Topic: ► ❎ ► LEALANA PHYSICAL LITECOINS FOR SALE - RESUMING SALES!!! - page 33. (Read 133714 times)
Just ordered. Very excited.
I think it is very important to clarify whether any coins could be sent out with a hologram on and yet end up not being funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
So far a package has not gotten stolen or lost. It's guaranteed to arrive for the most part being sent via registered mail.
The idea is to fund all coins but if a package never gets to the original buyer from me then there is no point in funding the coins.
So far mike has not had a package lost or stolen reported and never turned up at his address or the buyer's.
I suppose I could fund stolen coins but does that make any sense?
Curious on your folks' input.
well if it's pretty much guaranteed to arrive then the flipside argument would be then why not fund them before you ship if you have nothing to lose?
i'm just saying that it's probably more worth it to you to have all your customers assured that an intact hologram means what it's supposed to mean; a loaded coin. the small losses due to theft is miniscule.
this is the fungibility argument that is so important to any BTC or LTC whether it be physical or virtual.
Hi Smoothie
Are these still available? Can i buy 10 to the UK?
Are these still available? Can i buy 10 to the UK?
I think it is very important to clarify whether any coins could be sent out with a hologram on and yet end up not being funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
So far a package has not gotten stolen or lost. It's guaranteed to arrive for the most part being sent via registered mail.
The idea is to fund all coins but if a package never gets to the original buyer from me then there is no point in funding the coins.
So far mike has not had a package lost or stolen reported and never turned up at his address or the buyer's.
I suppose I could fund stolen coins but does that make any sense?
Curious on your folks' input.
Why not just register the firstbits by sending like 0.001 ltc to each address and put the rest in later?
I think this is a good suggestion.
Other remark: Mike is specifically offering delayed loading for customs purposes. Afaik he will fund coins at some point in any case.
I'd much rather have coins funded with a single output of 10ltc than some 0.001 + 9.999 thing and could care less about first bits. Printing enough characters to discourage a vanitygen prank is easy enough since the time to generate grows quickly with each char.
doesn't Mike use more address bits than the FirstBits convention?
I am using 8 characters as first bits. Although sometime the first "L" gets cut off on the private key circle the other 7 characters are visible for the most part.
Having the COA eliminates all that because then the third party buyer can ask for pic of the COA and then check my public list to verify if it is genuine and funded.
So are these things shipping, or what?
Shipping started Friday. Another batch goes out today. Standing at USPS counter now. Will send tracking number to those orders that shipped. Will be doing the same each weekday this week. Busy week. Please be patient as I have lots to do.
Just cant wait to get my "your LTC have shipped" notice!!
Me too!
I just got my first Casasicus coin today too! LOVE the phyiscal coins and glad to be a part of this first batch!!
The first bits address you will be able to look up on the litecoin block chain. This has always been an option to verify funds.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
Firstbits is not sufficient. Recipient of unloaded coin could vanity-gen an address with identical firsbits. You have to use producer list to verify coin.
Good point. Then the certificate and the list I provide will be sufficient.
Not sure about that, as I understand it, say the coin's FirstBit was Labcde then anyone vanity generating the same would get a FirstBits of Labcdex, so when checking the original Firstbits would show as an unfunded address still.
edit: if FirstBits is just the first 5 chars, ie Labcd, then that would be the coin's & a van-gen would have Labcdx
i think this is correct.
I thought the assumption was smoothie would send unfunded coins. In such a case the attacker firstbits would be Labcd and smoothie would not even load the coin because it was reported "lost" by postal service / recipient / attacker. Therefore everything would look fine (even 10 LTC would be on Labcd) to an unsuspecting user only checking firstbits. Only upon redemption attempt would he find out the private key doesn't match (or when attacker moves the 10 LTC and the user checks the firstbits again).
Also: firstbits is handled a little differently by different sites. For example blockchain.info just searches for the first occurrence of a given prefix (no matter the length).
Ah yes good point, if he hasn't funded them then they can get van-gened & usurped, so if he wishes to reserve the FirstBits addresses a token tx is needed, 0.0001 does fine for btc, I use this for my van gens, ie recently with btc ones:
https://blockchain.info/address/1Saturdayv6znj1aCUAHzqKKxUnBPCy4S
https://blockchain.info/address/1ThankYou1pK8Lkx7cXdPuRZQvf3737ND
Then after receipt he funds them for the full 10 ltc, or that minus the FB holding amount previously sent.
I think it is very important to clarify whether any coins could be sent out with a hologram on and yet end up not being funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
This is why I recently started selling my coins in lots that have been vanity generated to all have the same prefix. (example of coins I'm shipping right now: 300 coins per unique 3 character prefix). If someone orders multiple rolls I make sure they come from the same lot wherever I can.
So if something bad happened and a bunch of coins got stolen, they'd likely all start with the same prefix. That way, I could say "The stolen coins were all 20xx xBTC coins made of x whose addresses start with 1xx" and the stolen coins would be much easier to spot (as well as you'd be able to spot that your coin wasn't one of them)
Fortunately I haven't had this happen. There's other things I do, that I don't say much about, but this one was worth sharing, especially since it has to be shared to be effective.
