-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I bought a bunch of Series 1 & 2 casascius coins from Mike Caldwell more than a year ago. And I'm interested in selling some of them for bitcoins.
I thought about selling them one at a time on ebay, but that seems like a lot of work. Plus I would have to give a huge cut to ebay and paypal.
So I'm trying to see if auctioning them would work well. Not sure if I will regret this as I've seen them go for >$2000 each on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Casascius-Bitcoin-Minted-in-Sept-2011-Version-1-With-Error-/181115649401?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2a2b557d79
If you win this auction, maybe you can turn around and sell them on ebay to make a profit.

This auction is for a tube of 30 series 1BTC casascius coins. They will come in a square coin tube.
I found that the half dollar coin tube fits 30 of these coins really well: http://www.amazon.com/Square-Half-Dollar-Coin-Tubes/dp/B004DB1K2E
I bought these from Mike and put them straight into the coin tube and kept it in my safe.
So the condition of the coins should be mint, but I have not opened the tube so I don't know if the coins have tarnished at all.

The starting price of the auction will be 30 BTC. Please bid in increments of at least 1 BTC.

The auction will end on May 1st 12:00 AM (right when April becomes May). Each valid bid will delay the end time by another hour.

When the auction is over, I will PM the winner an address (or post here publicly if that's what the winner prefers) and I expect payment promptly (2 days).
I will offer to the next highest bidder in case of non-payment. The tube of 30 coins will be shipped and insured (free of charge of course) to the winner within 3 business days.

I can have Mike Caldwell verify that he did indeed sell me a bunch of coins last year. My bitcoin-otc rating: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=coblee
If you know me, you know that my reputation is on the line. If you really want escrow, I might consider it, but the buyer would need to pay for all the fees.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRd5sXAAoJEIKKwflO8mBTn3MP/25hDc88PzIwZiEQPEwx9Ev9
adWwI0Yv9hIfvhNKYs46zZAUlOMdq86ZBIOwXzjZ5CB9HQoGhWYKED4aPS54n0vr
PzUDvpyb9dIBQn4/LoRdHaIlvs7JYOuwRPCBVwj1mN/sQiXQGeS29sfRzKnNX0Hn
HfHI2BQ5CeAY4gbpO53StuZHb4kbgb5i7egK+sf6ceL68r9Y25droIolgXGNv5io
GBuacBvdEKuWDfE3Cb2WqhIfKBaRCGXraqwCJQqhPFnORwRAM3/AMPrl9SgUHX5l
yZd6uO2wrHI8bk+1ATgcLpdDqB3E1336LbTcT8eYfgb+SqWvQ+xrwHpRS39kuWmm
jvjQrOuJDdHUr8elZUpSuuyuqHnryinSQ7i24LS8T2DHJKS7l/0YdfGoRbxV9Je3
ozfwFGgrPMYsu+/xXWUusvxV3yZs7J/LN/m0oTnKjrGFK/vPY7cq4gEgtOT02mxE
i786M/bmRRvpaC+lem+w9XTY29o3mpyp049v75A63esRYjdmH9DGYQ7YkCVuIQN9
Ry95wZdBTD8rLFjJosnX7hTRqyii+o9bK80kKysjmnPhT8iJ123Dde2rTcIze0F9
ryjrYRnbAkjkujxlVzRa1Woeeje8kSoWv6zyVW4W3KPOB1ftLKXeT9luEzBX4r6n
lBFcoqckeDvqdDnRBVEe
=y83E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

http://www.finextra.com/News/FullStory.aspx?newsitemid=24665
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/bitcoin-betting/Bitcoin-value-at-end-of-2013-4993413.html

I wished they accepted bitcoins. A 10/1 odds for btc price less than $100 at the end of the year is a no-brainer bet for those holding bitcoins.

And of course no sane person would take the 9/4 bet on btc price higher than $500 as buying bitcoins would make more sense.

I will be at the Bitcoin 2013 conference (http://www.bitcoin2013.com) this May in San Jose.
They've invited me to be on the panel to talk about alt chains. (http://www.bitcoin2013.com/bitcoin-2013-panelists.html)
If you are also going, come say hi.

