I made one in C# that worked under Xamarin and believe I put it on github...I realize that's a barrier given that Xamarin is expensive payware.

It scans QR and decrypts.  Also generates intermediate codes from passphrase and lets you email them to someone.

if you're changing your username and are sticking around for a while, kill two birds with one stone: it's "analyst".

The way I looked at it from the start, I imagined something could attract their attention but even then, it would be a win-win for Bitcoin.

I have always believed that any outreach by the government would be impossible without some sort of implicit official endorsement of Bitcoin as being "money" - something that in Sept 2011 when I started this, was little more than a far-off dream.  At that time the world saw Bitcoins the way we today see the euphemistically self-deprecating altcoin called "shitcoin".  I mean, all the news coverage was consistently "Bitcoins are dead", "Bitcoin hacked, value plummets to 0.01", "the rise and fall of Bitcoin", "ponzi scheme collapsed", etc etc.  People couldn't chuck them fast enough.

Now we're at the point where FinCEN wants to bother me...and...drum roll...Bitcoin is officially being considered money.  The original reason I ever started with my coins was to bring positive attention to Bitcoin, and even now that my ability to continue making coins is being put up for question, I can't see how what's happened overall anything less than total victory for Bitcoin.  Even if my legal counsel says "Don't make or sell another Casascius COin ever again in your life"... 2 1/2 years of Casascius Coins = mission accomplished.

I did get contacted by FinCEN... I probably can sell still, might have to KYC and/or report anything beyond $10k to Feds.  Possibly might be other ideas to steer way clear of any definition of money transmitting. Don't know yet, and I need to err on side of caution. Will learn and then see what to do. Am still taking steps toward production of 2014 coins and a Bitcoin-enthused legal team working on it in the mean time.

not really...

You are getting 255.91 bits of entropy with 99 dice rolls.  The idea that you're losing almost 6% of "something" makes it sound much scarier than it is.

I will bet that a private key that has only 224 random bits is still for all intents and purposes secure, even though 99.999999999%+ of the key space is being left on the table.

And then, keep in mind that a bitcoin address only has 160 bits of entropy in the first place.

I think I actually have these covered.

I was RNG-paranoid from the start, so all my keys were generated via output of purportedly_secure_RNG xor output of SHA256(salt + n), where salt is a long string I mashed on the keyboard and didn't record, and n is an incrementing number.

Order form NSA can't compel me to transmit keys I didn't keep.  period... I see keeping the keys as a bigger threat to my safety than any possible good that could ever come from keeping them.  so while (consistent with theory) I can't prove I didn't keep the keys, the case that it's in my rational best interest to not have kept them (or to destroy them presuming that I had) only gets bigger as time goes on.

Funny you say this and make that suggestion that I spend time promoting paper wallets, because I believe there is a decent possibility that nobody in the world has spent more time on promoting that very idea than me.  I realize you're relatively new here, but why don't you use the forum search feature to search for all posts containing "paper wallet" ("wallets?") by username casascius.

Bitaddress.org does paper wallets in a large part because of my influence and suggestions and bounties.
The idea that paper wallets should be artistic and have an abstract resemblance to bank notes is something I introduced myself.
The ability to produce encrypted paper wallets that require zero trust from the manufacturer is also something I published on my own.
I don't fault you for not knowing any of this - everybody has to start out new at some point.  So, welcome.

I really have made sure to point out that a physical bitcoin maker should not be trusted, that there should always be recourse in case of fraud.  You are making a good point about an important principle.  But just to be clear, and as others seem to have pointed out, your point is going to be more respectable if it doesn't purport to be putting people in their place with a dose of "shame" backed only by self-issued respect.  Feel free to share your message - I agree it's important - I would just recommend you remember to use your manners at the same time.

This assumption doesn't change anything.  They could own 99% of the nodes. My node won't accept their invalid blocks neither will yours.

I believe this thread is running wild into fantasy territory based on some incorrect assumptions.

It is not possible to change the mining reward by miner consensus alone, period. 100% of nodes would also have to switch to new software with the change.

