Bitcoin Forum

Here's what I might consider doing if I were Tim Draper, who now has in his possession all ~ 30k of the SR coins.

1) Take the vast majority of the 30k bitcoins and mix them with other bitcoins. Either on his own, or just in the course of doing business.

2) Have just one of the SR coins (or just a fraction of a bitcoin -- maybe a bit, 100 satoshi) aside from all the rest. This would be the "last pure coin remaining of the Famed SR Hoard."

3) In 10 years, sell it to the Smithsonian for its "numismatic" value, i.e. its historical significance.

I can imagine tours to see the hard wallet on which is stored this ancient relic. It would be like a piece of the Shroud of Turin ;)

Whatdya guys think?

Fungibility...

If I remember correctly, a couple of laszlo's coins still haven't been mixed yet, either.

It's a really stupid idea, and it could work. People are idiots sometimes. Especially ones with real money.

Yes. Exactly  ;D

Ooooh, those would be good ones. Maybe Papa Johns or Domino's could buy them and .... do something with them .... like put the QR code to the public address on their pizza boxes. So customers could scan it and admire its beauty. Or something like that. I dunno.

Actually, it just occurred to me: anyone could destroy the "pure" coins just by sending a transaction to that address. Doh! [facepalm]

Hey good idea.  Someone send a transaction to Satoshi.  In fact, we can taint all seized coins as well.

Physical cash is fungible, and yet an 1804 US silver dollar once sold at auction for $4.14 million.

Alas, I'm not sure the analogy can be made to work. A coin can be tainted by any old punk with a satoshi and a can of spraypaint. Unless it were possible for an address to "refuse" to be the recipient of a transaction, which to my knowledge it cannot.

Transaction inputs are based on transaction outputs, not addresses.  As long as you select the correct transaction you can ensure the coins are descended from the historically interesting transaction.  However, you can't take a part of a transaction output as input, you have to use the whole thing.  So you would need to first send your numismatic coin to its address before you spent any of the rest.

Nnnnoooot quite.

You see, addresses don't actually contain bitcoin. Transaction "outputs" do.
I can send 1 BTC to my address (assuming that it's one of laszlo's coins) and I can send 1 BTC to that same address (but this just an everyday coin.)
My address won't technically hold the coins, all it does is say that whoever can prove they own the corresponding private key can use the outputs signed to the address in question to create new outputs of equal cumulative value which can be redeemed by other addresses. (a transaction)
Sending 1 BTC and then another BTC doesn't mix the coins. I can selectively choose which of those bitcoins I want to send to another address. Only when both bitcoins are caught in the same transaction are they effectively mixed together.

As you can see below, instead of holding a single sum, addresses "hold" the sums of all the outputs pointing to that address:
https://blockchain.info/unspent?active=123452QMfrGXzghCNMgN3yxf25AHFnp1H7&format=html
The coins are still separate and as long as they are spent one at a time without any other inputs in a transaction, they will not be mixed or tainted or anything. :)

So don't worry, this is still a viable idea ;D

LOL @ Don Draper!!!

this thread made my day

What about the other 100k+ coins the FBI holds from DPR's stash?

Really??? I thought this was not possible. I thought this was one of the reasons that making a colored coin protocol was complicated.

So, you're saying that if I have an address (address a) that contains 1 bitcoin sent from address b, and another bitcoin from address c, and I want to send 1 bitcoin from address a to address d, then I can specify which bitcoin (the one from b or the one from c) gets transferred.

How do I do this? Does bitcoin-qt have this option?

Glad to be of service! lol

But if this leads to my learning something new from this completely frivolous thread, it will totally make my week.  ;D


WOOT!!!!! [high five, fist bump]

Me too (asking the same question)

Well, most wallet programs choose which output(s) to spend on your behalf. You can, however, make a raw transaction, and choose which of the outputs to spend, and where they go. You can even choose to send bitcoins to nowhere - effectively destroying them.
However, after doing some research about raw transactions, you CAN decide which outputs you want to spend and which you want to keep in the address. :)
As long as outputs are spent one at a time, they aren't mixed at all. They just stay in the same spot for a little while.
Not many people use raw transactions (because not many people move coins around for their numismatic value!) but you can learn how it's done with a few google searches. ;)
I use them for redeeming paper wallets on an offline computer without ever letting the private key touch a computer that has ever been on the internet. Oh, and dooglus let me submit two raw transactions for 1,000 BTC each (for just-dice)! That was awesome!

Yes, you can send only the bitcoin from address a to address d even if it's already in address c, as long as the transaction spends ONLY that output and preferably doesn't pay a fee.

 
I've definitely learned something new. Which I may find useful in fact, for a project or two I've been kicking around in my head. Many thanks and my hats off to you Mr Taras :) (and Mr Notme, who pointed out my error as well!)

Here is a source I found useful and appropriate to my current level of understanding:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions

 
Didn't Karpeles do that at one point? Or was that an unsubstantiated rumor?

 
I use Armory for that. But perhaps I will learn how to make paper wallets and redeem them without Armory. Will be fun to dig around under the bitcoin hood and see what I can do.

 
Enough to buy a slice of pizza at one point in history. Or a small army in the not too distant future ...

The coolest technical thing I've done with crypto is to code a website to take payment in bitcoin for subscriptions to the site, using a deterministic Master Public Key to generate a unique receipt address for each subscription. Private keys are not stored online so I don't have to worry about hackers stealing the bitcoin.

Imagine this conversation in future:

- "What's your hobby?"

- "I'm a crypto-numismatist."

:D

You can't deny that this ain't cool.

ya.ya.yo!

do you remember the first block reward halving? many have sent coins to be verified as part of the first block with 25 btc reward. that's basically the same idea.

Ok, you're right.  I can't deny it.  "This ain't cool."

Where have they sent them and what have they done with them?

Perhaps some day there will be a coin collector who will try to collect outputs of historically significant coins in one address.
- first bitcoin block ever coins
- laszlo's pizza coins
- SR coins (first 30k)
- SR coins (from the 144k stash, not yet released by the FBI)
- first 25 block reward coins
(what else should be added to this list?)

Maybe Edmund C Moy, former Director of the US Mint and strong advocate of bitcoin, could be the first curator of this collection  ;D
http://cointelegraph.com/news/111918/38th-us-mint-director-to-keynote-bitcoin-expo-in-raleigh-

most likely to themselves!

there are so many things, e.g. in this case:

* coins part of txs verified in these first/last blocks
* first donations/payments to wherever, e.g. archive.org and WL
* this first pizza buy (many coins!)
* first regular salary pay (must exist, don't know about it)
...

Yeah, it was mainly Mt. Gox.
Yes, except the several thousand people who own the coins would have to share that pizza/small army. :P

- coins from the allinvain hack
- coins from pirateat40's ponzi
- coins from early days of bitcointalk users even
to add a few to that list