It had to happen

[Rob]

https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=3184+792+4294934363&type=bodycopy-coinworld-news-tem100623

TPG grading of virtual currency. 

Can't wait for a CAC sticker to say it is genuine.

Does a failed crypto currency systems warrant a details grade?

Why does a virtual currency need a metal disc in any case? Surely their raison d'etre was to eliminate them? Touted as the most important physical collection of crypto currency ever to come to market, this has to be the biggest load b****cks seen in many a time.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Rob

[Master Jmd]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

Why does a virtual currency need a metal disc in any case?

These Casascius coins were a primitive type of hardware wallet that predate the likes of Trezor and Ledger that are now in common use. I'm not too sure what failed crypto currency system you're referring to here, but Bitcoin, now in its 14th year, is far from a failure in my opinion.

The coins themselves contain access to a private wallet containing the amount of Bitcoin indicated. They have a built-in tamper-proofing mechanism to indicate whether the Bitcoin held on them has been redeemed or not. In this case, all 250 of these are unredeemed, meaning each coin contains its indicated value in Bitcoin, and I guess the grading company adds an extra layer of authenticity on top.

Each of these are for either 1 Bitcoin or 0.5 Bitcoin, so it's expected that they'll sell around the Bitcoin rate (~£22,893 for 1 and ~£11,446 for 0.5). I imagine the majority of buyers will crack these out to redeem them.

Whilst these are mostly now a novelty, they did once have a very practical purpose at a time when little regulation was in place to protect such assets - keeping your Bitcoin on these meant you had full control and weren't putting all your trust in an online wallet destined to fail.

[TomGoodheart]

I suppose it's not much different from listings for knife money, cowrie shells or trade beads. Or trading cards, beanie babies or tulip bulbs. Novelties indeed for the majority of us ...

[Peckris 2]

Casascius - wasn't he the Emperor of Wallet and Grimace?

[Paulus]

I'm ploughing all my retirement investment funds into NFTs personally, clearly the way to go

 

[Rob]

On 10/7/2023 at 10:35 AM, Master Jmd said:

These Casascius coins were a primitive type of hardware wallet that predate the likes of Trezor and Ledger that are now in common use. I'm not too sure what failed crypto currency system you're referring to here, but Bitcoin, now in its 14th year, is far from a failure in my opinion.

The coins themselves contain access to a private wallet containing the amount of Bitcoin indicated. They have a built-in tamper-proofing mechanism to indicate whether the Bitcoin held on them has been redeemed or not. In this case, all 250 of these are unredeemed, meaning each coin contains its indicated value in Bitcoin, and I guess the grading company adds an extra layer of authenticity on top.

Each of these are for either 1 Bitcoin or 0.5 Bitcoin, so it's expected that they'll sell around the Bitcoin rate (~£22,893 for 1 and ~£11,446 for 0.5). I imagine the majority of buyers will crack these out to redeem them.

Whilst these are mostly now a novelty, they did once have a very practical purpose at a time when little regulation was in place to protect such assets - keeping your Bitcoin on these meant you had full control and weren't putting all your trust in an online wallet destined to fail.

I didn't say that Bitcoin had failed. I asked the question, how they would grade a failed virtual currency? If they are going to grade these things, then they have presumably had to verify that the contents are as it says on the label. The money is there or it's not. If the grading is for the plastic disc only, then that's silly. The money is in the virtual currency, not in the 'coin' and if the bitcoin has been wiped, who pays? 

Anyway, bitcoin is of limited value to the average person. I've got accounts with 4 different banks, and none of them will allow me to pay in Bitcoins. Nor indeed can I take it round the corner to buy a loaf of bread. But hey, I could be the proud owner of an almost unblemished piece of plastic valued at over £22K that I can't spend.

[Master Jmd]

18 hours ago, Rob said:

I didn't say that Bitcoin had failed. I asked the question, how they would grade a failed virtual currency? If they are going to grade these things, then they have presumably had to verify that the contents are as it says on the label. The money is there or it's not. If the grading is for the plastic disc only, then that's silly. The money is in the virtual currency, not in the 'coin' and if the bitcoin has been wiped, who pays? 

Anyway, bitcoin is of limited value to the average person. I've got accounts with 4 different banks, and none of them will allow me to pay in Bitcoins. Nor indeed can I take it round the corner to buy a loaf of bread. But hey, I could be the proud owner of an almost unblemished piece of plastic valued at over £22K that I can't spend.

I can't speak for other cryptocurrencies or manufacturers, but I can say that for Casascius it's possible to verify the contents of the coin against a master list they have published at https://www.casascius.com/fulllist.txt cross-referenced with the Bitcoin blockchain.

This is the information side of the first coin on the Heritage list you linked:

In the middle it shows "137nAnw7", which uniquely prefixes a single address in the list linked above of "137nAnw7NpW8V4WagUMSmSWauk8b9Ejvay". We can then enter this address on a blockchain explorer where it'll show that the coin has a balance of exactly 1.00000000 Bitcoin which it was loaded with on 4th January 2013: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/137nAnw7NpW8V4WagUMSmSWauk8b9Ejvay.

To my knowledge nobody is known to have ever spoofed or tampered with one of these coins, so there's quite high confidence that it will contain the indicated funds.

That said, to your point about the grading company verifying the contents: there's no mention on the NGC label that this coin actually contains the 1 Bitcoin amount, they're only verifying that it's a Casascius 1 Bitcoin. I also don't think Heritage would be liable for anything either if the coin were to contain no Bitcoin, simply because at the time of auction it's possible to verify its contents.

To your point about not being able to buy a loaf of bread with Bitcoin: you may be surprised to learn that Bitcoin debit cards have been around since 2015 and there are even Bitcoin credit cards now, too, which can be used just like normal cards and simply either send Bitcoin directly or convert the Bitcoin to the relevant currency during the transaction. If you trust the companies which offer these there's no reason you can't spend Bitcoin online or offline wherever you like.

Whilst Heritage is only now offering auctions for these, Stack's Bowers have been running them since 2021 and I'm sure there are others as well: https://stacksbowers.com/cryptocurrency.

137nAnw7NpW8V4WagUMSmSWauk8b9Ejvay

[TomGoodheart]

I must be getting old but I just don't get it. It says MS68. What the hell does that mean? It's a shiny disk, but it's not currency (as we know it Jim). Why does it need grading? If they wanted they could just say 'Genuine' but I feel that the whole grading-things-that-don't-merit-grading just makes the TPGS thing even more ridiculous than it already was.

I can see the point in things that might circulate. Like trading cards, banknotes or comics. But this is like grading the box the trading cards come in! The metal disk has no significance beyond what it holds .. except perhaps to a museum as a curiosity. It's just daft IMHO. Or maybe it's just me?

[TomGoodheart]

22 hours ago, Paulus said:

I'm ploughing all my retirement investment funds into NFTs personally, clearly the way to go

 

50 bitcoin and it's yours Paul ..