Agreed with tweetious, hope there is some kind of marking on the holo, maybe similar to lealana coins or the likes.
Otherwise it's slightly easier to scam 2nd market buyers, besides it just seems good practice to me to generally have some kind of physical differentiation.

I did read most of OP, definitely not understanding everything, though.

This Q&A is nice, but I got a few questions:
- I checked your example transaction (https://blockstream.info/tx/c143e12484a975f4ba1fcc655dda1e864b3a545b0cfa37cfc65f17efc8d82f28?expand) -> How can a human (easily) read the info you want to convey from it (can you send  screenshot with explanation or something in that regard)?
- Trying to summarize what I think the workflow here goes and you can please elaborate on certain points:
   1. You create a physical object, the collectible. Do we now have any link to 2) on the object itself? A kind of key that refers to a transaction we are going to create on the blockchain?
   2. We now create a transaction using your protocol to certify the creation of the object and a public address (the creator's?) associated with the creator?
   3. Let's assume we now sell the collectible to someone else - How do we proceed? Create another transaction? Or let the buyer create a transaction? Do we use a key from the physical object to do so? If yes, how do we ensure, the key will not be re-used by someone that is not in possesion of the collectible anymore?
   4. Does any public information need to be provided outside the transactions on the blockchain for 3rd parties to verify the object and its current ownership status?

One more question: With this concept is it iNECESSARY to disclose all paid amounts if the item is sold and resold and so on? Is there a way to keep some kind of anonymity for byuers and resellers?

Lots of naive questions, just trying to at least give this concept a shot at understanding.

Thanks for your work, always amazes me when trust-systems are created without the need for a real person in the middle.

AS MJ said, probably not reasonable for the majority of people, though. The general problem with collectibles is trust in certain people. Most collectors are aware that (funded) crypto-collectibles are kind of in opposition towards what Bitcoin stands for.
I wonder if this can ever be solved without major tradeoffs (such as complex solutions that will never attrackt "simple" coin-collectors etc.).


Edit: I read some bitbollos response to MJ, but still would be nice if you can elaborate some of my questions again.

Yes, and I am quite certain at some point in time it will (be updated).
But that's not what I am on about.

The collectibles we hold right now (based on current encryption standards) will not be able to be updated. And as far as technologic invention goes, there are some suprises coming up every once in a while, so I wouldn't be too sure it's gonna take 20, 30, 40, 50 years until this discussion will be more than relevant.
But it is indeed reassuring that as of yet there is nothing on the direct horizon to make sha256 obsolete, so thanks for providing that info!

I think I did indeed miss your point previously, lol. Sorry, that's truely some interesting insight!
So, does that mean these transactions are encoded differently, not sha256 hashed?

Gotcha. Hard cash is always nice, I understand. If you ever change your mind, though, don't hestitate to send me a message. Possibly also interested in that silver CryptHodl silver chip (trade).
Ah and btw, sexy pics, comme toujours.

I think you are missing the point, there is huge difference of -50% reward, which automatically results in *parts* of the mining hardware turning unprofitable (depending on their energy consumptiond and associated price), assuming constant price of BTC. This will be balanced within an equilibrium range of profitability vs hardware+energy-costs.
However, if it the reduction is 100% and all that's left is transaction rewards, this seems like an unpredictable jump that could cause some huge trouble. It increases variance (miners are depending on transactions alone now) - If tx-fees and tx-amount are too low, this could result in a massive drop of hashrate and therefore possibly open up a relatively cheap 51% from a malicious actor.
That's at least what we were wondering about.
It's still quite some time to go (I think 2140the last BTC will be mind), but an interesting and maybe important thing to think about.

Recently I had a discussion with a friend interested in- but not convinced by- the principles of Bitcoin.
You know how it goes "blabla I don't really see the longterm value of Bitcoin" - "blabla, currently store of value, immutable, can scale with lightning to become widely used for payments, predictible outcomes, no centralized control, safe-heaven against institutional/gov. control bla".
Some back and forth.

He then asked me this question, which I wasn't entirely sure how to asnwer. IF Bitcoin just stays a store-of-vaue/digital-gold type of thing, because it has many advantages in comparison to physical store-of-values but never is mainly used for payments: How can the network incentive to keep running lots and lots of expensive mining hardware with high-energy-consumption (lets forget about the possibility for other proof-of-work algos and free energy solutions like fusion power etc for this example) be maintained? If the network is only used every once in a while for a transfer of value from one entity to another?

