Bitcoin History Part 4: Casascius Creates Physical ...

12-09 16:44 - 'Casascius Physical Bitcoin 5btc Coin, Version 1, 2012 ‘Error Bitnickel' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Putin42 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 2-12min

'''
1xCasascius 5 BTC Physical Bitcoin Coin Wallet, 2012 Issue -No actual BTC value loaded, has been previously redeemed. Hologram has beenremoved. Can be reloaded with BTC and is a great way to keep your digital investment physically safe. ~1.125in (28 mm) in diameter, weight 0.24oz (6.8g), about the size of a US quarter This is the 'true' Bitnickel featuring a silver (or nickel) tone hologram. The only nickel Casascius, and has a rare issue with green color firstbits. Manufacturer: Casascius Year: 2012 Version: 1 Denomination: 5btc ‘Error Bitnickel’ Load Year Total Created Unopened 2011 2012 651 570 2013 26 26 2014 Total 677 586 Material: Nickel over Brass Diameter: 28.5mm Thickness: 1.7mm Weight: 7.4g Country: USA Best Grade: MS-66 Released in January 2012 with the v1 hologram, they were priced at 6btc each. “Future version of the coin will have a matching silver series-2 sticker, but they’re at least a month out” -Mike Caldwell, January 14, 2012. They all seem to have signs of wear on the S,I,N,E,R, and I of the ‘Vires In Numeris’ motto, seemingly created in the minting process. Casascius later released an unknown number of 40 coin rolls without holograms as blanks, identifying them as ‘Roll Your Own’. Such a roll came with sheets of laser cut private key tabs and solid gold colored stickers allowing the buyer to create their own coins by using either the provided private keys or by inserting their own. This sale was likely done due to excess stock of Bitnickels.
'''
Casascius Physical Bitcoin 5btc Coin, Version 1, 2012 ‘Error Bitnickel
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Putin42
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Physical Casascius Bitcoin (1 BTC) /r/Bitcoin

Physical Casascius Bitcoin (1 BTC) /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why are these scams allowed on EBay? "Gold Plated 1oz Bitcoin Casascius BTC 1 Physical Bit Coin"

Why are these scams allowed on EBay? submitted by mojolama to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/btc] Help - gifted Physical 1 BTC Casascius Bitcoin [X-post: bitcoin]

The following post by MagicalUnicornMoney is being replicated because the post has been openly greylisted.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ btc/comments/7ipb7e
The open modlog reason it was greylisted as reported by /btc was: Removed, account age less than required - please try again later
The original post's content was as follows:
[removed]
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Casascius Physical Bitcoins: Brass Bitcoin wallets containing 1 BTC!

submitted by darthnuri to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

2013 "Casascius" 1 oz Silver Physical Bitcoin 1 0 BTC Loaded New | eBay

2013 "Casascius" 1 oz Silver Physical Bitcoin 1 0 BTC Loaded New | eBay submitted by bVector to NSL [link] [comments]

Partially redeeming a Casascius physical bitcoin - help request

Overview of problem
I have a Casascius physical bitcoin and I am unable to add its digital contents to a wallet. It seems that the key is not the right length or format. I started to get out of my depth with talk of things like a Minikey format.
I removed the hologram when I was given it years ago as I was curious what was under there. I don't want to sell it instead I want to add its 1 BTC value to a wallet so I can partially redeem it and keep the physical brass as a collectible.
What I have observed and tried (apologies in advance for butchering terms)
I've searched several sites, including here and haven't been able to find a current answer for the new style of keys and wallets.
I put the seven character code from the hologram into the casascius.uberbills dot com site and it gives me a 33 character key, tells me it's version 2 and confirms that it has a 1 BTC value
I've tried to import it into a Blockchain wallet but get the error "this private key does not match the watch only address above" when I enter the private key under the hologram. For some reason it seems like a different public address is generated when I enter the 33 char code.
I tried to import it into a Jaxx Liberty wallet but it doesn't recognise the minikey or 33 char code as valid.
I've basically run up against my level of knowledge and don't know what the next steps are of if I'm missing something bleeding obvious. I double and triple checked any data entry because I saw this was a common problem.
I'd really appreciate any help or pointers the community can give me.
Thanks
Edit:
Solution
I followed the advice given by u/murbul in reply to my post
You might struggle to find a wallet that natively supports MINI keys these days since it's an old format that never really took off apart from Casascius coins. So your best bet is to use a tool to convert it to a real private key (starting with 5) and import/sweep that into a wallet.
You can convert it on the Wallet Details tab of https://www.bitaddress.org/ - For 1 BTC I'd be paranoid enough to recommend downloading the source and doing everything offline: https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org
I used the site and one of the keys generated was one starting with '5' (Private Key WIF). I used this in Jaxx Liberty in the 'Paper Wallet Import' function under tools and it came right across.
I’m very happy.
submitted by PickledNumbat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

