Topic: $10,000 Bet that Bitcoins will outperform Gold, Silver by 100X !!! (Read 20618 times)

Remind me to kick your Kung Fu ass, for this derails my goal of being the first person instrumental in accomplishing the largest charitable Bitcoin donation ever with the exact same amount via Typhoon Haiyan Relief Fund. But, never fear, for I'll still be able to accomplish said task by not only exceeding a $1M USD lump sum donation transfer via BitPay, it'll be the first Bitcoin only charitable crowdfunding effort to date.

No way am I taking time off from my RL venture--procuring and selling barn wood--to travel to Las Vegas to accomplish the task during the Inside Bitcoins (West) conference in vain after I finish up here at Thanksgiving at Satoshi Forest. I'll just need a proverbial ace up my sleeve, then act fast and furious (hint).

Too bad you didn't use Bets of Bitcoin, then there could've been a chance you wouldn't have had to honor your bet.  

This post was penned as a reply to Bitcoin Jesus from TMIBTCITW.

Mandatory good guy Roger Ver meme:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1rsndl/good_guy_roger_ver/

You are great Roger. Did everything right, again. Thank you.

Bump for the conclusion.
The largest charitable Bitcoin donation ever.
1,000 BTC worth over $1,000,000 USD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orzhba2dV1A

Thanx for the summary. I can remember that I was bullish like he was back then and found it quite likely the $1000 would come anywhere in these two years. Clearly anybody who would have taken the bet would have made clear what would trigger a win/loss with extreme caution.

Exactly two years ago, on August 4, 2011, Roger Ver promised to pay $10000 to anyone who would challenge his predictions: that bitcoins will outperform gold, silver by 100X over the next two years .

On August 04, 2011 the price of gold was $1,664.25, silver $41.62 and bitcoin $9.26.

He himself said, that bitcoin should have reached $1000 a coin for him to win the bet. Others explained, that If either silver or gold is up no more than, for example, 1 % and Bitcoins are up 100 % (to ~5.4 BTC/USD), anyone betting against Roger Ver will lose $10,000.

One has to admit that stipulations for the bet were unclear. So long as Roger Ver would find some point within the 2 year span where his predictions hold true - he would have won. Or should the bet's outcome be evaluated exactly on the final day, i.e today?

Let's see the results.

Gold hit an all-time high in September 2011 when it touched $1,921 per troy ounce.
In late April 2011, silver reached an all-time high of $49.76/ozt.
On 10 April, the bitcoin exchange rate reached maximum $266.

Gold's maximum gain during 2 year span was 1921/1664.25=1.154;
silver gained 49.76/41.62=1.196;
bitcoin gained 266/9.26=28.73.

So, bitcoin outperformed gold by factor 28.73/1.154=24.9 and bitcoin outperformed silver by factor 28.73/1.196=24.0. Not by factor 100, as Roger Ver had predicted.

Bitcoin did not reach $1000 as Roger had envisaged himself.

On the other hand ... if we look at today's prices, then we see that prices of gold and silver have decreased compared to prices two years ago. Bitcoin instead has increased in price more than tenfold. In this respect Roger Ver would have won the bet.

Unfortunately nobody challenged him.

Roger said that Bitcoin would outperform the US dollar by a factor of at least 100.  I think that has to mean that (value of dollar / value of bitcoin) must increase by at least 100.  Your definition doesn't make much sense, since it's always either zero or infinite (positive or negative).

I guess it doesn't matter that the terms are fuzzy since it appears Roger hasn't accepted any of the offers to bet against him anyway.

That's wrong. USD's performance measure against itself is 0% gain. 100 times 0% is still 0%. So as long as bitcoin price goes up, it outperforms USD by greater than 100x.

But for Roger to win Bitcoin also needs to outperform the US dollar by 100x.

Since the US dollar is always worth 1 US dollar, that means Bitcoin needs to go to 100 times its price at the start of the bet.  That was $9.26, so for Roger to win BTC needs to go to $926.

I never doubted that Roger was right, I just didn't think other people would figure it out this quickly.

Good job to those who did. It looks like his timeframe wasn't too aggressive after all!

Bitcoin outperformed all my "maths". Just three months ago I was willing to make a bet that the total value of all BTC would get to $1 billion USD in 18 months. I was wrong - It  happened in 2. Seems like op's claim might also be possible. Time will tell.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bykin/why_bitcoin_is_still_ridiculously_cheap_logic/
This guy says the truth.
Definitely bitcoin is more worth than PayPal.
Even if we do not consider the investiture value of bitcoin just the buying and money transfer value it is more worth.

Very long term? Bitcoin has, currently, out-performed the S&P 500 by a factor of 72.

From this article:


Bitcoin is, as of this writing, trading at $202 per bitcoin. The S&P 500 is at 1,563.07. That means bitcoin has had a 2,170% return until now. Compared to the S&P 500 return of 30%. So bitcoin has gained 71.7x more than the S&P 500.

If bitcoin goes to $282 and the S&P 500 stays the same, bitcoin will have out-performed the S&P 500 by 100x.

I think Roger will make it.

I think as a very long-term outcome, this could be possible.  However, I think many generations of people will only trust fiat currency for the rest of their lifetimes, and that's the only thing that will be propping up fiat currencies versus bitcoin and hard assets.  When it comes to things like communication, those set in their ways will eventually change them out of necessity, but money is a much harder battle to fight.  You probably don't lose sleep at night over whether your emails are safe, but if you have $100,000 in bitcoin, it might be a little harder to.

This is a nice thing, wish you good luck!

I submitted a challenge in September 2011. Obviously, it wasn't accepted. Roger is just marketing -- though I commend him for a job well done.

How can you be hedged against bitcoin not rising more than 100x the DOW (which is what will determine it)?

From my inbox:


Did you not get an email or anything?

Bitcoin has doubled 4 times times since the prediction, if it does it again in the next four months I lose the bet. Yes the period is 80% over, but bitcoin is 80% of the way there. If I wanted to screw Roger, I could have taken the bet when bitcoin was $2 and the odds were really in my favour. At the very least it's going to get interesting. Signing up I felt like I was taking the Kamikaze side of the bet given the trajectory of bitcoin in the last month.

Long bets is pretty adamant about being a platform for debate rather than gambling; and there's the rub.  I totally understand if Roger wants to decline the challenge as I (a holder of BTC) am not in fundamental disagreement with the premise. I am not going to put a long screed next to Roger's saying bitcoin is worthless and will go to zero. I am hedged, but Roger is not. Your call Roger, I'm easy either way.

[For the posters above, the money goes to charity either way, not to us.]

Your math is correct and boils down to leveraging the assets he's betting against. I'm surprised no one is being careful of what you are saying. This is probably the best/safest free money ever.

Why? There is a good chance you are going to win.