Do you think a negative comment on the Casascius profile is fair?

[alandelon]

While browsing online, I came across the profile of the creator of Casascius coins. I noticed that the user ChiBitCTy left a negative comment last year (2025), referring to a purchase made around 2014 that apparently was not received. Unfortunately, the comment doesn’t provide many details.

Back in 2013–2014, 0.3 BTC was worth only about $20–$30, so the financial value at the time was relatively small. We also know that Mike had to step away from Casascius due to legal and regulatory issues related to funded coins and AML regulations.

It feels somewhat surprising to see a negative rating appear after roughly 13 years. Personally, it seems a bit unfair to judge a transaction from so long ago, especially given the historical context.

I truly admire Mike Caldwell and what he created. Casascius coins were a masterpiece and contributed enormously to Bitcoin’s early culture and adoption, alongside other respected creators like Lealana and Denarium.

This post is not meant to start any conflict — it’s simply an observation that caught my attention.
Out of curiosity: is it even possible to remove or revise an old negative comment on a Casascius profile?

What are your thoughts?
post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2676

[alandelon]

I found these screenshots shared by the user as part of his statement, and I’m leaving them here for others to read.

Personally, I believe more evidence should be presented to properly verify whether the claim is 100% accurate. Accusations without supporting proof can be problematic.

That said, if Bitcoin had never become what it is today, those 0.3 BTC would have been largely insignificant. However, with today’s value — nearly $20,000 — the situation understandably feels very different.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I am sure chi will chime in eventually - but my understanding it was because while he had to step back from selling funding coins - Mike had left his site up and was taking orders (payments) while never shipping the coins. The site was - from my understanding - left up and running for years. Who knows how many orders never went fulfilled after being paid for.

[alandelon]

I am sure chi will chime in eventually - but my understanding it was because while he had to step back from selling funding coins - Mike had left his site up and was taking orders (payments) while never shipping the coins. The site was - from my understanding - left up and running for years. Who knows how many orders never went fulfilled after being paid for.

Is it possible that this is still real and active to this day? It allowed me to enter information and make a payment… I think many people paid those 0.39… I believe it should have been taken down, but I still think the negative rating is unnecessary.

[killyou73]

That's been a known grievance from chi for a long time now. It's been brought up before. Can't tell you which sub topic or thread

[rat03gopoh]

Whether you consider it fair or not, feedback is unmoderated. After all, regardless of its value, a loss is still a loss, and that's precisely what the feedback system is designed to do. If you don't trust someone's feedback, simply ignore it. Or create a counter (neutral) piece of feedback as a personal reminder.

[hybridsole]

Is it possible that this is still real and active to this day? It allowed me to enter information and make a payment… I think many people paid those 0.39… I believe it should have been taken down, but I still think the negative rating is unnecessary.

How is it unnecessary?  If you pay for a product listed as available on a website, and they just took the money and never followed up with a response or delivering the product, a negative rating would be exactly what should happen.  People give negative trust over much more minor grievances. 

I remember visiting the Casascius site over 10 years ago and thinking it was interesting these products were still for sale. I even went so far as to start the checkout process (back when 0.39 BTC was only a couple hundred dollars). Luckily I did not, but how was anyone supposed to know? And how many others besides Chi have lost 0.39 BTC because of this oversight? 

I don't distrust Mike or his coins (his contributions are legendary and can't really be overstated), but he is at fault here. To continue accepting funds and giving the impression that actual products are for sale is negligent, especially when there is no recourse for the buyer. 

[Vod]

As we are seeing with the Trump-Epstein files, some injustices can take years to be brought to light.   

[yahoo62278]

It sucks to see a legend such as Mike to be tagged, but I would have to agree with the feedback if it happened. Mike has an obligation to fulfill orders on the website or stop taking orders when he decided to step back.

I have interacted with Chi off and on for the last few years and I don't consider him to be a liar, so I would say his story has some merit. He also states he has proof in the form of screenshots and possibly emails, maybe he could post those for more credibility.

I doubt anyone else tags the profile and it doesn't look like he even visits the forum any longer. Last logged in Dec 2023 and last posted in 2017.

[DireWolfM14]

That said, if Bitcoin had never become what it is today, those 0.3 BTC would have been largely insignificant. However, with today’s value — nearly $20,000 — the situation understandably feels very different.

It's 0.39BTC, over $27k in today's market.  However, ChiBit was willing to spend that bitcoin on some aluminum coins that certainly wouldn't be worth $27k today.  The best case scenario is he would have gotten his money back, but worrying about past transfer rates in today's market is great way to driver yourself crazy.

I am sure chi will chime in eventually - but my understanding it was because while he had to step back from selling funding coins - Mike had left his site up and was taking orders (payments) while never shipping the coins. The site was - from my understanding - left up and running for years. Who knows how many orders never went fulfilled after being paid for.

Is it possible that this is still real and active to this day? It allowed me to enter information and make a payment… I think many people paid those 0.39… I believe it should have been taken down, but I still think the negative rating is unnecessary.

It is interesting the site is still up and working, seems more like a phishing expedition these days.  I can't imagine anyone paying 0.39BTC for aluminum coins.

Regardless, it's unfortunate, but the negative tag seems absolutely necessary.  Even though I can't imagine anyone going through with the purchase today, you never know how collectables can grow in value in the future.  Someone might see the site still up and think that 0.39BTC is a bargain.