Seems like ASIC miners are about 50x more efficient than FPGA miners in both $/hashrate and $/watt.
50 * the current network hashrate of 24 terahashs/s is 1.2 petahashs/s. So when will we get there?

Note: a petahash is 1000 terahash

When GPU mining Litecoin became a reality, people kept spreading FUD that ArtForz and/or I have been GPU-mining Litecoin from the start.
Let me put this issue about GPU-mining from the start to rest once and for all.
I will use cumulative difficulty to figure out how much hashpower has been working on a chain since the start.

There's going to be a lot of math here. First read up on this:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#What_network_hash_rate_results_in_a_given_difficulty.3F
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparison

Here are the current state of things:

Code:

Current difficulty: 20.794
Number of hashes to solve a block: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 89,309,034,556.95
Seconds per block: 2.5 * 60 = 150s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/SECONDS_PER_BLOCK = 595 mhash/s (~2000 average GPUs)

Litecoin was launched on 10/13/2011 03:00:00 at block #3:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/dec173dda2735ff11376b68bdfda804cede230c1fa6f1a11765cddfd8edf4398

We can calculate how much hashpower has been put on the chain since the start using cumulative difficulty.
Let's check a recent block 294537 found on 2/12/2012 03:00:00
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/a065026ba50a71e1d4979e078265dc9ccf15d0b393969cd35ec4c954bf2c22fb
You can see the cumulative difficulty on the block explorer page.

Code:

Cumulative difficulty: 2,421,540.599
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 10,400,437,678,641,250
Time since start (in seconds): 2013-02-12 - 2011-10-13 = 488 days * 24*60*60 = 42,163,200 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 246.67 mhash/s (~1000 average GPUs)

So we average about 1000 GPUs working on the chain. In other words, if you had 246.67 mhash/s pointed at the chain since launch, you'd have found just as many hashes.

Now, here's what you all wanted to know. How much hashing power was pointed at the chain during the first week.
Here's block 14807 found at 10/20/2011 03:00:00:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/6fcf032b2edfd3e06ee6cace9ed9b6c219d8dca06fa1f43a47cb1c5b7f87084f

Let's do the same math:

Code:

Cumulative difficulty: 438.193
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 1,882,024,604,336
Time since start (in seconds): 7 days * 24*60*60 = 604,800 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 3.11 mhash/s (~100 average CPUs OR 10 average GPUs)

A month later. Block 31011:
http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/7b08a3bfb5f2a865fc0061f6e3f5b97fa1690c8d357ccd814fd9f55641f83187

Code:

Cumulative difficulty: 5,949.565
Number of hashes: DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32) = 25,553,187,100,426
Time since start (in seconds): 31 days * 24*60*60 = 2,678,400 s
Theoretical network hashrate (in mhash/s): DIFFICULTY*pow(2,32)/pow(10,6)/TIME_SINCE_START = 9.54 mhash/s (~300 average CPUs OR 30 average GPUs)

After 3 months (http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/55d1323fa4d7175953fab43ef97c0ef18577d8f000e494740ccc867d42fe67f5), average hashrate is 18 mhash/s. You can do that math yourself.


Seems like the normal growth of a CPU-only (at the time) coin to me.

ArtForz had 24 5970s. 5970s can do 750 khash/s. If he put those 5970s on mining Litecoin, he would have 18 mhash/s, which is twice the work done on the chain in the first month. Litecoin was put on the exchange pretty quickly and mining litecoins was pretty profitable even with a CPU. If ArtForz had GPU scrypt mining from the start, would he not put those machines on mining Litecoin and make a killing?

I came up with an alternative Proof of Stake proposal that I might consider implementing for Litecoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0

Please replay to that thread if you have thoughts on the proposal. And reply here if you have thoughts about why we should or should not implement this in Litecoin.