20,901 Casascius Worth of $424 Million Left in the World

20,901 Casascius Worth of $424 Million Left in the World
A 100 #BTC #Casascius bar, a specific type of physical #Bitcoin, was redeemed last December. Interestingly, there are only 20,901 of these #coins or bars left in the 🌐world, with about $424 million worth of BTC stored on them.
Visit our website:👉https://tokenncoin.com/news
20,901 Casascius Worth of $424 Million Left in the World
#Tokenncoin #CryptoNews #Tokenncoinnews #Crypto
submitted by Tokenncoin to Tokenncoin [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Top 5 Rare Facts about Bitcoin Cryptocurrency

Top 5 Rare Facts about Bitcoin Cryptocurrency
Most crypto enthusiasts must have probably come across unusual stories about cryptocurrencies. For instance, how an American Laszlo Hanyecz bought a pizza for 10 000 coins in 2010. In this article we will touch upon 5 unbelievable facts about BTC cryptocurrency.
  1. Launch of a game about mining digital currencies
A Byelorussian company “Boolba Entertainment” will launch a mining activity simulator in 2019. Within the game a crypto ecosystem will be created where the player will have to build their own farm, pay for electricity, buy goods for digital means and so on.
If the virtual miner won’t be able to solve the game’s tasks, he may choose to sell their own kidney – an option kindly provided by the game developers.
  1. Bitcoins can be earned by simply playing Counter Strike
Indeed, the dream of lots of school kids, spending hours behind the computer and playing Counter Strike, came true. Thanks to the most famous cryptocurrency and Leetcoin project that is currently being beta-tested, it is possible now to play the favorite game whilst earning bitcoin.
That is our top 5 unusual facts about bitcoin cryptocurrency. Comment down below which fact you found most interesting. Also, you can tell about your unusual situations connected with digital currencies.
  1. An attempt to create physical BTC coins
Casascius is a physical equivalent of bitcoins. The tokens are colored yellow and have a Bitcoin sign. It is them you see in the pictures that are to do with digital currencies on the internet.
These items also serve well as a cold storage for cryptocurrencies. Each coin has a "private key" to the digital equivalent on the inside, underneath the hologram. Unfortunately, the product didn’t gain popularity among crypto enthusiasts.
  1. Multiple-fold increase of bitcoin price
BTC is the fastest growing asset in the world. During the period between 2010 and 2017 its price has increased 879 999-fold. Nonetheless, the fast growth in price also has negative sides. Thus, the largest drop in price of this crypto-asset took place in the middle of spring 2013. The drop in price constituted 80 per cent.
1.Lamborghini’s trust in bitcoins
You must be familiar with such a popular auto company as Lamborghini. So, this auto corporation is one of the first organizations that started accepting bitcoins officially when making deals with their clients.
The torch was taken up by the company Skycraft Airplanes which specializes in producing sport airplanes.
However, the interest to bitcoins from large companies did not stop there. There’s information that soon BTC coins will even be used as payment for space flights. For instance, such are the plans of Orion Span project.
That is our top 5 unusual facts about bitcoin cryptocurrency. Comment down below which fact you found most interesting. Also, you can tell about your unusual situations connected with digital currencies.


https://preview.redd.it/72cfgqbl5nc31.jpg?width=1863&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65137cf262af94ea3bea35659a96df64c98c4b3d
submitted by bestchange_pr to bestchange [link] [comments]

Physical Bitcoin For Sale on eBay for $99,000

A physical bitcoin (BTC) is selling on eBay for $99,000, a listing on July 1 shows.

