It takes a while to fully understand how blockchain.info works, and how their wallet is very different from something like Coinbase/Circle/Xapo. Once you do, you realize that blockchain.info is an amazing example of the types of things that can be created with cryptocurrency that weren't possible before. They truly embody the spirit of Bitcoin.
Now if only they would support HD wallets so you don't have to backup your wallet after every transaction...
The Bitcoin private keys are created and encrypted on the user's machine, in JavaScript (Chrome extension available).
Those companies have custody of the user's private keys, meaning that there exists the potential for government seizure / hacking theft of users' coins.
In other words, exactly like the first Bitcoin wallet ever created (Satoshi's), but less secure (subject to the JavaScript being MITM'd, something breaking out of its JS sandbox and getting your private keys, keys being recovered from de-allocated memory because they can't be wiped by JS, etc.)
I'm just not a big fan of blockchain.info, so I have a strong reaction to midas's gushing above. What does blockchain.info do that "wasn't possible before"? It can't take credit for Bitcoin itself. It's like an online bank? Doesn't seem very innovative in that sense.
Again, the things that might seem like pluses (being able to access your bitcoins from any computer with an internet connection and a browser; keeping your own keys) are also really dangerous. I'd rather just use an actual application that lets me keep my own keys, without being subject to the browser's attack surface.
Heh, just noticed you work for Blockchain Ltd. I may have been a bit nicer in my last comment had I noticed. Anyway, it's worth noting that your users are still vulnerable to a Lavabit-style seizure (or hack from anyone) of your private keys, with the intent of pushing out modified JS to seize coins or track users. It's my understanding that the purpose of the Chrome extension is to prevent tampering[1], but if the authorities are really serious, they could also coerce/compromise Chrome Web Store into putting out a malicious update, signed by your seized private key.
Which authorities and laws is the company subject to?
This is great news, and nice work by Roger and the whole team. Blockchain is the way Bitcoin's lights are turned on so that most of the world can see what's happening, and has awesome potential both for monetization and better reach.
I think someone already said it in another thread I'm not seeing now, but I have to say I've been a bit miffed about the "Blockchain" name. It was OK when they were blockchain.info, literally a few pages with public "info" about the "blockchain". Since they've added wallets in the last few years, and now with whatever they need $30M to do, it's confusing, incorrect, and maybe a bit unfair to call themselves "Blockchain."
It'd be kind of like an American payroll company calling themselves Automated Clearing House. It doesn't make sense, because ACH is actually the shared technology, not created by them, that enables them to do their work. It's unfair because people might hear about ACH transfers and think they can only be done by this one company.
blockchain.info doesn't control the Bitcoin blockchain, and they shouldn't control the name either.
> But despite the failure of some Bitcoin-related sites and new regulatory challenges, more than $250 million has been invested in Bitcoin companies, most of that in the last 12 months, according to Wedbush Securities, a financial services firm.
Interestingly, there's a good chance that the sum of the valuations given to these Bitcoin companies in the past year is equal to a not insignificant percentage of the total value of all the Bitcoin in circulation[1].
Xapo[2] and Coinbase[3] alone were both reportedly valued at more than $100 million in their last rounds, and I wouldn't be surprised if Blockchain received a similar valuation.
From a technical perspective, the current Bitcoin chart[4] doesn't look good, and hasn't for a while[5]. If there isn't a sustained recovery, the sum of the valuations investors have given Bitcoin-related startups could one day exceed the value of all the Bitcoin in circulation.
Does anyone know where Blockchain Ltd is registered? In the UK, Nicolas Cary (executive named in article) is the Director of Blockchain-UK Ltd[1], while Blockchain Ltd appears to be registered to someone else[2] not named on blockchain.info.
Every single Bitcoin news thread here at Hacker News is hijacked by some for of another of negativity. Every single one, top comment is always negative. The day Paypal announced its first approaches to Bitcoin, the top comment was about how someone was resented with Bitpay for some unrelated reason.