Proof of Activity Proposal

I'd like to put out a alternative Proof of Stake proposal that I'm calling Proof of Activity or PoA for short. The problem with the few PoS proposals floating out there right now is that there's a lot of extra network traffic and block chain bloat to propagate and store all those signatures. With PoA, there's no need for stakeholders to sign all the signature blocks. Instead, one stakeholder is randomly chosen (and evenly distributed by coins held) to be the lucky representative of that block. And only he gets a chance to "sign" the block. If he signs the block, he will get a reward for it. And in the case of a "51%" attack, the fork that has a more aggregate difficulty and signature blocks wins out. That's the general idea. I will explain the details below.

Random Evenly Distributed Stakeholder

The reason why using random evenly distributed stakeholders works is because if the attacker does not have a huge stake, chances are he will not be selected in the blocks he generates. So his blocks will be unsigned. It would be harder for him to mount an attack against the real network with signed blocks. So in order for the attack to succeed, the attacker must have a huge hash rate and a huge stake.

The hash of the previous block is a random enough value that every node knows and can be used to select the "lucky" stakeholder for the next block. But in order to make this work, we need to be able to pick the random stakeholders with an even distribution and every node must be able to verify which is the correct stakeholder for the next block.  If person A has 200 coins spread out in multiple addresses and person B has 100 coins spread out in multiple address, person A should be exactly twice as likely to be selected as person B to be the stakeholder for the next block. One way to do is to figure out all unspent outputs and randomly pick one with an even distribution. You can mod the previous block hash by total satoshis ever produced up to this point,  and have the remaining value deterministically pinpoint an address from a ordered list of all unspent outputs.

Another way (not sure if easier are harder to calculate) is to have the mod of the previous block hash deterministically pinpoint a single satoshi from a coinbase transaction. Then follow that satoshi as it travels from transaction to transaction until it reaches an unspent output. Then that output address will be selected as the next stakeholder. You can do this deterministically. Since the initial satoshi picked from a coinbase output is evenly distributed, the eventual selection will be evenly distributed also. I can explain more if people are interested in how this will work.

Note that when nodes get a new block, they can start calculating the next stakeholder right away. And when the next block is announced, they just need to check to make sure that the block contains the right stakeholder. So even if calculating the next stakeholder may be a cpu intensive calculation, it won't affect node performance much because it can be done asynchronously. And it's not a new vector for a DoS attack. Though initial block download will be slower when it verifies each stakeholder of a block.

Rewarding Proof of Activity

The easiest way to reward PoA stakeholders is to send them coins in the coinbase. Stakeholders and miners will split the 50 generated coins in the coinbase transaction. I think giving stakeholders 10% (5 coins) is a good enough amount to entice stakeholders to sign the block yet not take away too much from the miners. This number is up for debate.

We could dynamically increase/decrease this ratio based on how many stakeholders have signed previous blocks. For example, we can do it during the diff retarget and try to reach of target of 50% signed blocks. If there are less than 50% signed blocks in the previous 2016 blocks, then pay the stakeholders more in the next 2016 blocks. And vice versa.

Block Signing

Block signing is achieved by spending the PoA coinbase output. When the selected stakeholder spends that coinbase output, he is effectively "signing" that block. He is telling the network that he agrees that this chain is the true chain.

In order for this to work, stakeholders must sign the block within a certain window. Because signing a block from a month ago really does nothing to protect the network. So we want to make these coinbase transactions expire after a certain period. Let's say 120 blocks for now, but that's adjustable. So if the stakeholder broadcasts a transaction to spend the coinbase output after 120 blocks has passed, this transaction will be deemed invalid and will be rejected by other nodes.

Unclaimed PoA coinbase outputs can be reclaimed or just left as is and considered part of natural coin destruction that happens. Note that due to coin destruction, there will be blocks that are unsignable. This happens when we randomly select a stakeholder address that is lost.

Best Chain

Signed blocks should have a weighted value that is more than unsigned blocks when trying to figure out the best chain. Currently we are doing sum(diff) and the chain with the larger sum(diff) wins. With PoA, signed blocks would be counted X times the normal diff value. If we choose X=2, then signed blocks would be worth twice as much as unsigned blocks with respect to calculating the best chain. So a chain with 6 signed blocks is "longer" than a chain with 11 unsigned blocks of the same difficulty.

