Paper Bitcoin eth, ltc and others

[Colt81]

The idea of cryptocurrency is to be a digital type of currency and I don't think that it will be a good idea to make a physical representation of the cryptocurrency because the convenience will be gone because it is more convenience to do transactions in the cloud because you don't need to bring a chunk of paper or coins in your pocket to pay your thing because you just need to pull out your phone, get the address then send the payment securely.

Indeed. It will be useless to call cryptocurrency a digital currency if we will create a cryptocurrency that was made in paper or cash. The convenience of making transactions and great value of a cryptocurrency will be gone that no one would appreciate it anymore, that is why cryptocurrency will remain digital and will never be a cash or paper.

[DaftAjax]

Oh, in fact there are many points

Paper bitcoins (or whatever) would allow physical exchange without anything going to the blockchain itself, ever. That would likely lead to higher awareness of common people about crypto and its advantages (you would be able to buy beer with it), thus promoting greater popularity of cryptocurrencies. From this perspective, it is a good thing

The problem arises when someone decides to create more paper bitcoins than there are real ones. But this issue can be dealt with if every paper bitcoin in existence means its digital version locked on the blockchain, the implication being that you can then spend only this paper bitcoins and can't create a transaction with their digital counterpart

TBH, this is kinda unexpected, coming from you that is.

This topic is probably one of the most argued--if a digital currency should have a physical form. So, I have a few questions: First of all, who would be the eligible person/company/group (whatever) to print out the said Cryptocurrency? Secondly, let's say it is also in the form of a paper bill, how can we know the authenticity of the said paper bill? Thirdly, with the correlation of authenticity, who would clarify the number of existing paper Bitcoins or rather how could we know the number of existing paper Bitcoins? And lastly with what you said:

"every paper bitcoin in existence means its digital version locked on the blockchain, the implication being that you can then spend only this paper bitcoins and can't create a transaction with their digital counterpart"

does that mean we should have a separate value for paper Bitcoins(?) as they cannot be transacted with their digital counterpart?

[deisik]

Oh, in fact there are many points

Paper bitcoins (or whatever) would allow physical exchange without anything going to the blockchain itself, ever. That would likely lead to higher awareness of common people about crypto and its advantages (you would be able to buy beer with it), thus promoting greater popularity of cryptocurrencies. From this perspective, it is a good thing

The problem arises when someone decides to create more paper bitcoins than there are real ones. But this issue can be dealt with if every paper bitcoin in existence means its digital version locked on the blockchain, the implication being that you can then spend only this paper bitcoins and can't create a transaction with their digital counterpart

TBH, this is kinda unexpected, coming from you that is.

This topic is probably one of the most argued--if a digital currency should have a physical form. So, I have a few questions: First of all, who would be the eligible person/company/group (whatever) to print out the said Cryptocurrency?

It doesn't really matter

Well, in the 19th century (before the Civil War) US banks had been issuing gold receipts (or how they were called), and this wasn't a problem as long as they didn't abuse their power, i.e. didn't issue more receipts than they had physical gold in their vaults (gold standard on a private level)

Obviously, they very soon started to exploit the popularity of these notes (I guess the origin of the term banknote refers to that period) by printing receipts not backed up by anything which led to bank runs and bankruptcies (probably another term originating in those times), but that's a different story

Secondly, let's say it is also in the form of a paper bill, how can we know the authenticity of the said paper bill? Thirdly, with the correlation of authenticity, who would clarify the number of existing paper Bitcoins or rather how could we know the number of existing paper Bitcoins?

I don't really know. But who could say some 20+ years ago that Bitcoin itself was possible (I refer to its decentralized nature mostly)? The thing is, if you can check the authenticity of a paper bitcoin, i.e. to check that it hasn't been spent by someone else, it's okay. In fact, there are OpenDime devices which serve as physical bitcoins, so we can actually say that there is a way to check that in a "provably fair" manner

And lastly with what you said:

"every paper bitcoin in existence means its digital version locked on the blockchain, the implication being that you can then spend only this paper bitcoins and can't create a transaction with their digital counterpart"

does that mean we should have a separate value for paper Bitcoins(?) as they cannot be transacted with their digital counterpart?

