[POLL] when will 1 BTC be worth 1 oz of silver?

[ingrownpocket]

See? This is why bitcoin will beat silver. The barrier to entry on the silver market is too high! We can't even figure out how much an ounce of silver is! At least we know 1 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin, there are no regional interpretations like, in Canada, 1 bitcoin is actually 1.125 BTC.

This +1

-1
Has nothing to do with the barrier of entry, just that some ignorant nobody doesn't know how much a troy ounce is doesn't mean that he'll get anything else than everybody when he buys "an ounce" of silver.

What really matters is if those who would be interested in the investment have the cash to acquire it. And they know what they get.
With silver that is definitely the case, historically, with bitcoin it is uncertain, although it could surpass it someday.

I'm sure you know everything about everything in the entire universe.

[1714049199]

1714049199

[1714049199]

1714049199

[1714049199]

1714049199

[1714049199]

1714049199

[Desolator]

If you go to spendbitcoins.com or whatever it is and then go to that jewelry section on newegg, you can get around 1.5 grams of sterling silver jewelry for 1 BTC   That's almost remotely close, lol.

[odolvlobo]

Some of the same factors that drive the price of bitcoin also drive the price of silver, so never is possible.

[molecular]

Some of the same factors that drive the price of bitcoin also drive the price of silver, so never is possible.

then how is this possible:

• bitcoin early 2012: $6, early 2013: $15: +150%
• silver early 2012: $28, early 2013: $30: +7%

There seems to be some other factors.

[ElectricMucus]

Some of the same factors that drive the price of bitcoin also drive the price of silver, so never is possible.

then how is this possible:

• bitcoin early 2012: $6, early 2013: $15: +150%
• silver early 2012: $28, early 2013: $30: +7%

There seems to be some other factors.

Like BTC being something new for example?
Novelty decays quickly, on the Internet faster than everywhere else. 

There is still some novelty left so Bitcoin surpassing silver is certainly possible, if it happen it will be sooner than later but that is far from certain.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Some of the same factors that drive the price of bitcoin also drive the price of silver, so never is possible.

then how is this possible:

• bitcoin early 2012: $6, early 2013: $15: +150%
• silver early 2012: $28, early 2013: $30: +7%

There seems to be some other factors.

Like BTC being something new for example?
Novelty decays quickly, on the Internet faster than everywhere else. 

There is still some novelty left so Bitcoin surpassing silver is certainly possible, if it happen it will be sooner than later but that is far from certain.

Some novelty?  Hell, most people have never heard about it.  I think network safety, wallet safety, governmental and banking acceptance and merchant adoption are currently way more important for bitcoin pricing than monetary inflation is.  (Although inflation avoidance is a mayor underlying cause of using bitcoin in the first place).

[ElectricMucus]

Some novelty?  Hell, most people have never heard about it.  I think network safety, wallet safety, governmental and banking acceptance and merchant adoption are currently way more important for bitcoin pricing than monetary inflation is.  (Although inflation avoidance is a mayor underlying cause of using bitcoin in the first place).

It's 4 years old.
HTML5 and google chrome are about 4 years old. HTML5 has much more adoption going for it but it's a standard not an application. Chrome is pretty much at market saturation.
I would place Bitcoin somewhere between those two in terms of novelty decay rate. It's got elements of both, it is neither just an application nor a standard and has elements of both.

Oh and I don't think Bitcoin has the potential for governmental & banking acceptance.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Some novelty?  Hell, most people have never heard about it.  I think network safety, wallet safety, governmental and banking acceptance and merchant adoption are currently way more important for bitcoin pricing than monetary inflation is.  (Although inflation avoidance is a mayor underlying cause of using bitcoin in the first place).

It's 4 years old.
HTML5 and google chrome are about 4 years old. HTML5 has much more adoption going for it but it's a standard not an application. Chrome is pretty much at market saturation.
I would place Bitcoin somewhere between those two in terms of novelty decay rate. It's got elements of both, it is neither just an application nor a standard and has elements of both.

