•   almost 12 years ago

Two questions about the challenge

1. Can the application rely on a separate server component, connected via the internet?

2. The B2C category is defined in the rules as "Application must facilitate business-to-consumer payment." Is it safe to assume this can also mean "consumer-to-business payment"?

  • 6 comments

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    My interpretation of the documents is that MintChip should be able to work offline, and a proprietary network would increase costs, much like debit card transactions.

    I don't remember reading that it can't rely on a server component though...

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    Since the apps can run in a web browser on a device without an SD slot (such as an iPhone) I think it's reasonable to require connectivity. I just want to make sure relying on a remote resource also developed by the Solver is acceptable.

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    To 1. - yes, see here: http://developer.mintchipchallenge.com/devguide/hardware.html

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    One of the advantage of a cryptographic e-cash protocol like MintChip is the offline mode of operation. If you rely on Internet connectivity for your app to work, you'll be excluding yourself from offline, ad-hoc P2P cash transactions.

    An example would be payment between me and my roommate using Android phones. An online app would not function if we had no cellular reception, whereas an application that used the NFC reader on our phones could perform the transaction between our two MintChip devices immediately.

    Since the iPhone has no capability to mount the MintChip SD card, I imagine that it's limited to cloud-based transactions (the MintChip that holds your money is hosted on the Internet). For an iOS app, Internet connectivity is a reasonable requirement.

    In my opinion though, the offline potential of this protocol is the coolest part of MintChip.

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    Perfect, thanks.

  •   •   almost 12 years ago

    Jennifer, I meant own own server components, not the remote accounts to which we have access already.

Comments are closed.