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

Crypto Wash Trading

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 306 posts

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#251

Post by __alexs »

vineyardmike wrote: post #190
__alexs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was confused what "dss-flash" was so I looked it up. It's a DAO that enables you to mint infinite DAI (some crappy "stablecoin") for a transaction as long as you pay it back in the same transaction. One of the stated goals of this "feature" is > Exploits requiring a large amount of capital will be found quicker which makes the DeFi space safer overall. Ah yes, intentionally making your own product less secure and m…

Like a bug bounty?

Like a bug bounty where you give attackers an SSH login.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#252

Post by betwixthewires »

lottin wrote: post #244
joshfraser wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah? Ever tried to send funds to a family member on the other side of the world over a weekend?

The reason financial transactions take time is not that there's something wrong with the technology, but that we, as society, have chosen to establish capital controls. Choosing to evade such controls, without really understanding why we put them there in the first place, basically makes you an anti-social brat.

> ...we, as society, have chosen to establish capital controls.

Obviously that's not the case if entire societies use bitcoin now, as soon as it is an option. We didn't choose the mess, it was foisted upon us.

You can make excuses for the current system if you want to, but you're wrong. You can shame people tired of paying a quarter of their pay to western union to help Tia afford a water tank so she can have running water during the weekdays. You can demand people just follow rules that make no sense to them because "we as a society" have Good Reasons™ for them. But if you expect them to, if you act like their behavior makes no sense, you're deluding yourself and nobody else.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#253

Post by bduerst »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #227
bduerst wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-spoofing tech for regulated securities. There's no rules for crypto to suggest that Coinbase needs to (or would) flag a group of individuals doing this.

> Anti-spoofing tech for regulated securities. There's no rules for crypto to suggest that Coinbase needs to (or would) flag a group of individuals doing this. It's the same stuff that catches money laundering. Coinbase isn't exempt from anti-money laundering laws. (With respect to Coinbase not being subject to the Exchange Act, that's very much an open, if irrelevant to this discussion, question.)

I don't see how that is relevant here. Wash trading is market, price, and reputation manipulation, not money laundering or tax evasion.

I'm not sure Coinbase's need to report money laundering applies.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#254

Post by lottin »

meowkit wrote: post #246
xboxnolifes wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately you need to trust the blockchain, which runs on computers. Which is the commenter's point.

The blockchain is a virtualized state - yes it executes on computers but the whole point is distributed consensus - you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network.

> you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network

You're contradicting yourself.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#255

Post by legutierr »

lottin wrote: post #249
legutierr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a meaningful difference between this kind of miner intervention and the kind of intervention that might be problematic in a centralized context. Provided there is sufficient decentralization within a blockchain network (i.e. enough independent miners participating) no individual miner will be able to pursue a MEV strategy beyond a single block. The next block will be created by a different miner. In addition…

> Depending on the level of centralization, it is also the case that a particular miner will get to mine a new block infrequently at best. How do all these "mining" companies survive, if they only mine a block infrequently?

Each Bitcoin block pays out more than a quarter of a million dollars to the miner that discovers it. Every day, more than 140 blocks are typically mined. "Infrequent" is relative, but if a miner manages to mine one block once per month (roughly once every 4000 blocks), its revenue will be in excess of $3 million per year.

Many mining companies make much more than that, because Bitcoin is more centralized than it should be.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#256

Post by betwixthewires »

nefitty wrote: post #250
betwixthewires wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't consider black markets a feasible use case you're cherrypicking.

https://goo.gl/search/Define+feasibility&hl=en feasibility (noun): state or degree of being easily or conveniently done The originator, Ross Ulbricht, is in prison for life. Anything that involves any remote possibility of that is not "feasible" to me, specifically in terms of the strength of my own self-preservation instincts.

So because it isn't a magic bullet that makes participants bulletproof it's infeasible? Would you say dollars are infeasible as a black market tool as well? What about cocaine?

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#257

Post by cblconfederate »

lottin wrote: post #254
meowkit wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blockchain is a virtualized state - yes it executes on computers but the whole point is distributed consensus - you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network.

> you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network You're contradicting yourself.

It's not a contradiction.

You can trust the law / trust the code, but not trust the judges / trust the machines that run the code.

You trust the law beacuse you can read it / You trust the code because you can read and mathematically prove that it works

You cant trust the judges -- you have to have faith in them

You cant trust the machines either -- but blockchain gives you specific mathematical guarantees that it is very hard for them to break the system.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#258

Post by diveanon »

lekevicius wrote: post #55
arlcode wrote: post #40

I'm not surprised at all Many actors (including core devs) in the Ethereum (and other crypto) ecosphere see front running (known as MEV) and the payment for protection thereof (known as flashbots) as a "feature" so it's no wonder that other "creative trading techniques" run rampant. It seems like the reason for every financial regulation in traditional banking is rediscovered in the crypto space just much faster.

What do you mean by "as a feature"? Devs agree that MEV is a problem (a very hard one), and are trying to solve it.

He doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#259

Post by lottin »

thebean11 wrote: post #177
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm talking about a bank account not holding physical bills Trusting the regulated bank isn't that far from trusting the monetary authority that gives paper bills value. Or, for that matter, for the 99% of people who have not verified Bitcoin's math and have not inspected the code running on the servers they buy Bitcoin through, trusting the techies who pitch the product.

That's..a different discussion. My point is that IN bank and IN wallet are both technically incorrect, but for basically all purposes correct. But yes, you are right that the vast majority of users of [piece of software] have not verified [piece of software] and are relying on other humans to basically tell them if they should or shouldn't run it.

You have a point in that neither bank accounts nor bitcoin wallets are wallets in any shape or form, the difference is bank accounts are not advertised as wallets, but bitcoin wallets are. Also interesting that the bitcoin imagery is all about gold coins, when in fact there are no coins at all, virtual or otherwise. Bitcoin is merely an abstract unit of count. The very name 'bitcoin' is misleading. Everything about cryptocurrencies seems fraudulent in one way or another.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#260

Post by mgh2 »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #118

This paper jumps the gun. Detecting wash trading by examining distributions over rounded order prices is a strong and dubious claim for which they provide little evidence. The author's equate wash trading to non-rounded, clustered prices which really just indicates automated trading. Now automated ("bot") trading is a technology needed for exchanges wash trading sure, but not exclusive evidence of it. Automated tradi…

If I had vested interest in crypto, of course I will dismiss this paper as bogus
Post reply on HN