I'm proposing we use X=5. The reason why I chose 5 is because if we assume that on the real network we have half the blocks signed, then an attacker with no stake would need 75% of total network hash rate in order to perform the "51%" attack. The way to calculate this is if the network hashrate hashes 10 blocks and half of those blocks are signed, then the strength of chain is 5 (unsigned) + 5*5 (signed) = 30 effective blocks. The attacker needs to match that hashrate with unsigned blocks, so he needs a hashrate that can produce 30 blocks in the same time when the main network is producing 10 blocks. 30 / (30 + 10) = 75%.

There's an attack vector where lucky stakeholders might withhold their signatures in order for them to try to perform a double spend. They could hash in secret and find a block with their signature. When they do, they send a transaction to the real network that they plan to double spend and then release their fork which will be "longer" due to their signed block. The solution to this is to allow a signature (only found in one fork) to also be used to sign the signature block on the other fork if applicable. For example, if both forks have the same signature block (i.e. the fork happened after it) and the signature is only found on one fork, then both fork gets 5xdiff for that signature block.

Another attack vector is the attacker can mine blocks until they find a block that hashes to something that will select themselves as the next stakeholder. When they find that block, they keep it a secret and then start building their fork on top of that block and include their signature transaction. This way, they can launch a double spend with a large stake and only ~15% of the network hash rate. A solution to this is to increase the weight of the signed block based on how deep the signature transaction is in the block chain. So the attacker is forced to build more blocks on top and needs to outpace the main network's blocks, which would likely have more signatures.

Conclusion

Proof of Activity provides the benefit of Proof of Stake without the added network traffic and block chain bloat. It makes it harder for an attacker to perform a "51%" attack. In order to perform a successful attack, he would need a huge hashrate and a huge stake.

The nice thing about this proposal is that you would only need to change 5 things:
- Nodes need to calculate and verify next stakeholder
- New coinbase output for PoA
- PoA coinbase spends will mark blocks signed
- Invalidate transactions that are trying to spend expired PoA coinbase
- New best chain calculation

It would of course be a chain forking change that needs to be scheduled for sometime in the future.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Thanks a lot to iddo for helping me flesh out this proposal.

I'm announcing that I'm opening up litecoin.net to be used as a shared domain. I think it is beneficial to group all useful Litecoin services/tools under one domain.

This is not a land grab. If you are not providing a useful service or if you currently don't have the service ready yet, I will not approve the subdomain. If it's a work-in-progress, do PM me and I will let you know.
This is first come first served. For example, if you are the first one to provide a mining calculator at calc.litecoin.net, the next mining calculator (even if it's a much better one) will need to use a subdomain that's probably not as easy to remember.

There are 2 special domains (possibly more) that will not be first come first served: forum.litecoin.net and wiki.litecoin.net
Since these will be seen as the "official" forum and wiki, I would need to be sure that I can trust the operators. So if you are interested in operating the "official" forum or wiki, send me a PM.

A few requirements
- should be a Litecoin related site... duh!
- should be a free service/tool useful to the Litecoin community. businesses should just get their own domain.
- should not refer to Litecoin as LiteCoin <- this is my pet peeve
- should not have other altcoin related services/tools because I am not endorsing any other alt chains. Though Bitcoin is ok.
- wallets, exchanges, and pools are not allowed. you should get your own domain. I'm not in a position to deem any site as an official wallet, pool, or exchange.
- basically any site that holds users' litecoins are disallowed mainly due to me not wanting to be held responsible if users lose their litecoins for any reason.
- use a subdomain name that sort of describes your site. for example, I'm not going to approve awesome.litecoin.net no matter how awesome your site is.
- do not claim that your site is the "official" site unless you ok'd it with me.
- do not have excessive ads. I realized that ads are useful to help pay for hosting and such, but if your site is filled with ugly flashing ads, I will not approve it.

