AUCTION - 8 rolls of new 0.5BTC Casascius Coins

[kjlimo]

I am willing to pay 30 BTC for any roll and am willing to buy two rolls

[paulgruber]

Hi Mike

As it stands so far, I bid the amounts as listed below.

Roll #1: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 121 @ 31.6 BTC per roll
Roll #2: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 121 @ 30.6 BTC per roll
Roll #3: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 122 @ 31.1 BTC per roll
Roll #4: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 122 @ 30.3 BTC per roll
Roll #5: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 123 @ 30.8 BTC per roll
Roll #6: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 123 @ 30.2 BTC per roll
Roll #7: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 124 @ 30.3 BTC per roll
Roll #8: Fifty 0.5 BTC - prefix 124 @ 30.1 BTC per roll

Regards
Paul Gruber

[k99]

I bid 30.4 BTC for any roll

[BitAddict]

Could we see some photos?
Are you using new art for this 0,5 btc?

Thanks

[molecular]

i'd start at 26 each for all 8

double check your signature? here's what i'm getting. typically it seems to be the forum newlines that cause this

Verification FAILED.
Bad signature by Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>

works here (on linux):

Code:

nick@undercover ~ $ gpg --verify test/test
gpg: Signature made Sun 07 Apr 2013 05:42:52 AM CEST using RSA key ID F1175A23
gpg: Good signature from "Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 25AD 1933 B0D3 FE72 1135  95CC 5A2E E8F1 F117 5A23

it might help to save the file using unix line end characters instead of windows

[molecular]

i'd start at 26 each for all 8

double check your signature? here's what i'm getting. typically it seems to be the forum newlines that cause this

Verification FAILED.
Bad signature by Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>

works here (on linux):

Code:

nick@undercover ~ $ gpg --verify test/test
gpg: Signature made Sun 07 Apr 2013 05:42:52 AM CEST using RSA key ID F1175A23
gpg: Good signature from "Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 25AD 1933 B0D3 FE72 1135  95CC 5A2E E8F1 F117 5A23

it might help to save the file using unix line end characters instead of windows

EDIT: I copy-pasted mikes message from "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----" to "-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" (and put a newline at the end). This is my file test/test in above code. The sha256sum of it is: a18455386d3d6331c1d5332f596984301fce359fc1b6521dface4df320e93ad3

[steelboy]

Hi mike

I have sent a couple of PMs but you must be busy.

I want to bid on this but it depends on if you can bundle 100 btc in from my order from before you changed the site.

PM me if you want to do it privately. 

[casascius]

I have shipped all the orders other than ones contains these 0.5 coin rolls and 1btc coin rolls.

I will post photos soon but they look the same as my 1btc coin just 1inch instead of 1.125 inch. Hologram is scaled down as well.

[2weiX]

I bid 32 for each of any two rolls.

[stereotype]

Im interested in how this plays out, but with respect, i just cant help feeling this is not the way to go.

I say again, respect and admiration to Mike for bringing the Bit Coin to where it is today. It has grown with valued credibility, through the consistency of Mike's process, and the transparent way he sets out his stall, and how it has all been executed. And all that gave confidence to the cause.

All im asking is, does Mike's recent changes and apparent indecision to the process of selling, somehow dilute any consolidated confidence?
And im asking that, because its healthy 

Personally, i think theres something in licensing each country with a defined amount of resellers. Mike achieves the block orders he is seeking with the same trusted but lesser in number clients, the resellers get credibility from Mikes credible (maybe legal) licensing, enhanced by country centric markings on the coins, there-by making them more desirable to collect around the world.

What say you?

[2weiX]

Im interested in how this plays out, but with respect, i just cant help feeling this is not the way to go.

I say again, respect and admiration to Mike for bringing the Bit Coin to where it is today. It has grown with valued credibility, through the consistency of Mike's process, and the transparent way he sets out his stall, and how it has all been executed. And all that gave confidence to the cause.

All im asking is, does Mike's recent changes and apparent indecision to the process of selling, somehow dilute any consolidated confidence?
And im asking that, because its healthy 

Personally, i think theres something in licensing each country with a defined amount of resellers. Mike achieves the block orders he is seeking with the same trusted but lesser in number clients, the resellers get credibility from Mikes credible (maybe legal) licensing, enhanced by country centric markings on the coins, there-by making them more desirable to collect around the world.

What say you?