We are assuming block-reward is 0 now and the only reward is coming from network fees. (after last halving)

To put it in other words: Wouldn't be that amount coming from fees be possibly too small to keep up a healthy hashrate and therefore weaken the network / breaking the current equilibrium of hashing-effort vs. block-reward-payout? Assuming Bitcoin transactions are very low in volume, because it's not used for payments, just as a store of value/digital-gold?

Not entirely sure if this belongs in technical discussion, my apologies in advance if this is misplaced.

While I agree that there is a good chance some other unexpected shit (like yogging) may happen long before the to be expected (like broken cryptography or hashing algos) does, I think it misses the point:
- I personally know a number of collectors that buy and store coins especially for their kids or grandkids, so if these were to be compromised it's definitely a big concern.
- Current life expectancy has been steadily on the rise. If we add 4 years to the date of the article, we still have 75% of Bitcoiners below age of 50, so unless facing any of the high-risk factors, most of them they should be alive for another 40+ years. And a lot can happen in that timespan.

From: https://bitcoinist.com/google-analytics-bitcoin-demographics/



Sure, but that's not really relevant/what I was talking about. Software can be updated, way in avance of any cryptography or algos getting cracked, coins can't.


Yes, but you are missing my point, it's not about the software. Ofc relevant software can and will (for the most part) be updated in time, if/when necessary.
I was talking about our precious collectibles. Try running a patch on a 2011 25 BTC casascius coin.


With all that's known now you may be right regarding sha256 (then again, see my point comparing similar claims for sha-1 etc. before they were compromised).


Indeed, however this could also be solved with a hardfork where dormant addresses will not be carried over to the new chain. It's something that was discussed in length regarding Bitcoin itself.

Again, my main concern are collectibles here. No way to update anything and funded items may become compromised with no chance to save their original state unless you are willing to lose the funds (and one could debate if that still counts as original state if the keys etc are still untouched below the holo but swept by a huge corp). Ofc its far out in the future but could/would eventually happen.


If you know the infant has Einstens capabilities it would make sense to think about what could result from his efforts at some point in time instead of just bury your hand in the sand. Imho.

I clearly stated that this does not matter for 95% of folks using BTC for the reasons I mentioned.
Yes, Bitcoin is pseudonymous, however if you get funds, from someone that got the funds from someone who's identity is linked to their public address, then it will be very easy with some chain analysis and some effort from a government or powerful institution to make a link to you.

It's nice that when used with the right precautions Bitcoin can be as private as cash with lots of advantages, but it's even more important to realize this does not apply if you don't know exactly what you are doing.
So generally, the current state of non-fungibility for any BTC is a major concern imho and can be dangerous if you promote the narrative that just by using Bitcoin it automatically increases your financial privacy.

Satori chips also have the tendency to actually show completely blacked out number-fields when photographed at the right (wrong?) angle - I recently noticed that when taking some pics.

@Eclipse33: I'd offer a funded 0.005 titan finish Moonbits chip for Lot1+2. Send me a PM if interested.

Ugh... had to hold myself back from these, they do look great and I love sets that are well presented like here.
However unlimited, unserialized supply and USDT is what keeps me from buying for now.

Thanks for your group-buy efforts, though, Mopar!

That's an interesting reference.

It does indeed say, that SHA256 with current algos is unlikely to be broken. However it also clearly states quatum computing could be a real thread at some point.
"Using the most common encryption standard, it takes a classical computer 2128, that is to say 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 basic operations, to find the private key associated with a public key. On a quantum computer, it would take 1283(ie only 2,097,152) basic operations to find the private key associated with a public key.

This is why conceptually the development of true quantum computing could pose a threat to today’s blockchain encryption. Of course, this threat is yet to materialize. Today, due to the lack of development in quantum computing, Shor’s Algorithm cannot be used in any serious way."

That's where I tend to disagree based on the info I currently have: There is clear trend of development in the quatum computing sector towards more and more working qbits every year, reaching the omnious 1M, as I stated in OP approx 2030 - 2040.
Ofc it's true that quatum computing is hyped up in many ways, mostly for monetary incentives (funds from investors etc), but it misses the point of what effects it will have on cryptography at a certain point of development.
History has shown: SHA-1 and previous algos were deemed extremely safe and uncrackable for quite a while and still have turned out unusable / flawed at some point. Who's to say SHA256 will not face a similar fate?

I found the video I wanted to reference in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UrdExQW0cs
I highly suggest anyone interested in the topic to take a look.

