Physical Token - does it have a place to be?

[RVS7]

Physical Token!

Imagine unbreakable link between specific Electronic Token (Blockchain recording) and specific and impossible to duplicate physical label integrated within some physical coin (Physical Token). The owner of this specific Physical Token is also the owner of the specific Electronic Token.
The trading of the Electronic Token can be done by simply giving up the Physical Token to someone else. The value of the token is provided by the entity, whoever releases this particular token.

What do you think, does it have a place to be?

[1715245895]

1715245895

[1715245895]

1715245895

[1715245895]

1715245895

[1715245895]

1715245895

[1715245895]

1715245895

[odolvlobo]

Physical Token!

Imagine unbreakable link between specific Electronic Token (Blockchain recording) and specific and impossible to duplicate physical label integrated within some physical coin (Physical Token). The owner of this specific Physical Token is also the owner of the specific Electronic Token.
The trading of the Electronic Token can be done by simply giving up the Physical Token to someone else. The value of the token is provided by the entity, whoever releases this particular token.

What do you think, does it have a place to be?

Like this?

[RVS7]

Thank you for the reply!

In comparison to "Casascius physical bitcoins", our initial idea is different, with keeping permanent link between digital and physical token (possibly several digital tokens linked to one digital coin with same number of labels on it).

As for "Before thinking if it have place to be, maybe you should think whether it's possible in reality and can't be abused easily. What if i give up my physical coin which contain different private key than address/public key written on it?", I would rather focus first on the market need for something like this and the application areas. We have a technology to make "unrealistically hard to duplicate labels" that can be integrated within alloy. The other questions are pure technical that can be dealt with, if there is a need for it.
If I remember correct, Steve Jobs once said that if he would ask people to design an IPhone, they would make another nokia.

[pooya87]

the real issue is the centralization.
a centralized authority must exist to create these physical tokens and ensure their uniqueness and safety. and that simply defies the very nature of bitcoin as a decentralized currency.
next thing you know they start asking for KYC, then start restricting who can buy these things and who can't.

[20kevin20]

1. How are you going to keep track of the coin (electronically)? If I give you my coin, you give it back to me and we repeat this 100 times, how will the virtual token be automatically transferred every single time from me to you (transparency)?
2. Why would you have an entity to release the coins if this is exactly against the purpose of cryptocurrencies (trust)?
3. If the virtual spending of the coin doesn't happen, how will you make sure I am not going to create the perfect copy of your coin with the loaded address on it, which virtually doubles the circulating amount of BTC (double-spending)?

All these problems can only be solved by having everything in a permanent, 100% transparent and fool-less ledger. Hence, physical coins are not a thing anymore. You can buy coins and load them by yourself (or you can purchase a loaded Denarium coin with multisig).

[RVS7]

Thank you, pooya87 and 20kevin20!
You both have a valid points. This is something that needs to be addressed.
We do not have all the answers or full understanding yet, in order to even create the right questions.
Discussing this with you guys gives us additional look on the matter.

[Theb]

Thank you for the reply!

In comparison to "Casascius physical bitcoins", our initial idea is different, with keeping permanent link between digital and physical token (possibly several digital tokens linked to one digital coin with same number of labels on it).

So what does this project basically solve? Will this "permanent link" be impenetrable to online attacks and malicious software? Or will this just be some kind of way to physically brag that you are holding this amount of cryptocurrency? Because it sound like you are only describing what a Casascius Bitcoin to me. I'm not against physical coins for cryptocurrencies but it simply removes the essence of what a cryptocurrency should be and that is to only exist digitally, the way you describe this physical coin in which the owner needs to just "give up" the physical coin in order to transfer the ownership it only makes me think that these type of physical coins would be much more easier to be stolen compared to the ones on a desktop and hardware wallets.

[odolvlobo]

Physical Token!
...
What do you think, does it have a place to be?

Originally, it was thought that physical bitcoins could be a way to use bitcoins off-chain. However, it has turned out that physical bitcoins are not great for that, and their use has been relegated to memorabilia and collectibles. The challenges of physical bitcoins are the cost of production, the risk of counterfeiting, the need for trust, and the tendency toward centralization.

[nc50lc]

It's called "fiat", "written contract" for tokens  

Joking aside, it will be a breakthrough if someone somehow find a way to link digital to physical coin/token.
But I can't find a reliable way to produce physical counterpart of the digital units without relying on security features that are already present in
other products like authenticity strikers/marks which obviously, can be easily counterfeited.

Or I'm missing something big from your idea.
(Turn each physical coin into a hardware wallet?)

[GDragon]

Thank you for the reply!

In comparison to "Casascius physical bitcoins", our initial idea is different, with keeping permanent link between digital and physical token (possibly several digital tokens linked to one digital coin with same number of labels on it).