If anything, I am all for not auctioning them.
I could imagine Mike selling only 200BTC-lots at once to single sellers.
I could imagine an invite-only closed bidding process for 100-BTC lots, maybe.

I dunno.

Just auctioning them off is kinda strange when the notion was that resellers would get a decent rate and now we're already at a 20% premium.

[stereotype]

Forgot to add..... country centric markings also mitigate the loss of confidence around the world, due to the fraud that will operate in this space soon.

As you were.

[casascius]

If I have to worry about licensing and who's entitled and not entitled to sell in different countries, then I have to manage a whole lot of things that I am deliberately trying to get out of managing.

I could see myself raising the minimum lot size.  It's a matter of balance.  If the lot size is too small, then individual collectors will bid on them directly, choking out the possibility of emergence of a reseller market.  If the lot size is too big, a lot of valued potential resellers will be shut out of the bidding process, and I see a value to having lots of resellers because a buyer should ideally be able to find a seller in his home country so he doesn't have to deal with international shipping.

I totally understand it may seem disheartening for those of you who have shown enthusiasm, interest, and loyalty to me and my products only to be transitioned to an arrangement where you're competing to buy products with newcomers who aren't.  I ask you put it in perspective.  The dynamics of the market changed overnight, and I am responding to them, appropriately I would hope.

The only thing I can promise is that I will respond true to my own values, which have not changed overnight.  Allow me to reward those who have shown enthusiasm, interest, and loyalty, with respect and favors of the same kind.  Me sending out or offering a closed bidding opportunity on some sort of rare or special items, or giving them as gifts, would be an example of me returning a favor.  Turning my back to the market and rewarding a favor with a fractional monopoly on all of my products and sacrificing my rational self-interest in getting a reasonable market-based wholesale price for the market's new valuation of product is something I'm going to see as a wee bit more weighty than a favor.

[casascius]

Forgot to add..... country centric markings also mitigate the loss of confidence around the world, due to the fraud that will operate in this space soon.

As you were.

Cryptography is one of those things that gives me a leg up on every possible counterfeited item in the world.

I assume my product WILL be counterfeited.  But when I start producing digitally signed PDF photos of my own product, I've got the counterfeiters beat.  The more possible I can make it for you guys to authenticate my genuine products, the more value a genuine product will have, and the less lucrative it will be to counterfeit them.

This will only work for products I produce from today forward, but here is an idea you can do right now.  The counterfeiting hasn't happened yet.  Go throw your current stash of Casascius Coins on a scanner, scan a photo of them, take a 160-bit hash of the file, and then work that hash into the block chain somehow.  Convert the hash to a bitcoin address and send a satoshi to it (my Bitcoin Address Utility can do this, for example).  Your photo with its supporting hash in the block chain will be publicly verifiable proof that the coin in your photo existed today.

[molecular]

Im interested in how this plays out, but with respect, i just cant help feeling this is not the way to go.

I say again, respect and admiration to Mike for bringing the Bit Coin to where it is today. It has grown with valued credibility, through the consistency of Mike's process, and the transparent way he sets out his stall, and how it has all been executed. And all that gave confidence to the cause.

All im asking is, does Mike's recent changes and apparent indecision to the process of selling, somehow dilute any consolidated confidence?
And im asking that, because its healthy 

Personally, i think theres something in licensing each country with a defined amount of resellers. Mike achieves the block orders he is seeking with the same trusted but lesser in number clients, the resellers get credibility from Mikes credible (maybe legal) licensing, enhanced by country centric markings on the coins, there-by making them more desirable to collect around the world.

What say you?

I like the idea of country-specific markings (like with the EUR coins). However that would probably greatly complicate production and distribution.

I also think (hope) the auctioning is just a measure to handle the current shortage. In the end this gives the coins to the markets / people who desire them most. It also guarantees a better distribution and higher level of fairness amongst the resellers than to simply sell to the first resellers who order.

I myself would love to see predictable pricing again at some point (when market is saturated) with a premium for Mikes work based on USD value.

The best thing that could happen in this respect would be competition for Mike... but I don't see it. He encourages it but a newcome with a different coin will just not be the same. There would have to be some kind of an innovation involved... a better product. Just a copy wont work.

Resellers getting the coins at vastly different prices can turn into a problem for the resellers who bought at a high price when the price competition sets in and distorts the previously level (except for location) playing field.