The seller claims the “collector’s must have” is a Casascius brass token that was created in 2011.

According to the listing, the physical coin is loaded with one BTC that has not been redeemed, and all of the seals remain intact.

Payment can be made in crypto or cash, and the seller says they will also consider trading it for real estate. However, the listing adds that “Cars and boats = no.”

The seller says they made the purchase back in 2012 and have kept it in their safe since then, adding: “Only a few hundred remains in the ENTIRE world.”

https://cointelegraph.com/news/this-rare-physical-bitcoin-can-be-yours-for-99-000
submitted by FastSellerService to BitcoinInfo [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Gifting Bitcoin

First off, I have not dabbled in any form of cryptocurrency myself at this point. I have two young nephews who live and breathe the internet. I was thinking that finding a way to give them BTC would be way more interesting than the usual Amazon giftcard. They might use it on Steam, they might save it, whatever. I think most of all it would be nice for them to be exposed to the idea of cryptocurrency besides just reading about it online.
It's Christmas, and I'd like to be able to give them a nice physical representation of the BTC along with some basic guidelines on what to do with it, how to handle it, and where they can spend it right now if they so choose. I have found bitcoinpaperwallet.com, but still need to research some on how to actually obtain the BTC for the wallet. I also found Casascius physical coins that I think would be pretty cool.
Any advice on the best way to gift BTC would be helpful. Anything I should be aware of or need to watch out for? How have you gifted BTC in the past? What can I order to expect a timely delivery before the holidays? Perhaps I need to do some noob research on what wallet I should start off with, etc...
Thanks for the help.
Edit: perhaps I should have posted this at /BitcoinBeginners. I just found that sub. Please let me know if this question would be more suitable for there.
submitted by PureMichiganChip to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There is a 30 day comment period for the current Bitlicense proposal. Unless there are substantial changes, New York will be a Bitcoin dead zone

The 30 day comment period starts next week. Bitlicense, as proposed will force most companies that store customer BTC deposits to block New York IP addresses. There is very little chance that Lawsky will make any further changes to it, so what will this mean for Bitcoin around the world?
EDIT, as a reminder:
This is how the Bitlicense will affect Bitcoin businesses, taken from here:
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/cizyqyz
(I've added modifications in light of changes in the new proposal and information that I found was missing in the original write-up)
Entities are considered dealing in virtual currencies if:
.. to any resident in New York. Web services, even those incorporated overseas, must either comply or block access for NY users. (200.2n)
Entities 'dealing in virtual currency' must:
Added:
The (only?) good news: Merchants do not need a BitLicense to accept Bitcoin for a good or service. (200.3c2).
> This post was created for general guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific advice from a professional. No representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this post.
EDIT 2, targetpro suggested expressing any concerns you may have about the proposed regs to the NY Dept. of Finan. Services:
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Hi Departments of Financial Services, Here is the proposed Virtual Currency Regulator Application

