271–280 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re right. I think wash refers to selling then buying at the same price resulting in a wash.
You’re confusing wash trading (trading with yourself) with wash sales (a restricted form of capital loss harvesting), which are more or less unrelated despite having “wash” in the name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
This is great knowledge. People should not be investing based on what's popular or what is being traded. Better hold than gamble. Monetary speculation should be dumb in a sound money system
> Monetary speculation should be dumb in a sound money system Yeah, but no one is listening. From the richest to the poorest, it's all about "to the moon." 50% of my family and friends have RobinHood accounts and are day trading crypto (usually doge or shiba) ... and don't even know what it is. (A dear friend even spent $15k on a rig and thought i was lying when i said his crypto wasn't actually "IN" his digital wall…
I recently had to go through extensive KYC/AML email conversations and phone calls with bunch of exchanges like Coinbase and others. Got me interested how wash trading could happen, when they were so strict with me, and which exchanges were investigated. These seems to be the exchanges they investigated. Would be interesting to see a breakdown of percentage per exchange, as I still don't understand how wash trading c…
How about the exchanges do it themselves because there's no regulation and if they don't do it, the volumes would be way to low
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't think you're using the word 'trust' correctly. Trust is a belief that a particular outcome will occur despite having no guarantees that it will occur. What does it mean to trust the law? I have no idea.
The same way you'd "trust" that a safe deposit box will not be breached. It's certainly not impossible, but it's unlikely based on your understanding of how it works.
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?
In order to get more consistent payouts, we mine to a mining pool, which pays us for our shares of work. Since a mining pool condenses a lot of hashrate, the frequency is higher. There are various schemes on top of that (pay per share, etc..), but that is the simple explanation.
This is the 'centralization' argument to mining, except that miners can change to another pool near instantly. If a pool starts to misbehave, then miners will dump them immediately. There is precedent for this, ghash.io.
There are a lot of upfront costs (hardware/space), but once you've paid for those and you have cheap enough electricity, then the rest is profit.
Disclosure: I am a large scale ETH (gpu) miner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 shou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you being obtuse deliberately? First, no, most people didn't choose borders and customs. The very people we are talking about, the people that send money home, and their advocates, often ignore borders deliberately. I don't recall choosing any of that stuff. I don't think there's a person alive today that did. But that aside, we aren't talking about someone checking your luggage for fruit seeds on the way in. You…
If none of the people alive today wants borders, how do you explain the existence of borders? What is your theory? And no, I don't know what 'mess' you are referring to. You seem to talk quite cryptically, to be honest.
I never said nobody wants borders, I said nobody chose borders. We were all born into this. You understand the distinction between choosing something and learning to live with it?
Of course that's a tangent on your original statement, your assertion that we choose capital controls, that you have not addressed. If our society left capital control to a democratic process they wouldn't exist, and the proof of that is that people avoid them at every opportunity, hence bitcoin.
Shit, "capital controls" is a distraction from the issue we were trying to address, which is the ridiculous state of the remittances industry as an example of the state of the consumer financial services industry that bitcoin serves as an alternative to that you keep defending but fail to actually construct an argument in defense of. "We chose them for a reason" "what reason?" "oh you don't like borders?" It's senseless.
People choose bitcoin. Actual individuals choose it. Nobody holds a gun to their head and makes them use it. The same cannot always be said of the alternative. Is people choosing it a good enough reason for you to accept that it is good and should exist? Seems to be a good enough reason for the alternatives to exist, even if it isn't true.
I don't talk cryptically, I stay on point. I don't derail, I don't create tangents. You do, with every single reply. Not everyone gets lost in the noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't think you're using the word 'trust' correctly. Trust is a belief that a particular outcome will occur despite having no guarantees that it will occur. What does it mean to trust the law? I have no idea.