Although especially noticeable with Bitcoin, it is in general a prominent flaw of HN, the top comment is always something negative. Maybe its because users here feel thay are smarter by trashing stuff and dont want to be caught liking the wrong stuff, so they upvote whatever negative comment is gaining momentum.
Parent in this case, by the way, is wrong. Blockchain.info is a remarkably well designed and implemented site, if not fully consistent with Bitcoin's spirit, pretty close to it.
> Every single Bitcoin news thread here at Hacker News is hijacked by some for of another of negativity.
Pointing out the reality that investors have likely valued Bitcoin-related startups at a not insignificant percentage of the total value of Bitcoin in circulation, and that the combined valuations given to Bitcoin startups could conceivably exceed the total value of Bitcoin in circulation if Bitcoin's slide continues, is not in and of itself negative.
Obviously, you perceived it as negative because you logically considered the implications of this observation.
> Blockchain.info is a remarkably well designed and implemented site...
I did not comment on the Blockchain website design. I assume you're referring to my comment ("From a technical perspective, the current Bitcoin chart[4] doesn't look good..."). "Technical perspective" refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis.
Perhaps, where's there's smoke there's fire. Did it every occur to you that their might be something inherently wrong with Bitcoin given there is no transparency around who exactly created it and why?
> Did it every occur to you that their might be something inherently wrong with Bitcoin given there is no transparency around who exactly created it
That's not really relevant, is it? It's open-source code that does not depend on any central entity. Either it's useful or it isn't - there isn't anything hidden.
I'm quite happy to trash Bitcoin because it's userbase is intolerable, the sooner it goes to zero the better. Their idiocy have caused genuine harm to people who are new to asset trading/speculation: people who bet on Bitcoin with their retirement, their kids college fund, etc.
Underscoring every positive Bitcoin related news is the implicit solicitation to `invest` in Bitcoin.
People who put their money into Bitcoin without knowledge of the risks involved would have lost their money on a penny stock scam or a pyramid scheme if it weren't for this. You can't just pan Bitcoin because some of its early adopters were idiots, a lot of the internet's early adopters were seedy criminals and pests too.
Bitcoin's community will evolve in the same way every online community does. It's found some early traction in the form of speculation which has encouraged people to buy and own Bitcoin. Now that a lot of people know what it is and own some, it's easier to test services built with BTC.
I have never seen the Bitcoin reddit community advise or even imply that people should put more than they can afford to lose in Bitcoin, no matter how much they believe in it. Outside the BTC-e trollbox, I really doubt anywhere has. These people who bet their retirement on Bitcoin are probably just as likely to lose it on anything else they might get excited about.
Personally, I find the userbase intolerable because it's logically inconsistent. The entire point of the properties of the currency is to drive decentralisation and the end of our dependency on the financial industry and its monopolies... and yet the community cheers every time there's a new bank, or centralised exchange, or processing network, any time a major company starts accepting bitcoin so they don't have to deal with the little shops, or any other proprietary, monopoly-forming system built on top of Bitcoin.
>community cheers every time there's a new bank, or centralised exchange, or processing network, etc
More exposure = more publicity = more people buying in. If there is one thing about the community is consistent about, it's about getting rich off Bitcoin.
It may not seem that way from the outside, but there are tons of reasonable people among Bitcoin users. I would say there is a very vocal minority who despises anything that is remotely related to regulation, for example, but you shouldn't judge the technology on that alone.
There are some obvious exciting things that can be built with it, and if it would take off it has the potential to level the playing field for payments processors. That can only be good.
You cannot have effective 2FA and still be the owner of your private keys. That is why they send you an email backup. There are some multi-sig schemes out there where true 2FA seems doable but they are not ready yet.
As for [1]: people taking GeoIP data seriously are dumb anyway, don't really see where blockchain.info claims that this is accurate
> There are some multi-sig schemes out there where true 2FA seems doable but they are not ready yet.
Really? GreenAddress and BitGo both implement 2FA where you hold one key on your computer, one key somewhere safe (like in a safe), and they hold one key on their servers. They'll only sign if you authenticate correctly.
Now if only they would support HD wallets so you don't have to backup your wallet after every transaction...