In developing this regulatory framework, we have sought to strike an appropriate balance that helps protect individuals, consumers, businesses, services, and innovators, while rooting out unscrupulous and over-reaching regulatory activity. These regulations include provisions to help safeguard customer assets, protect against unwarranted account freezes or seizures, and prevent the regulatory abuse of virtual currencies from unethical activity, such as widespread warrantless monitoring, disclosure of private information, dictation as to how users engaged in P2P or non-fiat transfers can spend their money, and scapegoating.
We recognize that not everyone in the regulatory community will be pleased about the prospect of what could be seen as a barrier to their regulatory authority. Ultimately, though, we believe that setting up common sense rules of the road is vital to the long-term future of the virtual currency industry, as well as the safety and soundness of customer assets. (We think the situation in New York, for example, made that very clear.) Moreover, given that P2P decentralized networks are stateless, headless, community consensus driven bodies, we also have a moral obligation to move forward on this framework.
Entities are considered "interested in regulating virtual currencies" if:
... in a manner that would affect any current or prospective member of the human race.
Entities "interested in regulating virtual currencies" must:
As the first decentralized community to put forward specially tailored rules for virtual currency regulators – continued public feedback will be an important part of finalizing this regulatory framework. We look forward to carefully and thoughtfully reviewing public comments on our proposal.
submitted by Try_AgainNY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[WTS] Casasicus Bitcoin (2011 Mint | "Casacius" misprint | Fully-funded | 1 BTC/BCC/BTG +)

2011 mint Casascius physical bitcoin
Images: https://imgur.com/a/k8g7G
Asking 1.5 BTC
submitted by Fresh-Prints-of-3D to BitMarket [link] [comments]

My bitcoin value has surpassed my decade long stock account

Throwaway account because I'm revealing more than I want tied to my primary account.
I'll put the TL;DR at the top.
TL;DR: Apparently, I'm well off and 2 years of bitcoins are worth more than 10 years of stock market investment.
I'm nearly 50 years old. A few years out of college and I just barely broke $20k salary. That was worth more than $20k today, but was still a lousy wage with college loan debt. I briefly (1.5 years) had a dotcom job at the turn of the millineum making more than I do now, but I had never had money like that before and boosted the economy instead of putting any aside. I did get some nice toys, though.
Add on another 1.5 years of unemployment, living off my wife's meager salary and a few odd under-the-table jobs, and I finally landed a decent paying job again. Nothing like the dotcom days, but close. However, I'd learned we could live on much less and I wanted a cushion. I dumped tons into my 401k, my savings account and opened a Scottrade account. A little money goes each month to savings and Scottrade.
Roughly ten years later, my 401k is about 3 times my annual income. The Scottrade account is about 30% of it.
Two years ago, I heard about bitcoin on Slashdot. It sounded interesting. I started mining on my son's gaming machine, which meant it was only mining when my son wasn't playing games and if he remembered to start the miner when he was done.
I mined solo for a few days, and quickly joined a mining pool. I was getting a bitcoin every three or four days initially. That didn't last long.
I opened a MtGox account, added some cash and purchased btc almost at the height of the 2011 spike.
I felt like an idiot.
I bought some Casascius coins. I left my MtGox account alone.
This was also around the time the 99% protests were going on. I felt very sympathetic. I remember in reading about the protests, I stumbled across a site that showed what percentage people were based on annual income. With mine and my wife's income, I was above the 90th percentile and below the 95th. I remember the horror and disbelief I felt.
Througout it all, I continued mining. I got lucky during the early 2013 spike and sold some of the MtGox stuff I'd had sitting there. I also got a high end SLR camera at bitcoinstore.com almost at the peak. I was feeling pretty good.
I bought a ButterflyLabs Jalapeno with bitcoins just before that first 2013 spike. I also stopped even trying to mine with a graphics card soon after that because it made no sense. I did eventually get delivery of the Jalapeno. It's earned almost .68 bitcoins. Don't ask what it cost in bitcoins, because I don't remember and I don't want to know.
After realizing my MtGox profits couldn't be pulled out in dollars in any reasonable timeframe, I converted them to bitcoins and pulled them out. I got more bitcoins than I sold them for, but not by much.
So, now I own bitcoins in the high 2 digits, about a third of them are still in physical Casascius coins. I only have an account on MtGox, so I have no real way of converting any of them to cash. I still have $100 sitting in the MtGox account, which I should have converted into bitcoins and pulled out long ago, but I'm frustrated by the premium bitcoins require in USD on MtGox.
For nearly ten years, I've been putting money in my Scottrade account. I saw the collapse in 2008 and mostly held. I bought bank stocks at that time and made a killing. That killing was offset by the REITs I'd invested in before the crash.
In ten years of regular transfers to Scottrade and investment that has gotten better as I've gotten older and more cynical, I've accumulate about 30% of my annual income.
In the last few days, even with the purchase of a cool SLR and the cut involved in Casascius coin purchases, my double-digit bitcoin ownership has now surpassed my Scottrade account in value. I don't have an easy way of converting that bitcoin to USD, but I'm also not concerned about that because I think that easy methods will exist soon.
I fully expect that my bitcoins will be worth less in the near future. However, I believe in the long term, they'll be worth more and that I'll have a number of easier possibilities for converting them to USD if I want to.
I also believe the analogies to the early WWW are flawed. I think analogies to the IP protocol are more apt and that we've only begun to imagine the possibilities.
I'm in it for the long haul. They'll either be worth nothing or much more than now. And, if I add up my electricity costs and the small investment I made during the spike in 2011, I'm still ahead of the game because I have an SLR camera that my wife would never have let me buy with cash.
I'm already ahead of the game and I think the game hasn't even started.
EDIT: Grammar
submitted by throaway419 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Casascius Coin (1BTC) - Value? (CANADA)

