what if bitcoin was as common as gold

[HeavyMetal]

It is a bit difficult to compare something that has been money for 6000 years to something that has been money for 3 years.

[ElectricMucus]

But only with bitcoin can you eliminate counterparty risk.

That is a fallacy, you can use the same technology used in bitcoin to facilitate the virtual transfer of gold atoms but you still can get scammed when buying something with bitcoins by the other party. I would even consider the trustless structure of bitcoin one of it's greatest weaknesses.

I mean 3rd party... no matter what you are trading with you have to trust the other person you are doing business with.

In detail in order to use bitcoin you have to use it in an environment which can provide you with some trust structure, be it the forums, btc-otc, silkroad, etc..
I still consider it somewhat likely that some day some web-of-trust structure will be available from within the blockchain, that's why I am still longterm bullish on it, but until that issue is solved I merely think of price increases as an investment bubble. And besides some daytrading I don't have any personal use for it. I am considering doing something about this issue but I am not that of a programmer... (No I won't hire you either )

There are plenty of other trust structures (such as the ones you listed), no need to bloat the blockchain.  Besides, if you centralize the trust structure with an "official" version you open it up to gaming on a scale that can't happen with decentralized trust mechanisms.

I don't want to work on this project, but even if you could pay my weight in bitcoin I don't have the time.

It seems we have different opinions on what centralization and bloat means. Or you could just be in denial about the issue seeking the easy way out of the argument...

Either way was nice talking to you

[ElectricMucus]

It is a bit difficult to compare something that has been money for 6000 years to something that has been money for 3 years.

psst don't do that, somebody who has invested all his wealth into a highly speculative asset is in denial about this fact.
And to circle-jerk about it was the whole point of this thread.

Oh don't mind ulta-bulls...... I'm just teasing you

[BlackBison]

It is a bit difficult to compare something that has been money for 6000 years to something that has been money for 3 years.

Yea well I am sure it was a bit difficult in 1885 (give or take a few years, no trolling please nubs) to compare something that had been transport for 6000 years (horses) to something that had been transport for 3 years (automobiles) 

[ElectricMucus]

It is a bit difficult to compare something that has been money for 6000 years to something that has been money for 3 years.

Yea well I am sure it was a bit difficult in 1885 (give or take a few years, no trolling please nubs) to compare something that had been transport for 6000 years (horses) to something that had been transport for 3 years (automobiles) 

That's also why shoes are way overrated. 

[HeavyMetal]

It is a bit difficult to compare something that has been money for 6000 years to something that has been money for 3 years.

Yea well I am sure it was a bit difficult in 1885 (give or take a few years, no trolling please nubs) to compare something that had been transport for 6000 years (horses) to something that had been transport for 3 years (automobiles) 

How you seen the cost of horses lately?

[molecular]

I think another interesting ratio is # ounces gold / # btc

Which is 5,079,817,925 / 21,000,000 ~= 241

That is, BTC should be worth 241 ounces of gold if we assume parity in terms of utility.

With gold at $1571, that's 241 * $1571 ~= $378K per BTC

and with bitcoin at $11.42, if we went to $378K, that would be a gain of 33,000 times your investment, or about a 3 million percent gain.

LOL

Parity with gold is a completely unrealistic assumption. Bitcoin is as least ten times better than gold.  It should be worth, at a minimum, $3.8 million per BTC.

If you're saying bitcoin is ten times better than gold, how come you suddenly compare to $? Why not say 1 BTC = 10 oz gold?

[molecular]

Playing devils advocate here, you people forget golds 6000 year track record. That means alot and is the main reason it is viewed as valuable.
So I doubt BTC would even reach gold parity within our lifetime. (That would be 1BTC == 1OZ gold) the next two decades.

Once you can give BTC to your grandchildren you can think about gold parity and beyond. But first it has to stick around some time to be recognized.

I'd say at most 3 generations (75 years), so even peoples grandmas will have grown up with bitcoin.

That's an upper bound and yes, I'm taking bets on this (BTC-denominated)

It could go quicker due to bitcoins higher usability.

[molecular]

But only with bitcoin can you eliminate counterparty risk.

