> "9. Bob's MobileCoin node sends Bob's client a message, which can then calculate the private key that corresponds to the generated one-time public key."
>" 10. Bob has now successfully received a payment."
If I'm reading this correctly, Bob's client (e.g. mobile app) must be in contact with the node for his address to receive the payment. This is pretty different from what I think will be Mobilecoin's closest competitors (at least from a UX standpoint), Venmo, Google Wallet, etc.
DDOSing Bob's mobile device or otherwise preventing access to the node would, at least temporarily, prevent the transaction from going through. Are the funds in purgatory during that period? If that client never gets in contact with the node, does the transaction ever get reversed, allowing the sender to regain control of the funds?
There are probably a host of other repercussions I haven't thought through yet. The idea of a cryptocoin as easy to use as Venmo/Signal is definitely intriguing.
It's different because regardless if your node is online or not, venmo's servers can still accept payments on your behalf, and it's presumed that taking venmo's servers offline would be considerably harder than taking yours offline.
>" 10. Bob has now successfully received a payment."
If I'm reading this correctly, Bob's client (e.g. mobile app) must be in contact with the node for his address to receive the payment. This is pretty different from what I think will be Mobilecoin's closest competitors (at least from a UX standpoint), Venmo, Google Wallet, etc.
DDOSing Bob's mobile device or otherwise preventing access to the node would, at least temporarily, prevent the transaction from going through. Are the funds in purgatory during that period? If that client never gets in contact with the node, does the transaction ever get reversed, allowing the sender to regain control of the funds?
There are probably a host of other repercussions I haven't thought through yet. The idea of a cryptocoin as easy to use as Venmo/Signal is definitely intriguing.