So what does this project basically solve? Will this "permanent link" be impenetrable to online attacks and malicious software? Or will this just be some kind of way to physically brag that you are holding this amount of cryptocurrency? Because it sound like you are only describing what a Casascius Bitcoin to me. I'm not against physical coins for cryptocurrencies but it simply removes the essence of what a cryptocurrency should be and that is to only exist digitally, the way you describe this physical coin in which the owner needs to just "give up" the physical coin in order to transfer the ownership it only makes me think that these type of physical coins would be much more easier to be stolen compared to the ones on a desktop and hardware wallets.

Agree, Bitcoin was created to solve the problem of Centralization. The very essence of making it is by removing the authority that can abuse their power. If these token will be made, who will be the authority in making it? How can we assure that they will not abuse their power? I think this token will be a Fiat money. It can be controlled. I can't see the point of making a Fiat money from a Cryptocurreny.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

For quite some time (i.e over a year) I have been buying some physical bitcoins and was more driven towards their beauty rather than relying on the trust based factors or similar kind of controversies. I am not completely favorable in terms of owning a physical bitcoin like Casascius or smaller denomination coin like satoris but the buyers of physical bitcoins are driven towards the uniqueness in designs and the work which has gone behind the scenes in creation of a physical coin.

The physical bitcoiners have a thought which is in complete contrast between digital bitcoiners (hodlers) and vice versa. Physical bitcoin enthusiast have a likeliness towards digital bitcoins but as far as I have seen, the hodlers and people who aren't really aware of the blooming physical bitcoin industry tend to hate them. I have never found a solution (i.e the hate towards physical bitcoins by hodlers) for these discussions even after a year of reading through so many posts in Bitcoin Discussion.

What if i give up my physical coin which contain different private key than address/public key written on it?

Every loaded physical bitcoins defeat the real purpose of bitcoin by placing the trust on the maker of coins. This is why these are more or less like collectibles rather than being used as a medium of exchange or commodity.

What kind of your everyday transaction which need 1 BTC these days

When casascius created the first ever physical bitcoin it was just worth a few dollars. The price of bitcoin rose and these coins became expensive collectibles over time. Satori coins overcame this by introducing plastic coins loaded with 0.001BTC in each coins.

If the virtual spending of the coin doesn't happen, how will you make sure I am not going to create the perfect copy of your coin with the loaded address on it, which virtually doubles the circulating amount of BTC (double-spending)?

There is always a difference between a collectible coin and a normal one. Are these collectors mad in buying a 1BTC first day loaded casascius coin for 4-5BTC in prices? The prices are worth it and so does the rarity speak for them.

can be easily counterfeited.

Not exactly true but can be partially counterfeited. Removal of holograms from the coins does put a honey comb mark on the coin which just proves that the coin has been redeemed before. Counterfeiting can be done in some inexpensive cheaper coins but redeeming without a honey comb mark on some premium products are certainly impossible.

And finally, these are collectibles and we shouldn't compare them to Physical Bitcoins as like.

[nc50lc]

Not exactly true but can be partially counterfeited. Removal of holograms from the coins does put a honey comb mark on the coin which just proves that the coin has been redeemed before. Counterfeiting can be done in some inexpensive cheaper coins but redeeming without a honey comb mark on some premium products are certainly impossible.

And finally, these are collectibles and we shouldn't compare them to Physical Bitcoins as like.

OP's non-practical, novel and non-original idea is about linking an asset/currency to a physical token/coin,
not like those so called "physical bitcoins" like Casascius.

Most of those are just collectibles with pre-loaded balance, not representing an actual bitcoin because Bitcoin is UTXO-based,
it's more of a fancy paper wallet.

[odolvlobo]

OP's non-practical, novel and non-original idea is about linking an asset/currency to a physical token/coin,
not like those so called "physical bitcoins" like Casascius.

Most of those are just collectibles with pre-loaded balance, not representing an actual bitcoin because Bitcoin is UTXO-based,
it's more of a fancy paper wallet.

Can you describe the difference between the OP's idea and a physical bitcoin? What the OP described is just like the physical bitcoins that have been implemented thus far, but maybe the OP has come up with a better way of doing it. Or maybe the OP just wasn't aware that the idea is an old one.

[nc50lc]

-snip- Or maybe the OP just wasn't aware that the idea is an old one.

This is most likely the case.

But he already confirmed that it is not the same as Casascius, it's up to him to elaborate his idea.
Have you read his previous reply:?

In comparison to "Casascius physical bitcoins", our initial idea is different, with keeping permanent link between digital and physical token

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

OP's non-practical, novel and non-original idea is about linking an asset/currency to a physical token/coin,
not like those so called "physical bitcoins" like Casascius.

Most of those are just collectibles with pre-loaded balance, not representing an actual bitcoin because Bitcoin is UTXO-based,
it's more of a fancy paper wallet.

As you have pointed out earlier, I don't think such an idea would work practically as OP is up to transferring the digital value of a physical bitcoin as well. Physical bitcoin is just like transfer of paper or hardware wallets from one person to another and OP's idea is to send bitcoin from sender to receiver when the physical token changes hands.

Something which is literally difficult to follow up and have an answer as OP is willing to have a complete physical representation of bitcoin like USD and EUR. But the idea behind creating of Casascius coins were

This is an idea for a practical way to create a physical cash-like form of BTC, I will call a token.