I think it is very important to clarify whether any coins could be sent out with a hologram on and yet end up not being funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
If we have to rely on checking the public address, what is the point of having a tamper-proof hologram?
The cost of funding a coin that may have been lost or stolen in the post is worth the benefit of having a whole circulation of coins that are guaranteed to be funded.
So are these things shipping, or what?
Why not just register the firstbits by sending like 0.001 ltc to each address and put the rest in later?
I think this is a good suggestion.
Other remark: Mike is specifically offering delayed loading for customs purposes. Afaik he will fund coins at some point in any case.
I'd much rather have coins funded with a single output of 10ltc than some 0.001 + 9.999 thing and could care less about first bits. Printing enough characters to discourage a vanitygen prank is easy enough since the time to generate grows quickly with each char.
doesn't Mike use more address bits than the FirstBits convention?
Why not just register the firstbits by sending like 0.001 ltc to each address and put the rest in later?
I think this is a good suggestion.
Other remark: Mike is specifically offering delayed loading for customs purposes. Afaik he will fund coins at some point in any case.
I'd much rather have coins funded with a single output of 10ltc than some 0.001 + 9.999 thing and could care less about first bits. Printing enough characters to discourage a vanitygen prank is easy enough since the time to generate grows quickly with each char.
The first bits address you will be able to look up on the litecoin block chain. This has always been an option to verify funds.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
Firstbits is not sufficient. Recipient of unloaded coin could vanity-gen an address with identical firsbits. You have to use producer list to verify coin.
Good point. Then the certificate and the list I provide will be sufficient.
Not sure about that, as I understand it, say the coin's FirstBit was Labcde then anyone vanity generating the same would get a FirstBits of Labcdex, so when checking the original Firstbits would show as an unfunded address still.
edit: if FirstBits is just the first 5 chars, ie Labcd, then that would be the coin's & a van-gen would have Labcdx
i think this is correct.
I thought the assumption was smoothie would send unfunded coins. In such a case the attacker firstbits would be Labcd and smoothie would not even load the coin because it was reported "lost" by postal service / recipient / attacker. Therefore everything would look fine (even 10 LTC would be on Labcd) to an unsuspecting user only checking firstbits. Only upon redemption attempt would he find out the private key doesn't match (or when attacker moves the 10 LTC and the user checks the firstbits again).
Also: firstbits is handled a little differently by different sites. For example blockchain.info just searches for the first occurrence of a given prefix (no matter the length).
doesn't FirstBits also depend on Labcd being on the blockchain? that's how it knows that that address is reserved. anyone generating the next Labcd is forced to add another character/number.
thus, it seems that for the FirstBits to be valid it has to used once, ie, funded by Smoothie.
Good looking coins
Why not just register the firstbits by sending like 0.001 ltc to each address and put the rest in later?
I think this is a good suggestion.
Other remark: Mike is specifically offering delayed loading for customs purposes. Afaik he will fund coins at some point in any case.
Why not just register the firstbits by sending like 0.001 ltc to each address and put the rest in later?
I think it would be in the best interest of both casascius and lealana coin owners if there was a guarantee that and un-tampered hologram = a funded coin.
People can check on the internet, but this is a physical coin.
People can check on the internet, but this is a physical coin.
The first bits address you will be able to look up on the litecoin block chain. This has always been an option to verify funds.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
Firstbits is not sufficient. Recipient of unloaded coin could vanity-gen an address with identical firsbits. You have to use producer list to verify coin.
Good point. Then the certificate and the list I provide will be sufficient.
Not sure about that, as I understand it, say the coin's FirstBit was Labcde then anyone vanity generating the same would get a FirstBits of Labcdex, so when checking the original Firstbits would show as an unfunded address still.
edit: if FirstBits is just the first 5 chars, ie Labcd, then that would be the coin's & a van-gen would have Labcdx
i think this is correct.
I thought the assumption was smoothie would send unfunded coins. In such a case the attacker firstbits would be Labcd and smoothie would not even load the coin because it was reported "lost" by postal service / recipient / attacker. Therefore everything would look fine (even 10 LTC would be on Labcd) to an unsuspecting user only checking firstbits. Only upon redemption attempt would he find out the private key doesn't match (or when attacker moves the 10 LTC and the user checks the firstbits again).
Also: firstbits is handled a little differently by different sites. For example blockchain.info just searches for the first occurrence of a given prefix (no matter the length).
The first bits address you will be able to look up on the litecoin block chain. This has always been an option to verify funds.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
I will release a public list of funded addresses in the near future. This way you can cross check to see if the coin being resold (assuming you are buying from someone else besides me) does in fact have coins at the specified address.
Each coin comes with a certificate with the FULL ADDRESS of the coin too.
Firstbits is not sufficient. Recipient of unloaded coin could vanity-gen an address with identical firsbits. You have to use producer list to verify coin.
Good point. Then the certificate and the list I provide will be sufficient.
Not sure about that, as I understand it, say the coin's FirstBit was Labcde then anyone vanity generating the same would get a FirstBits of Labcdex, so when checking the original Firstbits would show as an unfunded address still.
edit: if FirstBits is just the first 5 chars, ie Labcd, then that would be the coin's & a van-gen would have Labcdx
i think this is correct.
Jump to: