I have read the claims, and from reading the rest of the thread, many others have as well...  Which is why there has been a discussion of prior art, and my point about whether you've satisfied the patent law "duty of candor" in disclosing your knowledge of potential prior art in your communications with the PTO.

Now, given that you've described various things the application does not cover, why don't you confront the question of what it does cover.  Are you of the view that Casascius / Lealana coins infringe your patent?  In particular claims 24, 30 and 31, all of which include as part of their claim a variation of:  "a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised."

The intention of those claims is pretty clear to me - lets "call a spade a spade."