[POLL][DISC] Coins by Casascius etc. Do added "dust" transactions affect value?

[Zepher]

Hey! Right, this is something that I have often thought about. It was recently brought up in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1544929.0

Mine doesn't say anything, it's just annoying AF.

Yep, it is indeed annoying having that altered balance, I try to take my own advice and not let it bother me.

Gladly, that stuff isn't that popular recently. If someone was to destroy my halving-funded coins, I would probably be pissed like sh*t.

Yeah it definitely slowed down once it started becoming cost prohibitive to spam thousands of addresses
I would be severely pissed as well. But there's nothing to prevent it from happening. It happened to 2 coins of mine in 2014. Nothing since. I'm sure a large portion of coin collectors have at least one "altered" coin.

Is that a big issue if someone randomly sends dust (or more) to a physical bitcoin in terms of its value to collectors?

That is a question I have been trying to find the answer to myself. I believe it really shouldn't affect the value. Note this is my personal opinion. Take a site such as uberbills for example, where anyone can obtain the full address of coins made by Casascius. Anyone has the ability to send a single satoshi to every address on there, thereby altering all coins.

Now, does this still affect the value in a negative way? ( None of this has anything to do with collectors having personal preferences that their coins are unaltered, like myself. But ultimately we cannot do anything about it if they are )

I would like to know collectors opinions on these dust transactions that appear. Please vote and discuss so we can get a better idea of how we all feel about this

[wheelz1200]

Absolutely not, setting a bad standard.  Someone can be spiteful and dust a known coin, which is unstopable.  Lets not even go there.

[Blazed]

I voted for no on this one. Addresses are publicly known and there is no way to prevent such a thing. I do think that someone sending large amounts to them hurts the value (if you use one as a wallet).

[CanaryInTheMine]

This is laughable... It makes no difference. Coins are graded on physical aspects.

[Zepher]

This is laughable... It makes no difference. Coins are graded on physical aspects.

My question has nothing to do with the grading of coins. I am asking whether a known spammer address such as 1Enjoy or 1Sochi, which back in 2014 sent transactions with miniscule amounts of BTC to coins, affects said coins values to collectors?

[CanaryInTheMine]

This is laughable... It makes no difference. Coins are graded on physical aspects.

My question has nothing to do with the grading of coins. I am asking whether a known spammer address such as 1Enjoy or 1Sochi, which back in 2014 sent transactions with miniscule amounts of BTC to coins, affects said coins values to collectors?

Nope. The coins are physical, so that's what we care about... The address associated with it makes no difference, dust or no dust.
The scarcity and collectibility is in the coin itself not the digital part.

[dazedfool]

This is laughable... It makes no difference. Coins are graded on physical aspects.

My question has nothing to do with the grading of coins. I am asking whether a known spammer address such as 1Enjoy or 1Sochi, which back in 2014 sent transactions with miniscule amounts of BTC to coins, affects said coins values to collectors?

If given the choice between a coin with and one without dust, I would prefer without.. but I hardly see a negative price effect on a dusted coin. Especially true of the rarest few.. for example all the 1000BTC coins have all been dusted, but I'd still love to have one 

[pawnshop770]

Yes an increase in utility increases use cases. This in turn increases demand, which increases value. Also, increased dust affects fees, more dust higher the fees, this will affect value as well. These changes could be nearly negligible, but technically, yes it affects value.

[Zepher]

This is laughable... It makes no difference. Coins are graded on physical aspects.

My question has nothing to do with the grading of coins. I am asking whether a known spammer address such as 1Enjoy or 1Sochi, which back in 2014 sent transactions with miniscule amounts of BTC to coins, affects said coins values to collectors?

Nope. The coins are physical, so that's what we care about... The address associated with it makes no difference, dust or no dust.
The scarcity and collectibility is in the coin itself not the digital part.

Thank you for your opinion, it is appreciated. It makes total sense if I think about it from that point of view. It still frustrates me though if I'm honest, as dazedfool says, if given the choice between an unaltered and altered coin I would choose the one without dust. So is this just a psychological thing for people?

Yes an increase in utility increases use cases. This in turn increases demand, which increases value. Also, increased dust affects fees, more dust higher the fees, this will affect value as well. These changes could be nearly negligible, but technically, yes it affects value.

