Ok, so TechCrunch I think gave a good run down of the differences:
I'll post relevant quotes from:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/04/royal-canadian-mints-mintchip-looks-to-officially-digitize-cash/ The Royal Canadian Mint is hoping to create such a system: a multi-platform, simple, and secure alternative to cash. Others around the net have likened it to Bitcoin, but thats really an inapt comparison. MintChip isnt a virtual currency, its a virtual wallet, something which has been tried before. But, naturally enough, they hope to succeed where others have failed. But are they writing a check they cant cash?
Briefly, it must be explained why MintChip is nothing like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a fundamentally different style of currency: a regulated resource that uses a totally different method of exchange than cash. Its very secure in a way, but the aspects that give it that security also make it foreign to existing and familiar payment methods, and by extention, users. Furthermore, its value fluctuates wildly, making it unsuitable for everyday purchases like coffee and cab fare.
MintChip, named after the Mint, the chip enabling the system, and perhaps inadvertently the ice cream flavor, is just a way of securely exchanging Canadian dollars (or at some point, they would hope, other currencies) by means of trusted hardware and straightforward accounting. The actual chip can be fitted into a number of devices, from micro SD cards to POS systems. MintChip value is transferred onto a chip by a MintChip broker, and can then be transferred independently between chips, online or off.
They claim the system is secure and anonymous, though any system that relies on trusted hardware and intermediaries is vulnerable to spoofing and duplication. And anonymity is not an easy promise either: as long as amounts and transfers are tied to account numbers, and account numbers are tied to identities and cards used to purchase funds, anonymity is far from assured. Its not clear from the spec when and how long account and transaction information is stored.
The reliance on trusted, independent hardware seems like the weak link here, and all it will take is a few hackers (on their own or backed by bank and credit interests) to make public a tool that fools either brokers or merchants into thinking a transaction has taken place. Not a trivial task, but far from impossible. This gives the whole system a bad smell for anyone looking to adopt it. Credit card fraud is rampant, admittedly, but thats more a function of the systems widespread use and acceptance. MintChip doesnt have the advantage of being accepted everywhere.
Thoughts?
Seriously? You found this in TechCrunch?
It is surprisingly right on.
This is exactly how I read the web pages they provided. Yeah, it's as anonymous and secure as informing the government of your every move. If it weren't for the trust model I'd like it, probably. I do like what it will do for getting more people into the idea of 100% digital money. But, I also don't really expect everyone to jump right into the P2P trust model either.
This sounds to me like the old sci-fi promise of using "credits" in some vague electronic way.
More than anything it seems a pretty straight forward attempt at being able to digitally wiretap all financial conversations. Maybe they just want to try that out in a "small" place before they roll it out under the Federal Reserve.
(oh, yeah, TC might even be right about BTC fluctuating too wildly for spending on coffee...I'd sell coffee for BTC , though!)