So if you have a service/tool that you would like to serve up at *.litecoin.net, sign up here: http://freedns.afraid.org/subdomain/edit.php?edit_domain_id=813116

Here are some I have in mind:

explorer.litecoin.net - block explorer (Someguy123 plans to move abe.liteco.in over)
address.litecoin.net - address tools (Greedi plans to move address.liteco.in over)
calc.litecoin.net - mining calculator
source.litecoin.net - already forwards to GitHub
download.litecoin.net - already forwards to GitHub downloads page
charts.litecoin.net - price, hashrate, pools charts
watch.litecoin.net - something similar to bitcoinwatch.com
faucet.litecoin.net - litecoin faucet
p2pool.litecoin.net - p2pool node
electrum.litecoin.net - Electrum server

Please feel free to discuss projects you have in mind.

This brings Litecoin up-to-date with the latest Bitcoin fixes. Please update as soon as you can so that you are no longer vulnerable to new DoS attacks that were recently found.

Grab the source: https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin
Windows (zip): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3-win32.zip
Windows (exe): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3b-win32-setup.exe
Linux (tgz, 32/64-bit): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3-linux.tar.gz
Mac OS X: https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3-macosx.dmg

I'm starting a pirate pass through program where you would deposit bitcoins with me. I will then deposit those bitcoins into pirateat40's BTCST program. And every week, I will pay interest in LTC. I think this is a good way for someone to accumulate litecoins and it will help increase Litecoin prices.

There's some risk with this program. If pirate defaults, you will lose your bitcoins as I'm not in a position to guarantee that pirate's program is not a Ponzi scheme. Though I believe that he's not and I have backed that belief by putting a lot of coins of my own with him. Of course there's also risk of me running away with your coins. But I hope people trust me enough not to do that.

Some info about the program:

• Deposits should be made in multiples of 50 btc
• Interest rate will be 6.5%/week.
• All depositors will be listed in this anonymized payouts spreadsheet: http://ltcppt.com
• Interests payment will be made on Mondays after pirate pays his interest.
• I will buy the litecoins on an exchange throughout the week and will average out the exchange rate for everyone. I will be fair about it, but you kind of have to trust me there.
• The interest for the first week will be prorated (in granularity of days) based on when you deposited the coins.
• In the event interest payments are lost due to exchanges being hacked or running away with coins, I will absorb the lost and the depositors will still get their interest payments.
• If you need to withdraw, just let me know. It will take me some time depending on how fast I can withdraw from pirate. Should be <24 hrs.
• Your funds may be forced withdrawn if pirate forces a withdraw on me.
• If Pirate defaults, I would not be able to return your principle to you.
• Terms are subject to change if pirate changes his terms.

For now, I have a minimum deposit amount of 50 BTC. If you are interested, please PM me with a BTC withdrawal address and an LTC interest payment address. And I will send you a BTC address for deposits.

EDIT: On 8/13/2012, Pirate is switching to a new account system. With the new accounts, I am no longer able to get 7% a week. So in order to keep the 6.5% a week payout, I will be using another passthrough. There is now an added risk of the other passthrough stealing your coins. If that happens, I would not be able to return your principle.

You can also choose the option of accepting a lower weekly return (4.5%) but have no additional risk of another passthrough. If I decide to put your coins in a passthrough, I will take on the full risk of it. So your coin is only at risk of a Pirate default. If the passthrough I choose steals the coins, I will pay them back to you out of my pocket. If you want to take this option, please let me know.

EDIT2: I will be using payb.tc's BitcoinMax.

EDIT3: Looks like Pirate is lowing his rates on 8/20. With the new rates, LTCPPT would likely pay out 4.5%. Stay tuned.

EDIT4: All deposits and interests paid out.

I wanted to see what kind of website Satoshi put together for Bitcoin, so I search the Wayback Machine and got this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

It's kind of interesting reading Satoshi's own words about how bitcoins worked.
If you stumbled across this website in January of 2009, would you run this program created by this random dude named Satoshi?

I'm trying to see if anyone is interested in buying a car for bitcoins. I'm in the SF bay area. Don't know the price yet, but we could talk about pricing if you are interested. It would likely be in the >5000 bitcoins range. I can post more info if anyone is interested.