I did not take this into account. All those input scripts into an address means a bigger transaction fee ( if ever redeemed ). Thanks for your thoughts.

[coin@coin]

Someone could theoretically lookup coins addresses, let's say there are only 25 coins being made of a certain type... or 10, or even 3.
The spammer owns 1 of them and he/she sends dust to the other 24, 9, 2.... Then the 1 coin would be more valuable?
Sounds a bit silly to me.

I tend to agree with CanaryInTheMine here, the grading and quality of the coin is what's important.

If you guys stick to the premise that coins with dust are less valuable than the ones without, I would expect people may use dust to increase or decrease value of certain physical bitcoins
to their advantage. I hope not but it is a possibility.

[defcon23]

i vote NO.  it's a bad idea.
all the reasons are already listed in posts above...

[Hellot]

As a collector I purposely sought out some Casascius coins with Russian Olympics spam from back in 2014 just because it is another unique aspect of those coins.

[Zepher]

As a collector I purposely sought out some Casascius coins with Russian Olympics spam from back in 2014 just because it is another unique aspect of those coins.

Awesome to hear that! This is why I wanted different opinions, thank you!

[miffman]

Meh, I don't think it affects the value of the coins. It's something anyone can do easily and cheaply to all addresses (or maybe not that cheaply if you're dusting say 50000 addresses) so it's not something to worry about. As long as no money is going out, it's no problem.

[Hellot]

As a collector I purposely sought out some Casascius coins with Russian Olympics spam from back in 2014 just because it is another unique aspect of those coins.

Awesome to hear that! This is why I wanted different opinions, thank you!

My pleasure.  I should mention that I don't see all dust as equal.  The Olympics spam was unique because they took the time to create vanity addresses to send from and they did it to mark an important event like the Olympics.  I wouldn't seek out just any old dust.

[Lutpin]

Yes an increase in utility increases use cases. This in turn increases demand, which increases value. Also, increased dust affects fees, more dust higher the fees, this will affect value as well. These changes could be nearly negligible, but technically, yes it affects value.

I did not take this into account. All those input scripts into an address means a bigger transaction fee ( if ever redeemed ). Thanks for your thoughts.

You don't have to spend the dust input when deciding to redeem your coin, you can just let it sit there and be done with it, no affect on fees whatsoever.

If given the choice between a coin with and one without dust, I would prefer without.. but I hardly see a negative price effect on a dusted coin. Especially true of the rarest few.. for example all the 1000BTC coins have all been dusted, but I'd still love to have one

Would have to agree with this one right here, if given the choice between two similar, same priced coins with one having dust added and one being at face value,
I would opt for the face value coin. It's a question of preference, nothing more.
However, I don't think it would or should change the price of either of the coins when being sold. It's just a question of what I would prefer (Not that there's not the possibility of it being dusted later anyway).

[OgNasty]

I voted "Don't make me angry!"  

I think we can all say honestly we'd rather our precious Casascius coins were virgin and not polluted with dust, it's hard to say it has an effect on the valuation, and as others have stated it cannot be stopped, so don't speak of it!  

That being said, if any dusters out there want a list of physical coins to "dust" you are welcome to use this one.

[Lutpin]

That being said, if any dusters out there want a list of physical coins to "dust" you are welcome to use this one.

I've heard that 1nasty1Me one really needs some heavy dusting.
Slightly off-topic, but it got here the other day, awesome coin

[digicoinuser]

I wouldn't think it affects value a lot although it may be disappointing that the coin isn't loaded with the original face value.

[TookDk]

I voted no as well, it has no influcence on the value of the coin.
It is the initial funding and time stamp on the blockchain that is significant.
Obviously I am against using a casascius coin as a storage device for BTC savings, we have paper wallets for that.

I voted for no on this one. Addresses are publicly known and there is no way to prevent such a thing. I do think that someone sending large amounts to them hurts the value (if you use one as a wallet).

@Blazed, if I remember right then did you once joke about sending dust to fulllist.txt to get the discussion over with once in for all I think you made a good point ... anybody can do this at any time, it would be very easy to make a script that can read fulllist.txt and send 1 satoshi to all coins, then will ALL casascius coins and bars have dust for ever.