Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 377 posts

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#341

Post by ppf »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #337
ppf wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked how is the Dai pegged to the dollar, and that is the answer.

Price feeds are the answer? The price feeds in question don't even track the price of Dai - so I am not even sure what mechanism you have thought up to explain to yourself how Maker works. If you are still having trouble understanding the system there is no shortage of resources available. Of course if you dismiss the resources because of an anti-cryptocurrency bias as you have then you will end up clueless since thi…

I've read the previous, very long, answer. Yes, it explains how the Maker system works, but it does not explain which parts constitute the Dai to USD peg. The price feeds track the price of Eth, which is used to set the price of Dai if automatic settlement is needed (something I learned from the resources you describe!). If that doesn't set the price of Dai, then what does? Are you suggesting it's an emergent behavior of the system as a whole?

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#342

Post by ppf »

askmike wrote: post #333
scott_s wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "compliance" issues? If you meant that the sum of money you send cannot trigger someone, somewhere to check to make sure the transaction is legit, and we're assuming a transfer from a "normal" bank to another, then I would guess on the order of $10,000. But companies and organizations routinely transfer millions and billions between normal banks. Yes, the transactions may cause someone or many som…

What does OP mean with "liquidity issues"? Lightning is a routing network, and you can connect directly to your counterparty, circumventing all potential liquidity issues. > But companies and organizations routinely transfer millions and billions between normal banks Just like companies have direct lightning channels between each other, they can send billions of they please.

You're being disingenuous. A channel needs to be already funded before a transaction can happen, with an amount at least the size of the transaction. So, to transfer billions, you need billions more to first fund the channel. A quick search shows that most channels currently have less than $100 in them, limiting how much you can send without prior arrangement.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#343

Post by arcticbull »

alwillis wrote: post #308
arcticbull wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LN requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel and another to close a channel which means it'll take 70 years to open a channel for everyone on earth and then close it once, assuming the blockchain does nothing else. If an intermediate node loses power all your channel money is locked for over 48 hours. It's also not even Bitcoin and could work just as well with any other cryptocurrency or probably even dollar…

There's a lot of FUD here. It's kind of a straw man to talk about opening LN channels for 7.5 billion people, as if that's something to be concerned about today. Not every man, woman and child has a cell phone or computer right now, so that's not really a concern in 2019. Dispute resolution is built into the protocol: it's a two-way channel; both parties have to agree that the transaction in question took place and e…

> You don't need chargeback if you can claim your money and close the channel if thing you want to happen isn't happening, right?

And if the other person disagrees? Crypto falls down at the boundary between humans and the Blockchain every time.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#344

Post by ppf »

Legogris wrote: post #218
ppf wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain how it's pegged to the dollar.

It is laid out pretty well in the link you got how it is not pegged to the US dollar (which I don't think anyone claimed either).

>You can send a stablecoin if you have a problem with volatility

Yes, they did. I'm aware that Dai is not well pegged to the dollar, but then I'm not a crypto-fan.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#345

Post by ravingraven »

wpietri wrote: post #72
ravingraven wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that would be stupid from your part if you kept wealth that should be inherited in Bitcoin-form, not a Bitcoin shortcoming. Just like it is not a shortcoming of cash that you can bury it in a hole in the desert and tell no one about it and expect it to be inheritable.

Thinking you will know the day and hour of your death is extremely bad estate planning. Any wealth is potentially inheritable, because you can die at any time. (And yes, that is a shortcoming of cash. Which is why we've invented other ways to store value, and approximately nobody stores their money in random holes on other people's property.)

>Thinking you will know the day and hour of your death is extremely bad estate planning.

I never claimed the contrary.

The prudent thing to do is to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose: electronic cash. Convert from fiat to crypto as needed, not as a store of value.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#346

Post by ForHackernews »

gkfasdfasdf wrote: post #238
ForHackernews wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sends it to earth in the form of coin You realize this doesn't actually transfer any energy, right? Assuming you're not joking, all you've done is calculate the world's most expensive sha256.

I was serious about that part - computing the hash requires energy, which is acquired in space instead of on land. By using the energy right there in space and shipping the final product (the hash) you don't have to transfer the energy which you would have needed to make the computation on land.

I mean...doesn't that kind of presuppose you have to make the computation to begin with? It feels like circular reasoning to me.

You could also just...not compute trillions of random sha256 hashes.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#347

Post by Legogris »

ppf wrote: post #344
Legogris wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is laid out pretty well in the link you got how it is not pegged to the US dollar (which I don't think anyone claimed either).

>You can send a stablecoin if you have a problem with volatility Yes, they did. I'm aware that Dai is not well pegged to the dollar, but then I'm not a crypto-fan.

"Stablecoin" != "hard peg to USD"

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#348

Post by scottlocklin »

bart_spoon wrote: post #92
scottlocklin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as in the author making baseless assertions about something they very obviously know nothing about.

High frequency trader, I presume?

No, never did it for a living (did consult for some over the years) and this sort of ad hominem nonsense pointed towards people who know what they're talking about is why we can't have nice things.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#349

Post by ppf »

Legogris wrote: post #347
ppf wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can send a stablecoin if you have a problem with volatility Yes, they did. I'm aware that Dai is not well pegged to the dollar, but then I'm not a crypto-fan.

"Stablecoin" != "hard peg to USD"

I'm fully aware of that. What I would like to know is the mechanism that links Dai in any way to USD. So far, I've been told the onus on me is to research it, and then that my conclusions from that research are wrong.

Re: Lone Bitcoin Whale Likely Fueled 2017 Price Surge, Study Says

#350

Post by Legogris »

ppf wrote: post #349
Legogris wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stablecoin" != "hard peg to USD"

I'm fully aware of that. What I would like to know is the mechanism that links Dai in any way to USD. So far, I've been told the onus on me is to research it, and then that my conclusions from that research are wrong.

If you spent as much time reading and internalizing the whitepaper as you did arguing about it online you'd be there already. I know I'm being snarky, but you're coming of as trollier and trollier. This is not Reddit.
Post reply on HN