, .NET and Javascript and offering $50,000 in prizes for developers who make novel payment applications with the service. What the MintChip shows us is not what the final iteration of digital currency will look like, but rather a sign of things to come. The project shows that the Canadian government is willing to expand into the area of digital currency and other governments and companies are now going to be much more willing to follow suit, perhaps even helping legitimize Bitcoin itself.

The influence of Bitcoin on such efforts is undeniable. The Mint has been watching digital currency efforts on the internet for many years now, and on the board of the MintChip Challenge’s judges are people like David Birch, who has researched Bitcoin extensively and even spoke at the Bitcoin conference in Prague last November. Five years ago, no government would have even considered supporting a digital payment system with the level of privacy that the MintChip provides, and the project is a sign of how times have changed. Even if Bitcoin itself never succeeds and other, even government-supported, alternatives eclipse it in importance, projects like Bitcoin have played a valuable role in keeping governments honest and ensuring that any system that they back at least pays lip service to concerns about privacy and centralization. Regardless of how well Bitcoin fares in its current implementation, it has already succeeded in spirit.

 

  
 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick-La-Rooy/100000113977831 Nick La Rooy

    Nice article. I strongly doubt a government would ever release a digital currency that it couldn’t inject coins into.

    • http://twitter.com/Bitcoin_Org_UK bitcoin.org.uk

      Of course, not! It is their modus operandi. All the new currency created ALWAYS magically appears on credit side of their balance sheet and on debit side of yours. It is as simple as that.
      This is the difference between kings and peasants.

    • Vitalik Buterin

      Five years ago, they would never have released a digital currency that would allow any measure of actual financial privacy that the government did not have a backdoor key to. Now, they have. Just wait five more years and see what happens.

      • http://twitter.com/Bitcoin_Org_UK bitcoin.org.uk

        since there is a forced upgrade “feature” the backdoor is already in place.

  • http://twitter.com/Bitcoin_Org_UK bitcoin.org.uk

    It is ironic how by making claim that they have invented a “Bitcoin alternative” and all the following PR the Canadian Mint is, in fact, promoting Bitcoin. Consider how many people who never heard about Bitcoin before this now do know about Bitcoin existence. Would this qualify as an example of Streisand Effect?

  • http://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees Erik Voorhees

    My prediction – MintChip will not be usable or legal in the US (and most of the developed world) UNLESS it provides AML and KYC compliance. The United States would not allow the Canadian Mint to create a system for digital anonymous wealth transfers. We need only look at e-gold which was shut down completely, and GoldMoney which had to indefinitely suspend account-to-account transfers due to the money laundering issues. MintChip will HAVE TO comply at some level with AML legislation, limiting how much can be spent, where it can be spent, and how it can be spent. It is thus altogether inferior to Bitcoin, which finally created a way to prevent centralized tyranny over money and wealth. There is no possible way that with MintChip I’ll be able to send $100,000 to a friend in China while retaining privacy and without oversight of that transaction. Even if possible at first, the US government will crush it subsequently. 

    • Vitalik Buterin

      I think Bitcoin naturally provides close to the best possible balance between anonymity and traceability. If you’re just sending some money to a friend or even buying a reasonable quantity of drugs, it’s virtually impossible to catch you if you take the money in and out of Silk Road, but large megacorporate-scale payments will be much harder to whitewash once we figure out how to do blockchain forensics (as opposed to our current system, where the little guy gets oppressed while $1.2 billion can disappear without a trace just fine).

      Problem is, guess which system the establishment prefers…

  • Nicolas

    A problem with mintchip is the fact that you can’t even detect wether someone managed to “hack” it and now has unlimited funds.
    That’d be some kind of “accidental fractional reserve banking”, because the number of promises to redeem canadian dollars is increasing compared to the amount of CAD the mint actually holds for this purpose. It might go unnoticed for a long time if the “unknown money printer” doesn’t overdo it and the payment system aspect of the idea is a success (which it might well be), so that not many more people redeem mintchips than other people buy new ones using CAD.Maybe this is even intentional and this is a sort of hidden money printing and they don’t even care who receives the money any more? Hell, inject money into the economy somehow somewhere and GDP will rise. What difference does it really make if bankers buy assets or friends of friends of some “hardware hacker” buy yachts and women?

  • Garrett MacDonald

    Mintchip will fail if it doesn’t majorly adapt.

  • JoelKatz

     It will be interesting to see what the government does the first time two people present the same money secured in their devices. Of course, by the time they catch on, they will both be completely innocent parties. They’ll be able to trace the currency to the common device, but then what? CAn they invalidate all currency that originated on that device regardless of who holds it?

    I’d love to see what guarantees they make about the security of their service. Do they promise to make good on any losses by innocent parties?

  • http://www.salescopywriter.net/ Alan

    One thing I’ve found amazing about this mintchip thing is the fact I’ve only just found it..

    I heard of bitcoins about 3 years ago (I’m a libertarian). Back then I didn’t understand them and so presumed the makers could create more at will, so deemed it useless. More recently I’ve taken more interest, reading just about everything I can about bitcoins for the last 2 weeks or so. Yet it was only yesterday morning that I even heard of mintchip?

    Just SO many articles about digital currency, and yet hardly a peep about the Canadian government getting in on the idea?

    That seems weird?

    And yes, I think absolutely they’d soon change over to tracking every single transaction, making mintchips actually worse than cash.