This seems strange at first glance, but let's entertain the idea for a second: Here's the use case: You receive a package of pills / vials from a supplier (and

This seems strange at first glance, but let's entertain the idea for a second: Here's the use case: You receive a package of pills / vials from a supplier (and have to pay $$$ for it) and you want to know if the vaccine / drugs are 'the real deal'. This is the proposal: By manufacturing the pills in a way that they have a physically complex structure that is hard to replicate, you can convert that structure into a code which you can then check against a database to see if it is valid. Now, we compare that to just having, say, a printed code in the box that we check against the same database. In the latter case, you can just open the box, photocopy the code, and make ten new boxes full of rocks with the photocopy in them. Each box will be 'valid' according to the database. So, by making the code something you derive from the physical pill, you can avoid this problem. ... > If enough multicolored particles (like these candy “nonpareils,” top) are randomly attached to objects, the odds of two objects having the same pattern of particles are essentially zero Sure, if enough multicolored particles are randomly attached. ...but in those 1cm samples, I can count, just by hand, roughly what... like, 10 x 25 little color balls? The problem of attaching 250 little colored balls in a specific configuration on a pill is simply 'hard'. I could do it by hand. So... that's not gonna stop anyone who really cares about doing it. Physically replicating the arrangement of a small number of highly uniform objects is a trivial task. ...but for a second consider the seemingly stupid idea of having a vial with a candy-code on the lid. The code is not linked to the vial, so there's nothing to prevent you tampering with the contents (eg. replace with saline) ...but, you can't easily just photocopy the lid. You have to manufacture a new lid. ... Which brings me to my 'huh'. So, breaking it down to the most primitive form, we have an object which is a) difficult to replicate, b) easy to manufacture and c) can be used to derive a unique code. There's... no reason this should be on pills. Forget that. Just ship it in the box. Now you have: - A box consisting of an object and a set of pills and vials - An app that scans the object and produces a code. - A database that links a code to a manifest of pills and vials - The object cannot be duplicated physically. That's actually a pretty interesting idea. It won't stop tampering, but it does allow you to assert single instance authenticity of the shipment. You can take my box and create 20 that look just like it; you can replace the pills with rocks; but only one of them will have this magic object that says its authentic, effectively preventing you from selling the rest of them. Maybe there's something interesting in there. I could imagine someone selling boxes of 'one-time-tokens' you could use this way... and all they would be is little blobs of plastic in some difficult to deliberately manufacture way. ...of course, this is based on the idea that it is difficult to recreate a physical object like this, which, with 3d scanners and printers, I'm pretty dubious of... you'd have to do something with your 3d structure to stop people just doing a surface scan... but then the object -> code mapping becomes problematic. But hey, it's an interesting idea. ...except putting it on the pills. That's just daft.