Downloading and using google chrome doesn't put your savings at risk.  Buying a decent chunk of bitcoins does.  It's normal that one gets adopted faster than the other.  Furthermore, Chrome is 1 piece of software.  Bitcoin needs a network of miners, merchants, software, payment processors etc, and they rely on each other to become more useful.  Its a positive-feedback thing that needs to grow little by little (but exponentially).

Oh and I don't think Bitcoin has the potential for governmental & banking acceptance.

They don't need to accept it per se (although that would be awesome), just not attack it...

[ElectricMucus]

Downloading and using google chrome doesn't put your savings at risk.  Buying a decent chunk of bitcoins does.  It's normal that one gets adopted faster than the other.  Furthermore, Chrome is 1 piece of software.  Bitcoin needs a network of miners, merchants, software, payment processors etc, and they rely on each other to become more useful.  Its a positive-feedback thing that needs to grow little by little (but exponentially).

That's why I said it's somewhere between Chrome and HTML5.
HTML5 for example is destined to gain 100% adoption given time it will just take a while. With Bitcoin that isn't so easy.

In a sense Bitcoin has something of a product which given time will spark competition, it has a significant advantage because it is the first of it's kind but once saturation kicks in it won't grow anymore. Bitcoins potential is limited, I would say about as big as paypal is now, which is quite substantial. But it will not reach to the realm of major national currencies or get as important as credit cards.
The reason is that not so many people are at all interested in the concept of a limited currency base. In theory it could work for them even if they aren't into it, but in case of bitcoin there aren't any measures taken to make that a possibility.

You see in a sense the way Bitcoins are distributed, while providing a strong network effect also limits the amount of people willing to get into it. Like it or not, many people view the limited currency base coupled with exponentially decaying reward and eventual deflation not suiting their interests. These are the vast majority of people. Look around, outside the forum, talk to people in real life who have heard of bitcoin independently of you and you will discover how unpopular the concept really is.

Oh and I don't think Bitcoin has the potential for governmental & banking acceptance.

They don't need to accept it per se (although that would be awesome), just not attack it...

Oh I assumed you did.

They won't attack it, at least not legislative but if bitcoin gets big expect propaganda.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

In a sense Bitcoin has something of a product which given time will spark competition, it has a significant advantage because it is the first of it's kind but once saturation kicks in it won't grow anymore. Bitcoins potential is limited, I would say about as big as paypal is now, which is quite substantial. But it will not reach to the realm of major national currencies or get as important as credit cards.
The reason is that not so many people are at all interested in the concept of a limited currency base. In theory it could work for them even if they aren't into it, but in case of bitcoin there aren't any measures taken to make that a possibility.

I think golds market cap of 9 trillion argues against the limited interest in a limited currency base. I think bitcoin has an enormous potential.  Guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

EDIT: I remembered the numbers incorrectly.  The 9 trillion stands for the amount of gold traded in a year. (http://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-silver-series-investment-part-3)

[ElectricMucus]

I think golds market cap of 9 trillion argues against the limited interest in a limited currency base. I think bitcoin has an enormous potential.  Guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

I guess so.
Keep in mind that Gold has a bell shaped distribution curve while bitcoin has an arithmetic progression. This increases the network effect but limits the potential market share since people who would normally be on top of the bell shaped curve (the vast majority) will just get an minuscule amount.

[thoughtfan]

The reason is that not so many people are at all interested in the concept of a limited currency base. In theory it could work for them even if they aren't into it, but in case of bitcoin there aren't any measures taken to make that a possibility.

You see in a sense the way Bitcoins are distributed, while providing a strong network effect also limits the amount of people willing to get into it. Like it or not, many people view the limited currency base coupled with exponentially decaying reward and eventual deflation not suiting their interests. These are the vast majority of people. Look around, outside the forum, talk to people in real life who have heard of bitcoin independently of you and you will discover how unpopular the concept really is.