Hey I am just wondering, what price or value I would be looking at for a funded Casascius (https://www.casascius.com/) physical bitcoin? I have had it for a while, and have been watching the price of BTC pretty closely over the past couple months, but haven't really looked at the price of them locally ever, so was hoping this sub could help. I know that they are priced pretty hefty online (eBay in the US), and those are even non-funded most of the time.
I am also hesitant of selling it, or just keeping it as a collectible item no matter what happens with BTC. I know a lot of you will say HODL, but looking for some more helpful info.
submitted by captn_lolers to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How should I sell my Casascius coin?

I have a 2013 1BTC Casascius coin that I am looking to sell, I put a trade up on local bitcoins, but since I don't have any BTC in my wallet currently it assumes that I don't have any to sell. When in reality I have the physical coin with the hologram intact, and the bitcoin address still available for access. What are my best options?
submitted by nagurnimaster to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some of my Silver Bitcoins for my First Reddit Thread

http://imgur.com/a/Oj31j
Since BitcoinTalk is down, and I've been checking out /Silverbugs more lately, I figured I'd take a picture of some of my Silver Physical BTC as my first post on here. Also, I saw some Casascius pictures flipping through here and /PMsForSale and felt inspired. Plus I could always use another reason to bust out my coins and nerd out :)
I have loads more physical Bitcoins and other cryptos, and some gold plated and silver plated, but these are the only solid .999 Silver Bitcoins I have at the moment (sadly). There are many, many more solid fine Silver (and Gold) physical BTC out there, and if anybody's interested in hunting/collecting them I could probably post a pretty damn comprehensive list to help you out. Some very common, some extremely rare with mintages as low as 25.
Anyways, here's what's in my quick pictures, starting on the top row from left to right:
Bottom Row, L-R:
I could have gotten better pics if I had set-up lighting or taken them out of their Airtites, but most have never left their capsules in my possession. Any scratches seen are on the capsules themselves. The last pic is just a nice close up of the security hologram on the Lealana BTC; the Lealana holo's are all amazing and have multiple depths depending on what angle they're looked at. Also for clarification, only the 2 Silver Wallets and the Lealana are truly capable of containing digital Bitcoin value, I just have not placed Private Keys and security holograms on the SW. The other 3 shown are just nice physical Bitcoin rounds. Anyways, many of you may already have seen these coins/rounds, I'm not sure, but I figured for those that hadn't it is always interesting to see unique Silver rounds as a fellow Silverbug.
P.S.- I hope I don't F#ck up the formatting of this post as my first
submitted by snarlpill to Silverbugs [link] [comments]

How will the "Bitcoin Cash" fork affect Casascius physical Bitcoins?