That is a fallacy, you can use the same technology used in bitcoin to facilitate the virtual transfer of gold atoms

No you can't without involving counterparty risk (to a third party): You could use a bitcoin-like system to track ownership of some (existing or non-exisiting) gold. But that would introduce counterparty risk. There would need to be a place to claim the gold run by some guy everyone would have to trust.

Owning the keys to some bitcoin is indeed equivalent to owning physical gold. No counterparty risk.

but you still can get scammed when buying something with bitcoins by the other party. I would even consider the trustless structure of bitcoin one of it's greatest weaknesses.

You can get scammed on the "delivery of the goods"-side of the transaction, not the bitcoin-side of it.

In detail in order to use bitcoin you have to use it in an environment which can provide you with some trust structure, be it the forums, btc-otc, silkroad, etc..

I still consider it somewhat likely that some day some web-of-trust structure will be available from within the blockchain,

I consider this unlikely. This would require introducing some sort of system for identification which would weaken the privacy aspects. There would be tremendous resistance by large groups.

that's why I am still longterm bullish on it, but until that issue is solved I merely think of price increases as an investment bubble. And besides some daytrading I don't have any personal use for it. I am considering doing something about this issue but I am not that of a programmer... (No I won't hire you either )

As I guesstimated in another thread, only 0.25 USD/BTC of value stem from bitcoins actual use for transactional purposes. The rest is store-of-wealth and speculation.

I have no personal use for the gold-coin I have, not even daytrading. Only thing I do is admire it from time to time. Yet I'm not bearish on gold.

[ElectricMucus]

@molecular I'd create a thread on the subject sometime, once I have the motivation to write it down. (I think a blockchain based wot is possible without sacrificing privacy there have been threads on that already but lets see.)

Otherwise:
The way I see it what you describe as the elimination of counterparty risk is not worth anything as long it doesn't apply to the whole system. In detail bitcoin isn't a closed system.
If it your statement were correct, all bitcoins would be some tokens we can send to each other for no reason. Then there would be indeed no counterparty risk.

But since we want something in return it's not that easy.
What bitcoin actually does is shifting the counterparty risk entirely to one party, which is worse for a open system perspective because there is zero trust required for receiving bitcoins but complete trust required for sending them (or actually buying something with them).

[notme]

@molecular I'd create a thread on the subject sometime, once I have the motivation to write it down. (I think a blockchain based wot is possible without sacrificing privacy there have been threads on that already but lets see.)

Otherwise:
The way I see it what you describe as the elimination of counterparty risk is not worth anything as long it doesn't apply to the whole system. In detail bitcoin isn't a closed system.
If it your statement were correct, all bitcoins would be some tokens we can send to each other for no reason. Then there would be indeed no counterparty risk.

But since we want something in return it's not that easy.
What bitcoin actually does is shifting the counterparty risk entirely to one party, which is worse for a open system perspective because there is zero trust required for receiving bitcoins but complete trust required for sending them (or actually buying something with them).

Even so, trust in one other party is better than having to trust two other parties.

[ElectricMucus]

It's trusting each other that counts

[molecular]

@molecular I'd create a thread on the subject sometime, once I have the motivation to write it down. (I think a blockchain based wot is possible without sacrificing privacy there have been threads on that already but lets see.)

Otherwise:
The way I see it what you describe as the elimination of counterparty risk is not worth anything as long it doesn't apply to the whole system. In detail bitcoin isn't a closed system.
If it your statement were correct, all bitcoins would be some tokens we can send to each other for no reason. Then there would be indeed no counterparty risk.

But since we want something in return it's not that easy.
What bitcoin actually does is shifting the counterparty risk entirely to one party, which is worse for a open system perspective because there is zero trust required for receiving bitcoins but complete trust required for sending them (or actually buying something with them).

I misunderstood you before: I thought you had argued that one would have no counterparty risk both with bitcoin and with a hypothetical system transferring ownership of gold.

I don't think I argued elimination of counterparty risk, did I? I argued one could own and transfer bitcoin without counterparty risk (which you seem to agree with) and I acknowledged that the "delivery"-part of the transaction would have to involve trust.

So I don't think our views differ regarding counterparty risk.

While I think using external trust systems is sufficient and escrow effectively distributes risk to both parties, I'd still be interested to see your idea of a web of trust inside the blockchain. Be sure to let me know when you get
around to describing that.

[ElectricMucus]

noted