But for now I think the auctioning is an acceptable solution to allow an effective solution for the shortage.

[molecular]

This will only work for products I produce from today forward, but here is an idea you can do right now.  The counterfeiting hasn't happened yet.  Go throw your current stash of Casascius Coins on a scanner, scan a photo of them, take a 160-bit hash of the file, and then work that hash into the block chain somehow.  Convert the hash to a bitcoin address and send a satoshi to it (my Bitcoin Address Utility can do this, for example).  Your photo with its supporting hash in the block chain will be publicly verifiable proof that the coin in your photo existed today.

Awesome idea. Thanks for sharing!

[stereotype]

If I have to worry about licensing and who's entitled and not entitled to sell in different countries, then I have to manage a whole lot of things that I am deliberately trying to get out of managing.

I could see myself raising the minimum lot size.  It's a matter of balance.  If the lot size is too small, then individual collectors will bid on them directly, choking out the possibility of emergence of a reseller market.  If the lot size is too big, a lot of valued potential resellers will be shut out of the bidding process, and I see a value to having lots of resellers because a buyer should ideally be able to find a seller in his home country so he doesn't have to deal with international shipping.

I totally understand it may seem disheartening for those of you who have shown enthusiasm, interest, and loyalty to me and my products only to be transitioned to an arrangement where you're competing to buy products with newcomers who aren't.  I ask you put it in perspective.  The dynamics of the market changed overnight, and I am responding to them, appropriately I would hope.

The only thing I can promise is that I will respond true to my own values, which have not changed overnight.  Allow me to reward those who have shown enthusiasm, interest, and loyalty, with respect and favors of the same kind.  Me sending out or offering a closed bidding opportunity on some sort of rare or special items, or giving them as gifts, would be an example of me returning a favor.  Turning my back to the market and rewarding a favor with a fractional monopoly on all of my products and sacrificing my rational self-interest in getting a reasonable market-based wholesale price for the market's new valuation of product is something I'm going to see as a wee bit more weighty than a favor.

Mike. No one can criticize you for seeking a 'reasonable' rate. Just dont think its your business to create the market, you state is there. Your value is in your production methods and integrity, not trying to build Ebay-esk markets. Moreover, does it not cheapen it?
Just dont think people will understand why you just cant state a fair price.


  

[stereotype]

This will only work for products I produce from today forward, but here is an idea you can do right now.  The counterfeiting hasn't happened yet.  Go throw your current stash of Casascius Coins on a scanner, scan a photo of them, take a 160-bit hash of the file, and then work that hash into the block chain somehow.  Convert the hash to a bitcoin address and send a satoshi to it (my Bitcoin Address Utility can do this, for example).  Your photo with its supporting hash in the block chain will be publicly verifiable proof that the coin in your photo existed today.

Awesome idea. Thanks for sharing!

That is a great idea. Thanks also.

[casascius]

Mike. No one can criticize you for seeking a 'reasonable' rate. Just dont think its your business to create the market, you state is there. Your value is in your production methods and integrity, not trying to build Ebay-esk markets. Moreover, does it not cheapen it?
Just dont think people will understand why you just cant state a fair price.

If the rate I charge is too low, the entire production will fly off the shelf and I will be stuck with willing and ready buyers willing to pay a far higher price than the one I'm charging, with no product to deliver them.  Whom exactly does that benefit?

On the other hand, if I happen to make a nice profit in the process, I end up with the means to increase production and quality.  I can suddenly afford, and make the business case, to go find and get some robotics to make enough of these things to satisfy the market demand, possibly at a lower price.  I can suddenly tell my silver coin supplier, hey, look, you need to prioritize my order, because I can afford to pay you for bigger orders at a higher tier.  I can start to afford to segregate the created products by quality and simply discard the lowest quality specimens so I'm only delivering the best of my product.  Ultimately, profits for me are good, because they directly lead to my ability and willingness to supply the market with a higher quality cut of the product being demanded.

So, no, it does not cheapen it, to answer your question.  And when the price I'm willing to sell equals the price people are willing to pay, it's very fair.  I will have competitors offering a lower cost product soon enough, probably using software I've given away for free and broadcast loud and clear "use this at no cost to you" to generate private keys for their own product, which I think is more than fair.

[thebaron]

It's a seller's market. Avalon probably wishes it had done the same thing that Mike is doing here with its 3rd batch.