Quote from: frank123m on July 24, 2014, 05:36:40 PM

Quote from: Biomech on July 24, 2014, 04:43:58 PM

sarcasm aside, I'm failing to see the utility of this myself, unless they ARE some form of a paper wallet.

Let me rephrase that. I can see LOCAL utility, but if the physical coin does not have a way to translate to the blockchain, then it isn't SHA, it's something else. And what makes cryptos unique amongst currencies is a combination of a few factors.

1. Instant transfers (not counting confirmation, of course) anywhere in the world without the need of third parties. (physical coins defeat this!)

2. No central issuance. The coin IS the blockchain! (physical coins defeat this!)

3. irreversibility of transactions. (this one is true of both forms)

The other factors of cryptocurrency are common to all forms of money, so I'll not belabor them here. But the first two items on my list are cause for a great deal of concern on my part. You need to be REALLY specific in what you're doing here, Frank. So far, I've had your back on the revival. I don't stand opposed now, but physical coins that, on reading it, don't appear to have any connection to the block chain is very concerning.

I know you are very worried about this thing.
by doing this, we will have both systems, virtual and physical. then we can be a currency.

it seems no connection?
actually, the physical coins have the name SHA Coin on it, so they have connections.
anyone get them will know they are SHA Coins.

as long as we continue to move forward, keep making physical coins,
then we can succeed with physical and virtual.

and of course, if we can succeed with ver.1 physical coins,
then we can start to define the coin's amount of SHA with different metals, sizes in ver.2.
if we working much better, then maybe we can have our own banknote system.
finally we can act like a currency, with metals backed.

Probably backing up physical "version" of currency with BLOCKCHAIN will be better than with metals