The requirements for making a BTC token are 1) a way for a holder to prove it's real and 2) a way for a holder to get the BTC by themselves... beyond that, it needs to be a physical medium of exchange that can be entirely conveyed just by passing it to another person.

[RVS7]

This is a valid point...:

Every loaded physical bitcoins defeat the real purpose of bitcoin by placing the trust on the maker of coins. This is why these are more or less like collectibles rather than being used as a medium of exchange or commodity.

... but what would it take for it to become medium of exchange or commodity!?
Maybe the physical coins can be made simple to make (one particular standard - many different companies could do that), where in its initial state it is just an "empty" coin with no value on it.
After that, the next step is to create the label (imagine impossible to duplicate label) on it and link this label to particular Blockchain record (electronic token) that has certain value (1 bitcoin or 1$ or 1000$... 1 gold bar or platinum ...something...etc.). This could be done in public accessible way, where person buys an empty coin puts it in some sort of public accessible "Blockchain vending machine" that creates the label and the link on it at an instant (depending on what value you choose and pay for).
Who ever gets the coin can verify the value at the same Blockchain Vending Machine or through some sort of Blockchain App.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

... but what would it take for it to become medium of exchange or commodity!?

For anything to be considered as an medium of exchange or commodity, the intermediate good (in this case casascius) should be accepted both by the sender and receiver for transfer of funds. This isn't really possible with casascius considering the higher prices of bitcoin but the idea behind creation of cheaper satori coins were these. Satoris can be used to pay for items in shops located in Japan. But sadly, they winded up the business and due to the rarity these coins ended up being collectibles.

Maybe the physical coins can be made simple to make (one particular standard - many different companies could do that), where in its initial state it is just an "empty" coin with no value on it.
After that, the next step is to create the label (imagine impossible to duplicate label) on it and link this label to particular Blockchain record (electronic token) that has certain value

This idea was tried and tested numerous number of times. This were the basis of creation of many self loaded blank coins. Generation of one's own hologram has been considered as a safer practice in physical bitcoin industry and they are being followed for quite a long time. But how exactly will you link the hologram without printing of private keys and loading them with bitcoins?

I don't see anything new being posted here as a proposal or am I missing something 

Who ever gets the coin can verify the value at the same Blockchain Vending Machine or through some sort of Blockchain App.

So if this is being taken into consideration, the receiver of coin should trust a third party similar to the one I stated above and it defeats the real purpose of bitcoin.


Moving this whole topic to Collectibles section could generate much more serious discussions from physical bitcoin collectors.

[TerrorBaby]

This problem already has a solution. Merely using OpenDime, which are verifiable to have BTC but unspendable when the seal has not been broken, easily solves the solution you are trying to create a problem for.

OpenDimes allow people to transact BTC in the physical world without moving any BTC in 1st or 2nd layers. Only the bearer of the OpenDime can spend it as long as the seal has not been broken (revealing it's private key).

Theoretically, a certain amount of BTC could be spent unlimited # of times just by handing it off and it would incur zero transaction fees. 

[pooya87]

... but what would it take for it to become medium of exchange or commodity!?
Maybe the physical coins can be made simple to make (one particular standard - many different companies could do that), where in its initial state it is just an "empty" coin with no value on it.

people who are attracted to bitcoin as a currency are drawn to it because of its decentralization which is only achieved as long as they are in full control of their own keys and coins (meaning use it digitally as it was designed to) which is why no "physical" bitcoin has ever succeeded as anything other than a collectible.

[d5000]

I can only think of a "physical Bitcoin" if it is realized as a (very simple) electronic device. It may be possible somewhen to mass produce these systems so cheaply they could be used almost like coins (like today's "chip cards") and have relatively low values (not fractions of a dollar, but - assuming today's BTC prices - maybe from 1 mBTC upwards). Basically it would be an extremely simplified hardware wallet.

The only things these devices have to do is:
- They must be able to store several keys.
- They must be able to sign messages with their keys, so it's possible to prove how many coins are on it.
- It must be provable in a simple way that the addresses contain coins. It isn't necessary that it has internet connection, but with an Internet-capable device like a smartphone, it must be easily connectable to the blockchain.
- It must be possible, with a simple operation, to generate a new key (so it needs a random-number generator, with a seed elegible by the owner). This is necessary so anybody who is suspecting the preceding owner copied the private key in some way can transfer it to a new address.
- And at last, it must be possible to sign a transaction to transfer coins to the address of the new key.

The electronic circuit must be open source and it has to be easily verifiable that it does what it is supposed to do and there are no hidden algorithms.

I remember that there was already a discussion (~1-2 years ago) about such a device (it was proposed by another BCT user). But I don't remember in which thread, and who proposed it.

I see however a very difficult-to-solve problem: transaction fees. The value of such a coin would be always lowered when a new key is generated and the coins are transferred to the new address. And everybody who wants to be really sure that he won't be scammed eventually by the preceding owner of the coin, would have to generate a new key.