I'm sure there are many people holding the physical Casascius coins. Can anyone elaborate on how they will be affected during the upcoming "Bitcoin Cash" fork? Will holders of these coins still have BCC as well as BTC, and will they be able to access the funds say, years from now?
Ideally a Casascius holder would never redeem a physical Bitcoin due to its numismatic value; just trying to get some reassurance that holders of these coins would still have access to BCC since technically the private key is with the holder of the coin.
submitted by daehbew to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Casascius Coins as storage?

I really like the idea of having a physical coin to keep my BTC safely locked away and hidden off the internet, but I don't want to do it if it's not safe. I also don't want to buy a loaded Casascius coin. Is it possible to buy an unfunded Casascius Coin (ebay craigslist etc), and then load current coin(s) that I own onto the physical coin? Would doing this be a safe way to store Bitcoins cold or am I better off using bitaddress for cold storage? Would the size of the coin matter? I've seen them ranging from 1-20, so would I have to buy the proper sized coin for what I want to store? Would I have to make a hologram sticky for the private key? Sorry for all the questions but hopefully this gets answered for myself and any others.
submitted by ABeard to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

10BTC & 1BTC Casascius Coins - Physical Bitcoins Bitcoins Casascius physical bitcoin coins Holding a Bitcoin: The First Tangible Bitcoin by Casascius (5 BTC) — worth 300x its weight in gold redeeming casascius bitcoin Casascius Aluminium Physical Bitcoin

When he wrote these words, 1 BTC was trading for $6.86. The 1,000 BTC Physical Coin. So successful were the Casascius physical coins that the 1 BTC batch was followed by 10, 25, 100, and even 1,000 BTC editions. At bitcoin’s peak, around this time last year, that holographic 1,000 BTC coin would have been worth around $20 million. One example shows a rare 2011- 1 BTC physical Casascius coin selling for $101,000. Another seller on the eBay auction website wants $25k for his 2013- fully funded 1 BTC Casascius coin. The Casascius 1000 BTC gold coin is the highest denomination coin ever produced by Casascius. It is also the most valuable physical bitcoin ever produced, with one selling for $1 million in 2013. The token is made of an ounce of fine gold, which at the time of production was about one third the value of the 1000 BTC. Casascius physical bitcoins, also called Casascius coins, are physical metal coins created by Bitcoin user Casascius (Mike Caldwell, Sandy, Utah, USA) and sold until Nov 26, 2013, that contain an embedded piece of paper with digital Bitcoin value, covered by a tamper-resistant hologram.Casascius coins are available in 1, 10, 25, 100, and 1000 BTC increments. Each Casascius Bitcoin is a collectible coin backed by real Bitcoins embedded inside. Each piece has its own Bitcoin address and a redeemable "private key" on the inside, underneath the hologram. Some of my past products have included: ฿1 Casascius Coin: This is a solid brass coin. Each 1-bitcoin coin is about 1.125inch (28.6mm) in diameter ...

[index] [24781] [20420] [18343] [10304] [21948] [6832] [14976] [26860] [12196] [15404]

10BTC & 1BTC Casascius Coins - Physical Bitcoins

2013 Casascius .1 BTC Silver Coin - Physical Bitcoin Revealed - Duration: 1:26. ... Bitcoins Casascius physical bitcoin coins - Duration: 1:41. bitcoinargentina 5,163 views. Interested in buying? Contact me at [email protected] verify the bitcoin balance of a casascius bitcoin token and redeeming using mtgox.com. ... Review: Denarium 1 BTC Silver Physical Bitcoin - Duration: 5:06. Chronos Crypto 6,704 views. Casascius Bitcoins are physical coins you can hold - and each one is worth real digital bitcoins. Bitcoin is the most widely used open-source peer-to-peer "cryptocurrency" that you can send over ... The First Physical Bitcoin Had a Typo and Was Worn as Jewelry - Stefan Thomas - Duration: 1:34. CoinDesk 523 views

#