The biggest bank of the Netherlands is holding an account of Tether. Do you think they are holding billions of fraudulent money without doing due diligence?
Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
351–360 of 400 posts
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#352Today Matt Levine talks about this paper in his daily column: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-13/judge-rul... "of these two explanations— 1) Bitcoin’s rapid and sustained rise is due to the fact that it satisfies a real economic need in an elegant way, and people have responded to that; or 2) Bitcoin’s rapid and sustained rise is due to a magical fountain of fake dollars that everyone just decided to…
they do not have any proof. anyone can say anything they like. Tether system cannot keep a value peg without having the reserves and the biggest bank of NL holds an account for them. I think it's time to get suspicious of these articles in times when people can short. I would short for sure before I posted this article online. Easy money, makes me the manipulator though.
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ETH/ETC fork essentially reversed a month old transaction. It's not Bitcoin, but they still have a 1/2 marketcap. If the value comes from irreversibility, their marketcap should be almost 0. [Moreover, ETC is the irreversible chain and the value is 1/30 of the value of ETH.]
First of all, both ETH and ETC are irreversible. If someone tried to reverse something on the ETH or ETC chain, there would be another fork and there would be 3 Ethereum chains. Also, the ETH/ETC fork did not technically reverse anything. The fork allowed the inclusion of an "irregular" transaction that moved funds from the DAO account to a "Withdraw" account.
I know, but why I useful an immutable log if nobody looks at it?
They used a magic fork to create the irregular transaction. They could have removed the original transaction and use the magic to declare the intermediate has valid. (I've seen this "solution" in discussions about what to do if someone puts illegal content in the blockchain.)
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#354wall streeters are liars, opinionated and biased bunch, if there was any manipulation in unregulated crypto markets because they were nascent shouldn't surprise you, why? ponder upon the following:
home prices were not artificially inflated during 2008 crisis
usd or other fiat currencies are not artificially inflated (hint: negative interest rates)
stock buybacks are not artificially inflating stock prices
negative interest rates and bond buyback programs are not inflating economies
hedge funds are not inflated, they just market themselves with buzz words like quant investing, alpha etc. yet most of them can't beat S&P and charge 2-20
business of banks are not inflated, they use 50 year old technology like mainframes and are overstaffed and charge $50 to wire $10 internationally
tech companies are not inflated, they sell your freaking data and sell you ads so that you can buy $hit you don't need
---- where there are humans involved, there will be greed
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creating billions of dollars’ worth of value with a ridiculous perpetual-motion fake-dollar-printing machine is a real innovation. Creating money by printing is not a new thing. Making people believe that the money you've created with whatever hocus-pocus is real and that investment X will just spew money indefinitely is not at all a new thing. It is one very standard old thing. That by itself doesn't prove bitcoin i…
Indeed, a cynic would say Bitfinex were just copying the Fed's QE. Creating tether out of nothing to buy bitcoin is similar to the Fed creating dollars by QE to prop up asset prices.
> Creating tether out of nothing to buy bitcoin is similar to the Fed creating dollars by QE to prop up asset prices.
Sure... if the Fed claimed some secret mega-investor was bankrolling it all, and that of course there are audits but uh they're not finished yet and we fired the auditor but this random guy says he saw our bank account balance so it's all OK...
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 95% of money in use is created by the private banks themselves Through a highly-regulated process. We haven't had a bank run on regulated deposits since the FDIC came into being.
Have you never been to an ATM that has run out of cash? You can't make a run on the banks any more. They'll just tell you, sorry, they've run out of cash. You'll still be able to pay your bills and taxes using legal tender, though (bank dollars). I've already told you the fact that 95% of money doesn't exist outside of the private banking system. What kind of regulation do you think is stopping everyone from wanting…
> What kind of regulation do you think is stopping everyone from wanting to get paper money for their entire life savings?
That's missing the point.
The point of regulation is building a society where you don't need to do that. A bank collapse no longer means you lose your money - the FDIC insures a good-sized chunk, and the Feds come in and take over operations temporarily. Bank runs are prevented not by having enough paper money on hand, but by making people feel confident in the entire system - that your money will be there when you need it.
Fascinating read on how relatively seamless this now is: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102384...
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad it isn't also loose change in terms of global energy use :(
Agreed. What a waste.
I don't like sports. Why do these cities keep spending all this money and resources on sports arenas when there are homeless people? There is no value to me. What a waste.
Or I can realize my interests are a very small subset of human interests.
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#358NYTimes, Washington Post, NPR, all have turned into propaganda outlets.
Seriously, listening and reading these things makes you less creative and more misinformed. And they are spamming HN. Please block these sites.
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
while the supply of digital coins is infinite (you could fork btc, or any other chain, or create different coins that could then be forked) the supply of Bitcoins is finite & knowable. this is a component of the argument by "maximalists" who suggest that alternate coins/tokens are bullshit by design, and anybody who thinks they aren't is necessarily in favor of inflationary money. > Objects in the real world have uti…
while the supply of digital coins is infinite (you could fork btc, or any other chain, or create different coins that could then be forked) This is bull. It's not zero cost to fork a cryptocurrency. It's not zero cost to mine. The supply of a digital good might well be very large. However, it will most certainly be finite.
You could fork the cryptocurrency and let miners decide their reward.
Then you're limited to "What's the biggest number that a miner can name in the finite amount of memory available?", which has the ultimate limit of a Busy Beaver function.
BB(n) for n > 1500 behaves like an infinity in many important ways.
Re: Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
while the supply of digital coins is infinite (you could fork btc, or any other chain, or create different coins that could then be forked) This is bull. It's not zero cost to fork a cryptocurrency. It's not zero cost to mine. The supply of a digital good might well be very large. However, it will most certainly be finite.
You could fork the cryptocurrency and let miners decide their reward. Then you're limited to "What's the biggest number that a miner can name in the finite amount of memory available?", which has the ultimate limit of a Busy Beaver function. BB(n) for n > 1500 behaves like an infinity in many important ways.
Then you're limited to "What's the biggest number that a miner can name in the finite amount of memory available?"
Then just apply my original argument. It's not zero cost to mine. It's not zero cost to fork. The supply of cryptocurrency will be very large, but it will be so many x orders of magnitude smaller than BB(kerjillion), that x itself might be larger than the number of every cryptocoin ever made and every cryptocoin that ever will be made.
The useful thinking is about the computational limits of our current civilization, not infinities or redonkulous numbers.