Casascius worth less after,or the opposite?

[MeandMissNoob]

Hi there, I'm getting interested in buying (some) Casascius coins. BUT... there is something that worries me, I have been thinking to post this or not, but I just go for it.

Because the coins are not being made anymore, and there are only so many around. You would say the price will go up because they are original and getting more rare. But what if somebody sends a small amount of mbtc to the public adress of one of the coins, then it's not original anymore! You could say, Ok but now it has even more BTC value, but it's also not the same anymore as Mike Caldwell made them and sold them in that way, would that not be negative for the value.

Let's say I have a coin made by Casascius in perfect condition, and I have a second coin just made after the first one but it has a scratch on it. Then you would say the second coin is less valuable because of the scratch. But now I have a coin with exactly 1BTC, and the second is 1.0000001BTC (or something). Would you say the one with 1 BTC is more valuable or the other with the extra mBTC?

I would like it to stay in the way, like Mike Caldwell made them but thats just my opinion. What's your thought about this?
Thanks

[Trongersoll]

Hi there, I'm getting interested in buying (some) Casascius coins. BUT... there is something that worries me, I have been thinking to post this or not, but I just go for it.

Because the coins are not being made anymore, and there are only so many around. You would say the price will go up because they are original and getting more rare. But what if somebody sends a small amount of mbtc to the public adress of one of the coins, then it's not original anymore! You could say, Ok but now it has even more BTC value, but it's also not the same anymore as Mike Caldwell made them and sold them in that way, would that not be negative for the value.

Let's say I have a coin made by Casascius in perfect condition, and I have a second coin just made after the first one but it has a scratch on it. Then you would say the second coin is less valuable because of the scratch. But now I have a coin with exactly 1BTC, and the second is 1.0000001BTC (or something). Would you say the one with 1 BTC is more valuable or the other with the extra mBTC?

I would like it to stay in the way, like Mike Caldwell made them but thats just my opinion. What's your thought about this?
Thanks

You are looking at it in two different way. the first is the Collectable Value, which would be for the physical coin based on it's condition.

The second is it's monetary value, which is how many BTCs it is worth. The two values rarely are ever related or equal.

[ryanmnercer]

I would like it to stay in the way, like Mike Caldwell made them but thats just my opinion. What's your thought about this?
Thanks

That you should buy bitcoin and not Casascius.

[keithers]

These are held more as collectables, rather than major stores of value. If you want more btc, just buy that separately.

[Pente]

I would like it to stay in the way, like Mike Caldwell made them but thats just my opinion. What's your thought about this?
Thanks

That you should buy bitcoin and not Casascius.

Only buy Casascius if you are interested in them as history, art, or as a hobbyist.

[bg002h]

I think Mike's security practices contribute to the markup.

I have a full set of BitBills (http://bitbills.com)...I don't think there is a markup on those. They predated Casascius coins by a while if I remember correctly.

[teukon]

The way I look at it, the physical coin conceals the private key which is needed to spend the 1 BTC output.  Someone can add a satoshi to the address, but that satoshi would constitute a wholly separate output.

If this perceived taint starts to count against a coin in the market, you'll very quickly see all coins become tainted (humans are like that).  Then, there will be no good reason to value certain coins over others based on taint.

I fully expect scratches and age to affect the value of a coin, but additional outputs shouldn't be a concern.

[Melbustus]

The way I look at it, the physical coin conceals the private key which is needed to spend the 1 BTC output.  Someone can add a satoshi to the address, but that satoshi would constitute a wholly separate output.

If this perceived taint starts to count against a coin in the market, you'll very quickly see all coins become tainted (humans are like that).  Then, there will be no good reason to value certain coins over others based on taint.

I fully expect scratches and age to affect the value of a coin, but additional outputs shouldn't be a concern.

+1

[Bit_Happy]

...
Because the coins are not being made anymore, and there are only so many around. You would say the price will go up because they are original and getting more rare....

Rare... getting more rare....
And they are beautiful.
When I can afford to I would love to buy some.

[Sat0shiSlot]

Let's say I have a coin made by Casascius in perfect condition, and I have a second coin just made after the first one but it has a scratch on it. Then you would say the second coin is less valuable because of the scratch. But now I have a coin with exactly 1BTC, and the second is 1.0000001BTC (or something). Would you say the one with 1 BTC is more valuable or the other with the extra mBTC?

I don't think that anyone that knows how bitcoin works would mind there being a satoshi or two added to his/her Casascius coin. I wouldn't for sure. I would even consider "tainting" mine if I had any.

[BitOnyx]

The things that you mention are not even remotely similar problem.

[trustnobody]

I wouldn't buy Casascius, or only as the kind of art, you'd rather buy btc

[zetaray]

I think OP has a point. What if someone send a satoshi to that address with a signed message saying "this is a stolen coin" but infact it isn't. Would it still worth as much as one without?

[vabtc]

Rare... getting more rare....
And they are beautiful.
When I can afford to I would love to buy some.
[/quote]

Agreed.. PM me when you are interested. I have just about any one you'd want. BTC only

[MarketNeutral]

Casascius Coins are great, but be aware that they have been compromised:
http://codinginmysleep.com/casascius-physical-bitcoins-cracked-at-defcon/

[monkeynuts]

Casascius Coins are great, but be aware that they have been compromised:
http://codinginmysleep.com/casascius-physical-bitcoins-cracked-at-defcon/

As I recall, the method was not truly successful. Once done, it left signs of tampering on the holo.

[waldox]

some are selling the casascius coins for double their face value

so 1btc coins selling for 2btc

[MarketNeutral]

Casascius Coins are great, but be aware that they have been compromised:
http://codinginmysleep.com/casascius-physical-bitcoins-cracked-at-defcon/

As I recall, the method was not truly successful. Once done, it left signs of tampering on the holo.

Seems pretty successful to me, considering how little time and effort it took, and how easily their method could be improved upon by a determined thief. Distinguishing between tampering and natural wear might be difficult without a loupe and foreknowledge. 

[MarketNeutral]

Casascius Coins are great, but be aware that they have been compromised:
http://codinginmysleep.com/casascius-physical-bitcoins-cracked-at-defcon/

As I recall, the method was not truly successful. Once done, it left signs of tampering on the holo.

I know what you mean. Nevertheless, their tampering seems pretty successful to me, considering how little time and effort it took, and how easily their method could be improved upon by a determined thief. Distinguishing between tampering and natural wear might be difficult without a loupe and foreknowledge.  

[monkeynuts]

Mike Caldwell himself has said in his wordpress
"As far as I am informed, Sunday’s attacks on silver Casascius Coins left behind evidence of tampering and were not ruled a successful defeat."

The way I see it, if it was possible to be done successfully, it would have been done already, repeatedly. I havent heard of this happening.