We don't need to, but technically, there will certainly be certain discrepancies - either premiums or discounts - depending on the ease of use and such things

[Tungsten-1]

Do you think its a good idea to have paper Cryptocurrency in circlelation too?


Like we have fiat currency digitally we also can have Fiat Currrency as paper.

I personally think its a good idea to have btc paper Currrency or metal coins too wich Will be accepted any shops!


Second point is that the dEvil is not the paper currency or any Kind of fiat currency the devil is the just the money printing out of thin air and lending this money out.



So nothing wrong with cash cash is not a devil!

Paper cryptocurrency? Digital should remain digital to avoid manipulation from the government. We already have Fiat currency, so what's the point of having crypto to have paper version.

That would be really absurd to see digital currencies in paper form. People will not be able to accept this entirely opposing idea to the real objective of bitcoin or digital currencies. World is already having enough of fiat and a lot of variety is there. People were and are attracted to bitcoin because of its digital nature. I don’t think it is great idea to attract investors.

[DaftAjax]

~snip

It doesn't really matter

Well, in the 19th century (before the Civil War) US banks had been issuing gold receipts (or how they were called), and this wasn't a problem as long as they didn't abuse their power, i.e. didn't issue more receipts than they had physical gold in their vaults (gold standard on a private level)

Obviously, they very soon started to exploit the popularity of these notes (I guess the origin of the term banknote refers to that period) by printing receipts not backed up by anything which led to bank runs and bankruptcies (probably another term originating in those times), but that's a different story

Presumably, if the same situation would ever happen to "Paper Bitcoin" eventually. It would just tatter the credibility of Bitcoin, thus making it harder for adaptation.

Worst case, the government will be forced to take action.

~snip

I don't really know. But who could say some 20+ years ago that Bitcoin itself was possible (I refer to its decentralized nature mostly)? The thing is, if you can check the authenticity of a paper bitcoin, i.e. to check that it hasn't been spent by someone else, it's okay. In fact, there are OpenDime devices which serve as physical bitcoins, so we can actually say that there is a way to check that in a "provably fair" manner

True, no one could've said it.

Yes, there is (I almost forgot about that). But that doesn't seem to be genuinely "physical" as you still need to access a wallet (storage) for that. But nevertheless, yes, it could be one way to check authenticity or rather it could be the only way to check authenticity.

~snip

We don't need to, but technically, there will certainly be certain discrepancies - either premiums or discounts - depending on the ease of use and such things

I would prefer, it should be accessible via smartphone (or something), e.g. scanning QR codes, but this time a device, let's say from a store, will scan your (temporary: address) code that will automatically transact a payment. Isn't that more reliable and convenient? Also, we don't have to worry about the smartphone in the case of being stolen as the wallet (storage) isn't really the smartphone.

[deisik]

That would be really absurd to see digital currencies in paper form. People will not be able to accept this entirely opposing idea to the real objective of bitcoin or digital currencies. World is already having enough of fiat and a lot of variety is there. People were and are attracted to bitcoin because of its digital nature. I don’t think it is great idea to attract investors

If you mean paper as in real paper, then it is one thing

But if you actually mean just physical representation, i.e. not necessarily in paper, it is a completely different story. As I mentioned above, there are physical devices (technically USB sticks) which can be used to transfer the ownership of private keys without anything being recorded on the blockchain, ever

If you ask me, for all practical intents and purposes, this is what physical bitcoins would be. And while their area of application may in fact be limited, they still have some use. Say, if you want to receive bitcoins from or give them to your counterparty in a truly anonymous way, this appears to be only the reliable way to go (and no, mixers don't cut it)

[nasipadang]

Btc, eth, ltc and others is a digital currency concept, it would be strange if digital technology actually made growth backwards with paper. Paper bitcoin won't happen, we want to go to technology that is simple and effective. If the concept of paper here is a barcode wallet, maybe an idea like that will be made.

[Ucy]

Nope.

A physical manifestation means that someone had to physically create it which means they had access to the private keys which means you have to trust whoever came up with them. That defeats the entire point.

