51–60 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? HFT generally provides liquidity and is arguably a good thing, for people wanting to execute infrequent trades, on otherwise thin volume markets.
Not saying all firms do this, but I immediately thought of malicious tactics like spoofing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a trade limit of one bitcoin, which is generally too small to attract criminals (though this limit may be lifted in the future). I feel like technologists consistently overestimate where the lower bound is for size of an opportunity which causes it to attract adversarial attention, given an adversary who understands e.g. specialization of labor or, more prosaically, how for loops work.
Indeed. One bitcoin was over $3k about 5 weeks ago, and is still over $2k today. Scam someone for half a bitcoin twice a week and that's over $100k a year at current value.
Just finished watching their video and got nothing other than "Read our white paper if you're interested", plus bunch of buzzwords. Why make the video at all? If I were them I would scrap all the bullshit and just spend the two minutes in the video explaining the basics of WHY and HOW it works. People visiting that site already know what a "decentralized bitcoin exchange" is.
Fiat transfer systems are typically unreliable. They can be intercepted, halted, delayed, reversed, and generally cannot be considered objectively predictable, with a wide variety of unique and nontrivial failure modes - not all of which are recoverable - and no objective SLA / service description. The problem with assuming good faith and using actor reputation (even third-party arbitrated) is that, in becoming a tru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found their proposed mechanism for handling settlement finality, outlined in their faq, https://bitsquare.io/faq/ . The escrow for bitcoin is a 2 of 3 multi-party contract. What happens if the person buying bitcoin does a chargeback on their national currency after the bitcoin has been released from the multisig escrow? We only support payment methods in which chargebacks are not easy (i.e. we don’t support Paypal)…
There is a trade limit of one bitcoin, which is generally too small to attract criminals (though this limit may be lifted in the future). I feel like technologists consistently overestimate where the lower bound is for size of an opportunity which causes it to attract adversarial attention, given an adversary who understands e.g. specialization of labor or, more prosaically, how for loops work.
Anyone who has run an online business that moves money can tell you that fraudsters are ever-probing for that weak spot and, if it is there, they will find it.
There is too much "generally" and "might" in their risk mitigation here, such that their primary line of defense really boils down to hope. Meanwhile, they've managed to create limitations that may well infringe on legitimate activity.
They really need to re-think this problem or they'll have their hats handed to them in short order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a trade limit of one bitcoin, which is generally too small to attract criminals (though this limit may be lifted in the future). I feel like technologists consistently overestimate where the lower bound is for size of an opportunity which causes it to attract adversarial attention, given an adversary who understands e.g. specialization of labor or, more prosaically, how for loops work.
Indeed. One bitcoin was over $3k about 5 weeks ago, and is still over $2k today. Scam someone for half a bitcoin twice a week and that's over $100k a year at current value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a trade limit of one bitcoin, which is generally too small to attract criminals (though this limit may be lifted in the future). I feel like technologists consistently overestimate where the lower bound is for size of an opportunity which causes it to attract adversarial attention, given an adversary who understands e.g. specialization of labor or, more prosaically, how for loops work.
Exactly. The assumption is that would-be fraudsters would neatly obey other rules/norms, such as opening one account tied to one legitimate funding source. Anyone who has run an online business that moves money can tell you that fraudsters are ever-probing for that weak spot and, if it is there, they will find it. There is too much "generally" and "might" in their risk mitigation here, such that their primary line of…
Just finished watching their video and got nothing other than "Read our white paper if you're interested", plus bunch of buzzwords. Why make the video at all? If I were them I would scrap all the bullshit and just spend the two minutes in the video explaining the basics of WHY and HOW it works. People visiting that site already know what a "decentralized bitcoin exchange" is.
Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be decentralized in the first place? What's a "decentralized" decentralized currency, anyway?
Just finished watching their video and got nothing other than "Read our white paper if you're interested", plus bunch of buzzwords. Why make the video at all? If I were them I would scrap all the bullshit and just spend the two minutes in the video explaining the basics of WHY and HOW it works. People visiting that site already know what a "decentralized bitcoin exchange" is.
Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be decentralized in the first place? What's a "decentralized" decentralized currency, anyway?
Bitcoin is decentralised, but one can choose to trade it for dollars, et al., at e.g. Bitstamp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found their proposed mechanism for handling settlement finality, outlined in their faq, https://bitsquare.io/faq/ . The escrow for bitcoin is a 2 of 3 multi-party contract. What happens if the person buying bitcoin does a chargeback on their national currency after the bitcoin has been released from the multisig escrow? We only support payment methods in which chargebacks are not easy (i.e. we don’t support Paypal)…
There is a trade limit of one bitcoin, which is generally too small to attract criminals (though this limit may be lifted in the future). I feel like technologists consistently overestimate where the lower bound is for size of an opportunity which causes it to attract adversarial attention, given an adversary who understands e.g. specialization of labor or, more prosaically, how for loops work.