I have a 5970 that will no longer mine. I think it overheated, but I'm not sure. I just know that if I try to start a miner against it in my 4x 5970 machine, the whole machine locks up. I don't have time to figure out what's wrong with it. Is anyone interested in buying something like this? Maybe you need it for parts or you like to play around with it and try to get it to mine again.

I'm looking for 20 btc for it. I think I can sell if on ebay for more, but not sure. But I'd rather sell it to someone on this board who make have use for it. I'm open to offers since this card is worth very little to me right now.

I have 2 dual fpga rev2 x6500s for sale. I've reattached the heatsinks with the Artic Alumina Thermal Adhesives to improve the heat dissipation. And I've been mining with them using the 400MHz bitstream without any problems.

I've also attached the 2 units together with these: http://cablesaurus.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=14&product_id=60
But you can separate them if you want. I will include the original standoffs.

Will sell both + the standoffs + the 2 power adapters that I got separately for 220 btc shipped to US.

EDIT: Previous sale https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29534.0

Enjoy!
x6500
Icarus

The original purpose of Litecoin is to be a CPU coin where anybody with their computer can mine litecoins. What has happened with Bitcoin is that GPU mining on bitcoin was a lot more efficient, so a lot of people starting mining bitcoins with GPUs. This pumped up the difficulty and made CPU mining unprofitable and therefore pointless. I don't want this to happen to Litecoin and I think most people agree with me on this.

Recently, there has been some rumors that mtrlt has modified his GPU miner to work with Litecoin. And he claims to have been able to create a GPU miner that outperforms CPU miner by a lot. Of course, all this could be FUD thrown at Litecoin by Solidcoin supporters. But I have talked to mtrlt about this and he seems genuine. So I'd like to get to the bottom of this.

Here's what I'd like to accomplish:
1) Figure out if GPU mining litecoins is indeed more efficient. And if so how much better is it.
2) Do we want to switch to a new hashing algorithm that is more GPU-hostile.
3) If we do want to switch, there are a ton of other questions. Can we modify scrypt params or do we need something totally different. How far away do we do the algorithm switch? How do we get miners/pools/clients ready for the switch so that there's no downtime?

Everyone, please refrain from SolidCoin bashing in this thread. And SolidCoin supporters, please refrain from posting unless you have something constructive to say. Thanks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-silicon-valley-100-2012-1#88-satoshi-nakamoto-13

I've been thinking of ways to safely store my bitcoins. After hearing so many stories of stolen bitcoins and lost bitcoins, I wanted an option where I can put some private keys in a bank safe somewhere. One option is to purchase casascius physical bitcoins. They are cool, but then you have to trust that Mike Caldwell (casascius) does not keep a copy of the private keys. Or I can just write it down on a piece of paper and store that piece of paper in the bank safe. But a piece of paper might not last... plus water and heat can easily render the writing illegible. Then I thought, what if I use alphabet/number beads to string together a mini private key and store that in my bank account. Something like these: http://www.beadsrfun.com/Letter-Beads,-Number-Beads-and-Charms-5mm-Pewter-Letter-&-Number-Cubes/c257_288/index.html

To me, that seems like a great way to store a physical representation of a private key. What do you think? Obviously, this it just for bitcoins in my "savings" account. It will be stored in my bank safe for many years. So they will either be worth a lot of money or nothing by the time I take them out.

I was playing around with AppEngine and put this together: http://casascius.appspot.com/

I have a cron job running on AppEngine that will check for newly funded and opened coins once a day.

I think Mike Caldwell's physical bitcoins are really cool. I talked to him about creating a bar for storing litecoins.
See this for what his bitcoin bars look like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53203.0

Then I thought that it would be even cooler if the bar was silver plated and had an 'L' etched in it instead of a 'B'. It seems like in order to do something like that, we would need to order possibly hundreds of these bars. I want to know if there's any interest in this from the Litecoin community. I'm guessing the premium on each bar would be at least $20. Let me know if you are interested and about how many bars, and what denomination would you be intersted in. Obviously a 100 LTC bar does not make much sense as 100 LTC is like $2. To me, 10,000 LTC seems like the right denomination.