I would like an option to buy 2100 Bitcoins for $100 each on December, 2013.

[Cara Navarre]

My right to purchase would be active for a week after December 1st, 2013. The seller of the Bitcoins would be obligated to sell them to me if I choose to buy them.

How much would this contract cost?

I'll PM you the details...

Please.

[coinft]

P.S. Actually I would even deliver to call buyer an encrypted wallet at the time of call sale. The password would be delivered when option is exercised. See how cool bitcoin is?

The receiver of the encrypted wallet has no way to verify its content. And he cannot prevent you from using a copy of it to empty it any time. Sometimes cool tech is dangerous, when you don't fully understand it.

This way of doing escrow is at best useless, and in the worst case a scam (but I hope it just wasn't thought through fully).

[Vladimir]

P.S. Actually I would even deliver to call buyer an encrypted wallet at the time of call sale. The password would be delivered when option is exercised. See how cool bitcoin is?

The receiver of the encrypted wallet has no way to verify its content. And he cannot prevent you from using a copy of it to empty it any time. Sometimes cool tech is dangerous, when you don't fully understand it.

This way of doing escrow is at best useless, and in the worst case a scam (but I hope it just wasn't thought through fully).

1. I did not say that it is escrow.
2. I did not say that there is way to verify content.
3. I did not say that there is no 3rd party risk
4. I did say that I will not use escrow.

Counterparty would have to trust me to deliver the goods and make good on a written contract.

On the another hand I do not trust anyone out there to give em 2100 of my BTC for safekeeping.

If you thought that the proposed delivery method is meant as an escrow, you need to think again.

Coinft, You must be new around here. It's ok. You just made a mistake of taking that P.S. out of context of the post and being too new to know longer term context relevant to the trust thing.

And BTW, as far as trust is concerned and 3rd party risk and without meaning to offend another bidder at all. Trust to some GLBSE outfit or trust me writing a contract in my name, that's a such a nobrainer. But it is just as I see it. YMMV.

[interlagos]

My right to purchase would be active for a week after December 1st, 2013. The seller of the Bitcoins would be obligated to sell them to me if I choose to buy them.

How much would this contract cost?

If it continues like what we see now, you might just buy enough coins for the money you want to pay for the contract

[Vladimir]

My right to purchase would be active for a week after December 1st, 2013. The seller of the Bitcoins would be obligated to sell them to me if I choose to buy them.

How much would this contract cost?

If it continues like what we see now, you might just buy enough coins for the money you want to pay for the contract

So far out of money ~18 month long contracts in such an illiquid marketplace, yep the premium is not trivial. But it gives desired risk profile, I suppose.

[coinft]

P.S. Actually I would even deliver to call buyer an encrypted wallet at the time of call sale. The password would be delivered when option is exercised. See how cool bitcoin is?

The receiver of the encrypted wallet has no way to verify its content. And he cannot prevent you from using a copy of it to empty it any time. Sometimes cool tech is dangerous, when you don't fully understand it.

This way of doing escrow is at best useless, and in the worst case a scam (but I hope it just wasn't thought through fully).

1. I did not say that it is escrow.
2. I did not say that there is way to verify content.
3. I did not say that there is no 3rd party risk
4. I did say that I will not use escrow.

Counterparty would have to trust me to deliver the goods and make good on a written contract.

On the another hand I do not trust anyone out there to give em 2100 of my BTC for safekeeping.

If you thought that the proposed delivery method is meant as an escrow, you need to think again.

Coinft, You must be new around here. It's ok. You just made a mistake of taking that P.S. out of context of the post and being too new to know longer term context relevant to the trust thing.

And BTW, as far as trust is concerned and 3rd party risk and without meaning to offend another bidder at all. Trust to some GLBSE outfit or trust me writing a contract in my name, that's a such a nobrainer. But it is just as I see it. YMMV.

I am not new, just not overly post happy. No need to go ad hominem. Stay on topic, calling me names does not really counter my position, even with your condescending tone.

Back to topic, this was not never meant as an attack. I called delivering an encrypted wallet beforehand useless (at best), and I stand by that. There is no advantage to it compared to a normal payment, and some disadvantages. If you do not agree, please enlighten us to your thoughts on the topic.

The way I saw it the only reason someone would even propose this is for some kind of escrow or insurance promise, or just not thinking about it long enough. I brought it up only because it is the most likely implied reason to do this at all.

[Vladimir]

coinft, you did read my posts above, didn't you? Sorry I have nothing to add. There is obviously some communication breakdown. I just
want to ask you one thing, stop putting your words into my mouth.

[coinft]

coinft, you did read my posts above, didn't you? Sorry I have nothing to add. There is obviously some communication breakdown. I just
want to ask you one thing, stop putting your words into my mouth.

Vladimir you are again evading the very limited topic of the futility of transferring encrypted wallets, and hiding it behind personal attacks. I ignored most of your post on purpose, because I don't answer to strawman arguments. I have nothing to add, everyone can speculate on your reasons on their own.

[ribuck]

Cara Navarre, if for any reason you don't proceed with Vladimir then I will sell you the option for the same price ($4000) and on similar terms. I have positive feedback from previous similar transactions here.

[interlagos]

My right to purchase would be active for a week after December 1st, 2013. The seller of the Bitcoins would be obligated to sell them to me if I choose to buy them.

How much would this contract cost?

If it continues like what we see now, you might just buy enough coins for the money you want to pay for the contract

So far out of money ~18 month long contracts in such an illiquid marketplace, yep the premium is not trivial. But it gives desired risk profile, I suppose.

Yeah, December 2013 is a long time, I wonder what happens if dollar is not around anymore by that time

[odolvlobo]

You do realize the price to buy 2100 bitcoin RIGHT NOW on mtgox is $22,787.77 (plus mtgox fee). You would then have the bitcoins guaranteed available to you to buy December 1st, 2013, as you would be the counter-party to your own contract.

If I were you, I probably wouldn't pass on any bids higher than $23,000 to your client, at the risk of looking silly to him/her.

Right. I am just being professional. I am disappointed in these bids because it shows that people are not confident in the long-term market. Either that or it shows that the price is going to be much higher in 2013.

Your offer is asinine, "I have the right to buy, but I don't have to" I know this type of shit goes well with stocks, but this is the wild west of finance, put your money where your mouth is, or fuck off.

Plus, even if I felt like dealing with you, I could only ever lose money because you would only buy if the price exceeds $100/btc.

I'm surprised at the lack of investing knowledge here on the "Securities" board.

[Raize]

I'm surprised at the lack of investing knowledge here on the "Securities" board.

There's a wide range of knowledge, just not everyone chooses to post. The ones that seem to know the least are cradling their double digit BTC with a cost-average above the present BTC price right now and waiting for their coin to return to them on Monday.