Quote from: ben-abuya on June 23, 2011, 11:26:40 AM

Quote from: kjj on June 23, 2011, 10:30:24 AM

That's fine, no one is going to force you to. But some people will find it useful.

This is a design discussion, we're trying to evaluate what would work best for the average user, it's not about what I want to use. My question is why would people find this useful if they can get the same functionality from a device they'd need anyway?

Quote from: kjj on June 23, 2011, 10:30:24 AM

Any chance you could find that reference? I would love to see it, but searching for "hackable mp3 player" doesn't turn up the sorts of things I'm looking for.

Sure: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17919.msg227691#msg227691

Quote from: kjj on June 23, 2011, 10:30:24 AM

By the way, I am actively working on the hardware device route. I know what capabilities it is going to need, and what the communication protocol is going to look like, but I haven't yet found a hardware platform that is both simple to develop on and capable of doing the crypto.

What about the cryptocards like this?

http://www.gemalto.com/products/top_javacard/download/TOP_DL_v2_Sept10.pdf

Not sure it has the exact curve bitcoin uses, but it's getting pretty close.

But they don't need the hardware device if they use an online service. These are competing options, not a decision that must be made once for all users at all times.

Thanks for the link. I'll check those out. Hopefully one will be suitable.

I may get stuck with a Java device just for price reasons, but I personally despise Java, so I'm looking for other choices. This would totally work, but is a bit expensive, and probably FAR more capable than we need.