People, to the extent that they even think about the underlying principles of the currency they are using, may not, as is your experience, in theory like what Bitcoin represents.  But I really don't see that as a significant barrier for entry further down the line, especially not to the extent that it becomes the primary factor in preventing Bitcoin from getting bigger than Paypal.  The vast majority of eventual users I suspect won't care nor understand how and why it works as a currency but if their experience of it is that it is a more efficient means of exchange and better store of wealth than their local currency then only the hard core of the 'I won't participate because I refuse to support a system that goes against my values' will not jump on board.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Keep in mind that Gold has a bell shaped distribution curve while bitcoin has an arithmetic progression. This increases the network effect but limits the potential market share since people who would normally be on top of the bell shaped curve (the vast majority) will just get an minuscule amount.

Do you remember where you learned gold has bell shaped distribution? 
What exactly do you mean by arithmetic progression? 
How could you possibly know how bitcoins are distributed throughout the community?  (sorry if I sound harsh, I just want to know)

[ElectricMucus]

Keep in mind that Gold has a bell shaped distribution curve while bitcoin has an arithmetic progression. This increases the network effect but limits the potential market share since people who would normally be on top of the bell shaped curve (the vast majority) will just get an minuscule amount.

Do you remember where you learned gold has bell shaped distribution?  
What exactly do you mean by arithmetic progression?  
How could you possibly know how bitcoins are distributed throughout the community?  (sorry if I sound harsh, I just want to know)

I think it was researching peak oil, and learning that the law applies to all resources. (Oil, Gold, Silver, Uranium, etc...)


Your second question is more complicated: I don't know how exactly.
But they are initially issued by mining which follows a geometric progression. The next thing is it is more likely that Bitcoins are then transfered as a trade medium to other people who are using bitcoins during a similar time period. This means independently how exactly the distribution of all Bitcoin works the way they are issued by mining ultimately dictates how they are distributed.

[robamichael]

bitcoin is much more liquid, though.

try buying an ounce of silver and sell it again on the same day and see what's left. We even pay 7% (or 9%?) sales tax on silver in germany.

also: with bitcoin you can buy stuff

I still have a bet settlement outstanding where a friend has to buy me a t-shirt using 1oz silver coin. Looking forward to that experience.

Where is your friend?

For 1oz of silver, he can have the shirt off of my back right now.

[molecular]

bitcoin is much more liquid, though.

try buying an ounce of silver and sell it again on the same day and see what's left. We even pay 7% (or 9%?) sales tax on silver in germany.

also: with bitcoin you can buy stuff

I still have a bet settlement outstanding where a friend has to buy me a t-shirt using 1oz silver coin. Looking forward to that experience.

Where is your friend?

For 1oz of silver, he can have the shirt off of my back right now.

It has to be new and bought in a shop in Hamburg. Additionally I have to happen to like that particular Shirt.

[molecular]

We're getting kind of close with the recent smack-down in silver.

Silver (SLV): $29.76
Bitcoin (mtgox): $26.50

place bets it will happen this month if you like: http://bitbet.us/bet/224/bitcoin-and-silver-price-to-intersect-in-february/

[molecular]

it happened: 1 BTC was worth more than 1 ounce of Silver for some short periods around 20:30 UTC today.


(click for larger version) data from bitcoincharts.com and netdania.com. I think I got the scales correct.

option 1 "before march 1st 2013" is true. 12.3% of people guessed correctly.

[Chalkbot]

option 1 "before march 1st 2013" is true. 12.3% of people guessed correctly.

Well technically the first 3 options are correct, so 63.2% of people guessed correctly.

[molecular]

option 1 "before march 1st 2013" is true. 12.3% of people guessed correctly.

Well technically the first 3 options are correct, so 63.2% of people guessed correctly.

oh, that's true. I was lazy wording the poll.

So yeah, 63.2% where right and 19.46% of these had either very big balls or interpreted the poll as it was intended