61–70 of 105 posts
I really wish that HN had a rule where it would be mandatory for commenters to disclose their holdings in any cryptocurrency threads. This would make it easier to flag comments that look like they're just pumping a coin to improve its search engine status. If you're praising Bitcoin, EOS, IOTA or whatever FooBarToken, please add a short note at the end to explain what you stand to gain. Either: "I'm long IOTA", or "I…
Reading this article made me wonder - how much of the bitcoin rally is due to counterparty risks? If I remember correctly the last ramp up happened during Mt. Gox era. They were having USD withdrawal issues which resulted in BTC prices being very high on the exchange. But it din't deter them from publishing prices and making markets. Now is the case of Bitfinex suffered from a hack like Mt. Gox and are trying to stay…
That doesn't sound right at all. MtGox was huge, controlled most of the market. Bitfinex is way way smaller, percentage-wise.
But more importantly, Bitfinex doesn't lead the price.
LOL Even better than a Ponzi Scheme, let's just sell "shares" of this "company" (which by the way has a paper value of a very round and big ZERO) for cash Toilet paper provides better value Oh wait, he "buys low and sells high", that explains it.
Shares in a company entitle you to a piece of that company, they can profit share with dividends, enable you the right to vote in corporate matters. If the company were to go bankrupt you also get money from the liquidation.
What does your ICO give you?
Reading this article made me wonder - how much of the bitcoin rally is due to counterparty risks? If I remember correctly the last ramp up happened during Mt. Gox era. They were having USD withdrawal issues which resulted in BTC prices being very high on the exchange. But it din't deter them from publishing prices and making markets. Now is the case of Bitfinex suffered from a hack like Mt. Gox and are trying to stay…
I am not sure I follow. Counterparty risk should push the price down, not up. This thing is not worth as much because there is a significant risk your investment may go away because of a bug or a mistake.
Add to the fact that, increased risks means people want more out of their BTC. So, if x is a fair price in other exchange, they want x + y% for the same BTC on exchange with issues.
Some of these people become aware of withdrawal issues later or buy some other crypto currency, move to another exchange to cash out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were no hardware wallets in the days of MtGox, which meant that it was extremely hard to secure Bitcoins. It got easier since then, and many people learned from MtGox (though many people haven't). Also companies take bigger care of securing their cold wallets. I would never recommend BitFinex to anyone though (GDAX and BitStamp have VC money / long history)
No hardware wallets? I thought pen and paper were invented a long time ago.
Your threat model almost certainly is one in which writing down a strongly-generated password is much more secure than anything else, if you take efforts to secure the written copy.
I feel like passwords are some kind of magical Wild West of crypto, where everyone has rolled their own and the "best practice" recommendations are often nonsense that ignores threat modeling and I'm just taking crazy pills for thinking we should treat it like other kinds of crypto where users only apply standard methods with verified entropy generation.
Reading this article made me wonder - how much of the bitcoin rally is due to counterparty risks? If I remember correctly the last ramp up happened during Mt. Gox era. They were having USD withdrawal issues which resulted in BTC prices being very high on the exchange. But it din't deter them from publishing prices and making markets. Now is the case of Bitfinex suffered from a hack like Mt. Gox and are trying to stay…
> Now is the case of Bitfinex suffered from a hack like Mt. Gox and are trying to stay afloat. They were hacked few years ago.
I really wish that HN had a rule where it would be mandatory for commenters to disclose their holdings in any cryptocurrency threads. This would make it easier to flag comments that look like they're just pumping a coin to improve its search engine status. If you're praising Bitcoin, EOS, IOTA or whatever FooBarToken, please add a short note at the end to explain what you stand to gain. Either: "I'm long IOTA", or "I…
(I own BTC enough to buy a nintendo game)
I really wish that HN had a rule where it would be mandatory for commenters to disclose their holdings in any cryptocurrency threads. This would make it easier to flag comments that look like they're just pumping a coin to improve its search engine status. If you're praising Bitcoin, EOS, IOTA or whatever FooBarToken, please add a short note at the end to explain what you stand to gain. Either: "I'm long IOTA", or "I…
It's not unreasonable to ask but it's completely unreasonable to expect that anyone pumping a coin on HN would have even the slightest inclination to be truthful about their position.
1) For the pumper poster, it makes them more conscious of the lie. Promoting a coin and forgetting to mention your holdings feels like a little white lie of omission. Actively lying about your holdings feels like deceit.
2) For the reader, it’s an important reminder that a seemingly objective technical-looking comment can be motivated by greed.
I really wish that HN had a rule where it would be mandatory for commenters to disclose their holdings in any cryptocurrency threads. This would make it easier to flag comments that look like they're just pumping a coin to improve its search engine status. If you're praising Bitcoin, EOS, IOTA or whatever FooBarToken, please add a short note at the end to explain what you stand to gain. Either: "I'm long IOTA", or "I…
Are people without coins barred from participating?