Bitcoin Forum

  Hi community!

 
  A question,  about holograms on physical Coins for example.. what prevents from the hologram to being peeled and replaced by another one ? ???

  A lambda user could not figure the difference, no?!

Probably not. That is why it is important that you buy such coins only from trusted sellers. You "trust" in the authenticity of the hologram label, similar to how you trust the legitimacy of a private key hidden underneath.

Yes of course

but what about not first-hand (old/rare) items resolded in this section for example and on other places too ? ???

Well, I guess the first thing you need to do is to know what you are buying. Then you compare the pictures of the coin you are buying with the real one. Look for any discrepancies, especially in the holographic label (which are not so easy to replicate). You can use resources like the "Encyclopedia of Physical Bitcoins and Crypto-Currencies (https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Physical-Bitcoins-Crypto-Currencies-Ahonen/dp/0995089906)" to help identify authentic features. Finally, check the seller's reputation and decide on the risk you are willing to take.

This is why many/most makers who make loaded items do not offer loose/DIY holograms.

in addition to the previous comments (first the books, then the objects ::) ) and the advice to use only "trusted" users for these transactions, a good method for a beginning collector is to obtain "comparisons" (obviously at a cheap price/guaranteed original ).
For example, do you want to collect stamps from a specific maker/nation?
buy as many as you can to be able to have comparison items and have a basis for your evaluations.

I collect "used" Italian stamps from 1860 to 1945.
some have notable price differences in this condition compared to new ones... however, I have a vast library at my disposal with in-depth information, common uses, etc... and obviously thousands (literally) of different "basic" specimens to use to verify cancellations and so on...
I believe that this "scientific" approach can also be reproduced in other collecting niches.
The market of loaded fake collectibles has not yet "exploded" but it is clear that it will be a significant problem for this type of trading (and practically loaded objects will become increasingly rare....)
a collector friend of mine always tells me: the price you pay for an object, if it turns out to be fake :( , is likewise you paid to learn this information...it should a common practice avoid expensive purchases for a naive....

2013

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/08/13/defcon-hackers-crack-physical-bitcoin-casascius-coins/

Didn't even need a replacement hologram as they replaced the same one.

Except for the noticeable needle mark where the injection took place ofc :)

Awesome reference !  👍👍👍👍


Maybe a way to parade to such issues is to made the hologram incorporated to the metal at the level of the borders of the coin ???

because I think that just putting Hologram stickers is no safe but completely messing!

A post I made a few years ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5401502.msg60295329#msg60295329
Holograms were never safe.

And as I pointed out, you could probably get duplicate / cloned holograms made someplace too.

The buyer would never know, and considering the amount of times some of these collectables change hands you might never know who did it and when.

-Dave

Indeed.  Once a loose hologram is out there in the world your coins are pretty much toast as far as the original idea behind them not being compromised is concerned.  As people are pointing out though, they were never totally safe to begin with.  That's why I usually try to buy things directly from the maker if that option is still available.  You just never know who could be pulling a confidence scam around here and there have been plenty so you can't even be sure things are safe when buying directly from the maker.  So many ways to lose, you have to be careful.  I actually think if someone is selling something and being overly nice to community members, that is a red flag (one I'll never be accused of).

Echoing some OGs above ..Anything can be replicated pretty much to a T when it comes to physical coins and holograms. . Holograms being “safe-ish” use to be something we told ourselves for years (many of us, anyhow). They aren’t. LesbianCow provided a good example of how most can be penetrated some way some how (that’s what she said?) This is why DIY coins are the only safe future of new products in this space, period. Many don’t like this fact, but.. it is a fact. Otherwise problems will continue to exist..we are seeing plenty of this still. I could really elaborate but I don’t want to give scammers ideas (because those pieces of human filth are always watching these threads, instead of getting a fn honest job).

If keys are generated by makers, then they’d be smart to not release the public string of keys list(s), which also goes against conventional thinking around here, but after speaking with a prominent maker who doesn’t release theirs, I completely understand and see why, now. Just one more potential attack point.


Edit :just an btw/FYI ..I would feel pretty good getting a graded ICG coin as they are (unless something has changed) verified by MinerJones who is the most knowledgeable person for all things physical crypto on the planet. Everyone is rushing to NGC and PCGS to get their shiny coins slabbed now that they are doing so (after hating on these coins for years like little immature children ) and yes they are the two most popular and trusted, but not for this space. Unless Elias is doing the authenticating for them   ::)

I'm curious what reason a maker could give for this other than their own laziness or lack of foresight.  The ETFs and large exchanges have even started posting their addresses for proof of reserves.  In my opinion, there is no reason at all why a maker wouldn't release their list of addresses unless A) they didn't think of it or B) they have something to hide.  Not thinking about it is fine, but we can't start pushing the narrative that makers are doing their customers a favor by not publishing their list of addresses.  That's nonsense.  I actually think the opposite.  If a maker didn't think about this beforehand, what else didn't they think about?  If they say there is potential danger with publishing the list, are they hiding something, or they just don't understand Bitcoin?  Either way, red flag.