I agree with most of the above and this is a nice check-list you provided.
However, I'd be very careful with the statement "Bitcoin helps with financial privacy" <- I'd go as far as to say for 95+% of Bitcoin users this is not true, actually the opposite. As soon as you buy from a KYC exchange or get your identity linked in any other way with your BTC, you are more transparent than ever before.
With the right measures, like the ones you mentioned above, this can be turned,. But without, Bitcoin is in-itself not private at all with its open-ledger and the complete visibility of all transactions ever made, including the funds sent and senders and recipients' addresses.

Recently I watched a video by Sabine Hossenfelder, where she showed a graph of the current speed of development on Quantum computing and a projection until when this techonology is estimated to probably crack current wide-spread encryption technology.
(I did a quick search but did not find that particular video, you can check a new one on the topic here, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8)
The projected date was between 2030 and 2040. The exact dates do not matter much imho, the important fact is, that current state-of-the-art-cryptography WILL become obsolete within the next 10 to 25 years.


I don't want to go into detail, why this will probably not widely impact our current system(s) relying on these encryption-techs too much. Short version: All bigger companies, governments and institutions are aware that these techs need to be updated within rougly the next decade and current development already has quantum-proof solutions. These will (hopefully / most likely) be implemented in all critical infrastructure (banking, communications, accounting, any password-based stuff, severs, crypto, etcetc.) and ideally most end-users won't even notice much of a transition.

HOWEVER: All funded crypto collectibles rely on this old, NON-QUANTUM-PROOF encryption (sha256 and whatnot to hash publickeys and addresses from the underlying private key), and therefore are doomed to securely hold funds longterm, as long as the public keys were exposed at any point in time. The main reason: A physical collectible cannot be upgraded to quantum-proof as it would be possible with any software.

Yeah, it may still seem like a long shot, and there is a chance it will take (much) longer than currently be projected - but I don't think just hoping is the right approach as physical crypto collectors.

tldr: Sooner or later we will have to peel all our funded collectibles to avoid getting quatum-swept by some powerful organasation or government.


I didn't do a deep-dive into the topic (yet), these are just random thoughts I'd like to discuss here, happy to hear any insights and ideas on the topic from anyone that has something to say about it.

This is just an amazingly low serial, wow!

Didn't want to hijack another recent satori-sales thread, so asking here:
Is there any grading for Satoris possible right now? I recently got a few ICG "verified" but they don't grade them.

If there is no actual grading for Satoris available right now this would make any existing graded chips extra rare I guess?

Been trying to avoid most things related to this yogg-up for a while now. Was about to move on.
But seeing this sweep just goes to show:
- Words are wind, there seems to be no remorse whatsoever. At least his priorities are clear.
- Sweeping an insanely tiny amount of 10x 0.0021 (around 500 USD at this point in time) makes it clear that that he's either extremely desperate or just doesn't give any fucks (if he ever did?), willing to grab anything in his rech for his own benefit. Probably a mix of both.

Disgusting to see another friendship/collaboration destroyed by sick greed. My condolences to bitcoiner24h and anyone owning one of these.

Haha omg, what a stunt!
Well, considering where Bitcoin might be headed within the next 10+ years, maybe there will truely be an incentive to retrive the keys at some point in time.

Meanwhile I am just curious to see to which levels Musk will push Doge and if there will indeed ever be an implementation within twitter.

Yes, agreed, happy to see exposure of lots of crypto-collectibles on public display here.
Which pieces you feel went under-value?

The moonbits price here is crazy: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-11DWMW/2018-moonbits-1k-bits-test-run-0001-bitcoin-loaded-firstbits-of484qnm-serial-no-t2097-plastic-ms-67-pcgs
Would need to check, but as far as I know this one was rare indeed. Not even sure if the claimed 200 pieces were produced, afaik it was "up-to 200" but probably less in reality. Will inquire when I got time to do so.

Lot 3, 3@ 0.002

Question regarding lot1: How many of these sets do exist?
It's been a while, how many of these sets were produced? (got 200 in mind but not sure)

Still haven't peeled (I know it's probably one of the more stupid gamles out there, roulette has better odds, that's for sure).
But rn I can't access the note for over 1 month, so fingers crossed. Last time in hand (already post-yogging) I didn't have the heart to do it. Next time I'm gonna do it and accept polymerbit's replacement offer.

Fantastic presentation and great theme again!
Love that set, pm sent.

Finish on the last 3-coin set was amazing, looking forward to see these in person.