Live data from Hacker News

If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

wsj.com

131–140 of 184 posts

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a hard time believe its anything other than market makers providing the illusion of trades Can you elaborate? I'm guessing you mean whales? Also, how is this any better or different for that matter, for the most stock exchanges like NYSE when most of it is Algo based bit trading? Bitcoin definitely suffers from volatility, how much you can attribute that to large holders (whales) is incredibly difficult; con…

Market Maker is a well defined term, see my comment below. . I believe that he was not aware that reputable crypto exchanges don't pay market makers.

Marke_t_ Maker?

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#132

Tried to buy some on Coinbase the other day, said it would take 5 days to show up in my account. Doesn't inspire confidence in me.

That has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol, rather it's a "security" measure by Coinbase.

A typical Bitcoin transaction, even with minimum fees, confirms in under an hour.

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market Maker is a well defined term, see my comment below. . I believe that he was not aware that reputable crypto exchanges don't pay market makers.

Marke_t_ Maker?

fixed, thanks

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#135
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LN has some fundamental issues with regards to security that I don't have time to go into there. However any L2 protocol based on BTC is going to have a hard time getting bootstrapped for the simple reason that there isn't enough throughout in the mainnet to transfer a sufficient amount of balance to a second layer. With the UTXO pool fragmented as is I don't think there is much hope of improvement.

What is the alternative, wait until 500MB blocks are feasible for both blockchain storage and PoS bandwidth?

They pretty much are.

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than 90% of Bitcoin volume is fake, there is no question about that. However, if you believe Binance's figures then these figures alone are sufficient to support Bitcoin's current market cap in the sense that its volume / market cap is about the same as for well-traded stocks from S&P500. In other words, the claim that the volume is too small is not well supported because it is as small as for other financial as…

> if you believe Binance's figures then these figures alone are sufficient to support Bitcoin's current market cap in the sense that it market cap / volume is about the same as for well-traded stocks from S&P500 You're defending a metric by citing the metric. The only utility for market cap with Bitcoin would appear to be to make arguments like this one. Comparing a nonsensical ratio to a similarly-sounding meaningfu…

>> To someone who isn't thinking through what the numbers and their resulting ratios mean, I suppose it sounds authoritative.

Is it an insult, Arnav? Thousands of scientists use my research and they would probably disagree that I am "someone who isn't thinking through what the numbers and their resulting ratios mean".

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#137
post #55
post #18

> About 9.1 million bitcoins, representing about 51% of those outstanding, haven’t changed hands in at least six months, according to Flipside. About two million of those bitcoin haven’t moved in more than two years. Transaction volume has always been a difficult metric. For one thing, most transactions are likely to happen off-chain. That can occur in a centralized system like Coinbase. This has always been a possib…

Lightning network comes up just about every discussion involving bitcoin transactions, but because it requires the bitcoin network to make confirmations, Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. This is still a problem. Example of the problem: * For 2 users to make 10,000,000 transactions between each other, it would take 10 minutes on the lightning network. * For 10,000,000 users to make jus…

These numbers are nonsensical. There is no reason to make a LN payment if you are going to close the channel after 2 payments

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#138

Where is the lightning network, so people can buy common, small dollar amounts of goods and services with BTC? IMO that's going to be the next catalyst, it's slowly fading out until it's at least technologically possible to go mainstream.

Ln a solid technology that is gaining in adoption

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#139
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IRS treats essentially everything ownable as an asset: gold, paper currency, bitcoin, art, postage stamps. You obviously never pay capital gains tax on USD, because it never changes value relative to USD. AFAIK a Bitcoin is no different than a Euro tax-wise.

I am not an accountant and may be wrong, but if a US citizen exchanges $1000 USD to euro, and then euro appreciates 10%, and then they spend that euro to make a purchase, I was under the impression that that purchase is not subject to capital gains. Exchanging back to USD would be, but I thought currency classification exempted cap gains on purchases of goods and services. Am I wrong? Have never held any significant…

Yeah there is specific tax code for gains on foreign currency. It is actually worse than capital gains tax. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/irs-tax-laws-regarding-forei...

Re: If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there's a million users making a handful of transactions, well, then lightning needs to settle a few million transactions on Bitcoin (which takes weeks). Sorry, but you seem to be entirely ignorant of how lightning works. Lightning does not need to settle transactions on Bitcoin. If I pay someone using lightning then that payment is as good as good. The person who received the funds could go on and pay someone f…

> If I pay someone using lightning then that payment is as good as good. Lightning is an I.O.U. that is not good until you settle on Bitcoin. If you are not using Bitcoin to settle transactions, then you there is zero guarantee of getting paid. Stop spreading these lies about the Lightning network. Trading I.O.U.s on an obscure network is not a payment solution outside of sending money between your friends. For busin…

Lightning isn't an IOU, its actual Bitcoin. What you are doing is trading payment states in channels, these payment channels contain real Bitcoin, locked in smart contracts. You can settle (and close) for your channel for Bitcoin any time you like, and there is a punishment mechanism if you try to cheat (steal) and replay an old channel state.

This style of network, or a higher order version of it will certainly be the way that we further decentralize our economy and scale to every human and system. It is nonsensical to store full transactions between everything in an immutable ever growing data structure for all time. You can condense what needs to be stored forever in channels, or go further smaller still and store commitments+proofs.

We need to move past the blockchain to store all the things model. It was cool when it was small, but we need to be thinking about how to implement higher order payment or economic concepts rather than raw txs.

Finally, to your point about businesses not trading in third-party checks... Kinda! When the store takes your payment over the PCI network, the card holders bank and the vendors bank trade some payment state between each other, and delivery of funds can take days to clear. Its all businesses trading slates, e-checks, e-balance sheets. In essence lightning isn't too dissimilar to how things work now with electronic $s.

Post reply on HN