Although it would add a non trivial amount to the cost of coins I would like to see makers start to use NFC chips in their coins. Something similar to Tangem cards or Satscard.
If someone could come up with an open source app that most people agree upon to use / access then it would solve a bunch of issues.

Making counterfeit NFC chips is a lot more difficult then having someone make a counterfeit hologram.

Slightly larger / deeper recess in the back of the coin, NFC chip super-glued glued down, hologram put on top.

-Dave

There is 1 maker that I know of that uses the NFC chips.. found them through Ebay.

They do have an app also for the coin.

Named "Circbit": https://circbit.com/

Coins are sold for $40: https://www.ebay.com/itm/324108683278

And a set of 5x replacement NFC tags here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/325362928488

EDIT: I forgot about slumberjack's state themed coins. They also came with NFC tags

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403290

It just occurred to me, has anyone ever used NFTs in combination with physical coins (or other collectibles) as proof of ownership? Like "tokenized assets". This could be a solution to some of the problems since digital NFTs cannot be counterfeited (the NFT acts as a digital certificate of authenticity, making it much harder to create fakes.) 

Yes, Cryptokaiju have been using NFC tags AND NFTs since 2017 for their line of collectibles :D

https://cryptokaiju.io/

Physical crypto coins can be hacked (hacked for lack of a better term).

I know that some makers have holograms of their coins floating around on plain sticky paper that can be applied after a coins private keys have been transcribed (effectively creating a honypot coin).

Just know your chain of providence for a coin, knows hands the coin has been and who your buying from and this should no longer be an issue.

We will most likely see fake (counterfit) cas and fake lealana enter the space at some point so be prepared for that.

Also understand that by placing faith in someone elses private keys you are placing that crypto at inherent risk of theft as we have seen with cold-key and dozens of other phsycial crypto and cold wallet scams.

I was with you on this full stance at one point, but then I started to listen to why makers don’t. Tied in with experience in the space and I simply disagree it’s an incorrect narrative to “promote”, Bitcoin is not private, despite every single one of us wishing it was. It can’t be “fully”, anyhow. as it would not become what it has (same reason I love Monero but have always known it’s upside is very limited.thanks to our gov overlords).but as Andreas taught me many years ago, don’t talk about your bitcoin, don’t share that you own any, and don’t give the government and hackers an opportunity to take advantage in any way, shape or form. It’s not technically private but try and be as private about it as possible. The publishing of public keys opens up an avenue for scammers in a big way. I have never wanted to say this as scammers are always reading our threads, but the Casascius UberBills is a directory of endless scamming opportunity. Since Cas uses first bits , like most makers , on the hologram outside..that’s enough to make it ridiculously easy to fake “ FUNDED” Cas coins today. I could easily do it. Easily, and they’d look very good too. Prob fool a good amount of collectors here at first or second glance, if not entirely.. It’s easy and cheap to copy the coins, it’s easy and cheap to copy the holograms as now some fakes are pretty identical, then after those two things I go over to Uber bills and just look for funded addresses, first bits provided nice and neat, use those behind the holo window and there ya go. Casascius is just one example of many. Also,I really don’t want anyone knowing my business, following my addresses, where they lead, etc ..and you’re just providing that potential opportunity. Sure there’s some ways “around” this, kind of.


Yogg and Cold Keys provided their address lists,he still scammed us all. Was just all part of his “look at me and my transparency ruse”.  Now one could argue the benefits, which there are some. Like for example we were able to see MrHodl not having funded some 20%+ of his coins, which isn’t a good look at all, especially how he “handled” that discovery..But that goes back to the whole should makers generate keys or not “debate”. No, they shouldn’t.  DIY is the way to go. A great example of how to - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5454998.msg62349407#msg62349407

Doesn’t mean the hobby should be over. But some aspects should be.

^ Seems like weak reasoning to me. Anyone could get an address from another user or buy a coin and do it so not publishing a list actually solves nothing at all. Certainly buying a coin that you’ll empty is cheaper than manufacturing coins and holograms, which has a high cost. It would be 10000x easier and cheaper to buy a Casascius coin and compromise the hologram, then reattach and sell, draining the funds in transit than to try and manufacture one from scratch using a found address. I also don’t think manufactured fakes are a realistic concern when buying from trusted individuals, which should always be the case. However, what is a real concern is makers like yogg or hodl having coins that should be funded which aren’t. We know this because of the addresses. There are also users who don’t post their list of addresses because they lack basic skills, foresight, or they are inflating their sales numbers to try and dupe potential buyers. All red flags. Whoever told you otherwise is likely grasping at straws because they’re guilty of one of the 3 options I just listed.

Respectfully disagree bud.

I gotta ask though, if it’s not a big deal, privacy wise, why cover the first bits ?

https://i.ibb.co/VLjNNFp/IMG-3237.jpg (https://ibb.co/fX1SS3G)

Edit: also, just thinking...not keeping them private allows for dust.  So, just all reasons I'm against it. I certainly understand both sides of things, but I just see things differently than I use to due to all these different factors. It’s a tough conversation really as both sides just want what’s best.