If the cartel takes its 50% hash power and mines blocks the rest of the network considers invalid, their blocks will be ignored. It will be like the cartel now has 0% of the hash power. The cartel will have created an alt coin recognized by nobody but the cartel's own nodes, which just happens to have a premine equal to everyone's BTC balances when they stopped following the BTC rules.  Cartelcoins won't even show up for Bitcoin users let alone confirm.

51% attacks cannot change the rules. All they can do is undo transactions (allowing double spending) and prevent transactions from confirming... Nothing more.

A problem is that mille is French for the number 1000.

For giggles, today only, I think a great name for 0.001 BTC is a dollar.

Dude, he is cool, he was frustrated, understandably so. His concern was resolved and he acknowledges as much. I would be aggravated if I thought someone was taking 3 months to do something I felt should be done much sooner.  This happens to all of us.

As for a legal fund, the well-deserved thanks can go to those who have bought my coins.  I believe I am decently equipped to engage in a constructive effort.

Yes, no problem on any orders I have accepted thus far.

FinCEN has reached out to me to say they believe I am a money transmitter (hence subject to KYC) despite my belief otherwise. I have a good legal team advising me and working to get to the bottom of the difference, meanwhile, doing this is prudent.

I am not sure that making the "best" physical bitcoin is consistent with the mission I set out to accomplish when I started the project.  Similarly, how to improve the metal composition and brilliance of my coins at this point is something I see value in, but also am not making a priority.  I could see myself not really engaging much a conversation on that topic either - other than to confirm that if you wanted to do it, you have my support (and my tools too, which I've published on github).

My purpose in introducing Casascius Coins was as a teaching tool, to help the world at large visualize a virtual coin with a tactile functional object, and at this point, I feel the bulk of that mission has been accomplished.  I have maintained since the start that I would welcome competition, and that my attitude is that someone most certainly can make a better coin than I can.  If you feel you're able to surpass mine, I will not be offended to see you do it, and in fact, you'll have my total support.  It is very clear that the market demands such a thing, so the incentive is waiting.  (Just as a representative example, I'm thrilled to have received  a couple rolls of beautiful Lealana bitcoins).

I responded to his e-mail from yesterday to let him know the shipment was going out today.  Please note that my website clearly states that orders may take 7-10 days to go out, and describes why, despite overnight shipping being a choice.  I usually ship sooner so long as circumstances permit.


I take this as an invitation to share a small slice of my value system, even though I suspect this comment is made in jest.  I hold no contempt for "poor" people, neither those who are buying my coins nor those who are actually "poor" to the point their circumstances hardly permit them to even ponder the significance of bitcoin.  We live in a connected world.  The whole purpose of Bitcoin is, in part, to make the world more fair, especially to the part of our population whose needs are considered the least by those in power.

It would be a massive hypocrisy to snub people for being "poor" at the same time purporting to advance a system ultimately intended to help them.  In deciding to restrict my availability by phone, I have in mind not the social class and the financial means of those who would want to talk with me, but rather, the fact that a satisfying phone conversation about Bitcoin with me is never less than 20 minutes, and I simply can't make even a half-decent priority out of offering it to even a small percentage of those interested in it.

Got my big box of Bitcoins, they look great!  Thanks

Thanks for asking.  I presently have lots of orders given the time of year, and I typically am not responsive to requests to chat.  Anyone who talks with me about Bitcoin typically would like to chat more than your-order's-on-its-way-k-thanks-bye, which is understandable because bitcoin is the most damn awesome invention of our time... and there is no such thing as talking on the phone with me for 30 seconds to check on an order status and I can't do it.  Yes, I realize that's more than likely disappointing.  If I didn't have way more responsibilities than this coin project, I'd be making a whole lot more of the coins than I do.

THe best way to inquire about an order is by sending me an e-mail.

WHile I"m at it...I'm almost out of these gold ones...I only made 700 and nearly all of them are sold.  Actually, just to be clear, once I run out, that puts me out of all editions of Casascius 1-ounce silver coins thru 2013.  Not making any more of these for this year.  I've left open the option to buy 1 of them on my website (effectively eliminating the bulk roll pricing) and they'll be up till they're gone.