Bitcoin owners should actually print the paper themselves. You made a good point though. I guess your point should serve as warning to those who would allow other people to print the bitcoin for them. I also think it should be possible in the future for another person to print out bitcoin without ever knowing or revealing the private keys. If the private keys are seen, the paper becomes useless. Someone could create devices that print without ever revealing the private keys.

[DaftAjax]

Btc, eth, ltc and others is a digital currency concept, it would be strange if digital technology actually made growth backwards with paper. Paper bitcoin won't happen, we want to go to technology that is simple and effective. If the concept of paper here is a barcode wallet, maybe an idea like that will be made.

There's a physical Bitcoin, I'm sure it's not known to many people, but basically it is in the form of a coin (not metal) sometimes devices like USB sticks--that has the private keys inside. Which then can be accessed by the receiver. It's not entirely a physical form, but it serves the purpose nevertheless.

You can look it up if you are doubting me.

~snip

Bitcoin owners should actually print the paper themselves. You made a good point though. I guess your point should serve as warning to those who would allow other people to print the bitcoin for them. I also think it should be possible in the future for another person to print out bitcoin without ever knowing or revealing the private keys. If the private keys are seen, the paper becomes useless. Someone could create devices that print without ever revealing the private keys.

That's actually one of my concerns too, the authenticity of Paper Bitcoin.

My idea is somewhat similar. I've mentioned this from my past reply:

I would prefer, it should be accessible via smartphone (or something), e.g. scanning QR codes, but this time a device, let's say from a store, will scan your (temporary: address) code that will automatically transact a payment. Also, we don't have to worry about the smartphone in the case of being stolen as the wallet (storage) isn't really the smartphone.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188623.msg52796009#msg52796009

[Janation]

Its been discussed here in the forum sometime and I also said I don't like that idea.

The idea of cryptocurrencies is decentralized and with paper money, that will not be decentralized.

I mean, it is great seeing someone using those paper money but I don't think people would like anyone seeing paying and bringing this money in their wallets. Digital currencies with physical representation ia not digital for me.

[NathanJB]

Its been discussed here in the forum sometime and I also said I don't like that idea.

The idea of cryptocurrencies is decentralized and with paper money, that will not be decentralized.

I mean, it is great seeing someone using those paper money but I don't think people would like anyone seeing paying and bringing this money in their wallets. Digital currencies with physical representation ia not digital for me.

Absolutely. You call it digital currency and yet you are carrying a physical representation. What is that? That is like we did not make progress at all. We are trying to do away with physical money and shift into the digital way and yet here we are trying to come up with a traditional way of doing things.

If and when there is a paper Bitcoin, ETH, LTC, and others, there would also be like the central bank where these paper bills are to be printed. We are not making a single step away from what is happening with the current fiat system of today if that is the case.

[DaftAjax]

Its been discussed here in the forum sometime and I also said I don't like that idea.

The idea of cryptocurrencies is decentralized and with paper money, that will not be decentralized.

I mean, it is great seeing someone using those paper money but I don't think people would like anyone seeing paying and bringing this money in their wallets. Digital currencies with physical representation ia not digital for me.

Absolutely. You call it digital currency and yet you are carrying a physical representation. What is that? That is like we did not make progress at all. We are trying to do away with physical money and shift into the digital way and yet here we are trying to come up with a traditional way of doing things.

If and when there is a paper Bitcoin, ETH, LTC, and others, there would also be like the central bank where these paper bills are to be printed. We are not making a single step away from what is happening with the current fiat system of today if that is the case.

But isn't credit/debit cards the same way?

They are actually Fiat money, but the transactions are done "digitally". So in the case of Paper Bitcoin, we could use the same method, a device that has access to your wallet that will permit transactions. That way we don't need to manually operate every transaction (or any exchange/conversion at all). Now you will ask "what are the flaws?", same as hacking/hijacking--what if the "device" was stolen(?), now that will depend on the user and unlike credit/debit cards you have to contact the bank in order to terminate it, but here you are the one who'll cancel the effectiveness of the "device".