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

281–290 of 306 posts

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#281

Post by lottin »

thebean11 wrote: post #275
lottin wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are quibbling over the word "trust". How about you believe, based on your understanding of the system and the monetary cost of attacking it, that the virtualized computer will execute the way you expect it to execute? 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.

Yes, I have no objection to this usage of 'trust'. My objection is in 'trust the law'.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#282

Post by lottin »

latchkey wrote: post #276
lottin wrote: post #249

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?

Capex (hardware/space) + Opex (internet/electricity) = ROI 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…

This makes sense, thank you.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#283

Post by airstrike »

teitoklien wrote: post #169
joshfraser wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do it without putting significant capital at risk since you also have to supply the other side of the pair. If there is no organic demand for your memecoin, people will be happy to dump it and take your ETH.

Except there is, they spend money on marketing and fill up telegram groups with tons of people who fall for this scam everyday, 90% of telegram groups involving crypto tokens are scams like these. People get scammed daily by this.

This sounds like a much more interesting read than the TFA

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#284

Post by lottin »

betwixthewires wrote: post #278
lottin wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alright, I'll draw it in crayons: having to pay 25% of your income to send part of your income home to family. That mess. The one I mentioned already that you handwaived over. 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 asse…

Alright, now that you have laid out your argument we can see how silly it is. The fact that some people don't like a regulation, or that some people choose to contravene it, doesn't mean that such regulation is illegitimate. A regulation is legitimate as long as it is put in place by a legitimate (i.e. democratic) government. And since a democratic government represents the will of the people, it's clear that we the people have indeed put the regulation in place. Nobody says you have to agree with it, but not agreeing with a regulation is not a reason to infringe it. That's just childish.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#285

Post by betwixthewires »

lottin wrote: post #284
betwixthewires wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I'll draw it in crayons: having to pay 25% of your income to send part of your income home to family. That mess. The one I mentioned already that you handwaived over. 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 asse…

Alright, now that you have laid out your argument we can see how silly it is. The fact that some people don't like a regulation, or that some people choose to contravene it, doesn't mean that such regulation is illegitimate. A regulation is legitimate as long as it is put in place by a legitimate (i.e. democratic) government. And since a democratic government represents the will of the people, it's clear that we the…

So "the government is legitimate, problem solved." All good then, I simply do not understand why there are social problems and resistance movements worldwide, it is childish! The governments are legitimate!

If these governments actually represented the will of the people, the people would not be using bitcoin to send money home. Or smoking weed for that matter. There is a giant blind spot in your worldview IMO.

There's a whole host of other problems with your point, such as who decides whether a government is legitimate (you? Some "democratic committee?"), whether people in China or KSA can rightly disobey laws because they're not democratic, whether you have the right to force me to be one of your people, and probably more I didn't catch, I'll let you bring them up if you want to talk about them.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#286

Post by bugzz »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #94
bugzz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's a pretty well known case, specific to Litecoin. Also crypto has come a long way since 2016

I imagine the fraudulent schemes have also come a long way since 2016. Given the volume of trading that happens on unregulated exchanges, I don’t see why anyone would think the amount of fraud has been decreasing as unregulated activity is increasing .

Sure but I was responding to a comment regarding Coinbase.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#287

Post by arlcode »

bsamuels wrote: post #114
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.

There's a lot of uninformed takes in this thread, but this really takes the cake. There is literally nobody in the Ethereum space who sees MEV as anything other than rent extraction. Flashbots' mission is for MEV to disappear. They're doing that by making it a more open process and to prevent MEV extraction from making the chain unusable via high gas fees. Flashbots RPC exists as a feature because private txPools/RPC…

I think you are right and I should have put more thought and research into my response.

Looking back I've no idea where I got the impression from that MEV is welcomed by the core client Devs.

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#288

Post by _3u10 »

nefitty wrote: post #168
_3u10 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree, I’d much rather lose at least 6.2% (if not 20%) in totally legitimate fiat currency inflation than see 200% returns on crypto as a result of that money printing. QE definitely isn’t wash trading.

That's how all Ponzi schemes are marketed. "I got rich, so can you!"

Like social security where old investors are paid out from the income of new investors? And your "investments" are just IOUs from the general revenue fund of the same company?

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#289

Post by _3u10 »

carnitine wrote: post #199
_3u10 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree, I’d much rather lose at least 6.2% (if not 20%) in totally legitimate fiat currency inflation than see 200% returns on crypto as a result of that money printing. QE definitely isn’t wash trading.

How is QE even remotely wash trading?

Closely related parties, no change in beneficial owner, entity trading is paid a commission of other market participants profits that result from the artificial inflation of the asset, buying and selling the same or substantially similar assets within 30 days.

If anyone else took 15% of everyone else's returns on that asset and was using their own money with the stated purpose of inflating the asset price, they'd go to jail.

"For example, wash trades were used in the LIBOR scandal to pay off brokers who manipulated the LIBOR submission panels for the Japanese Yen. According to charges filed by the UK financial authorities, UBS traders conducted nine wash trades with a brokerage firm to generate 170,000 pounds in fees as reward for the firm for its role in manipulating LIBOR rates.7"

Re: Crypto Wash Trading

#290

Post by tornato7 »

airstrike wrote: post #283
teitoklien wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there is, they spend money on marketing and fill up telegram groups with tons of people who fall for this scam everyday, 90% of telegram groups involving crypto tokens are scams like these. People get scammed daily by this.

This sounds like a much more interesting read than the TFA

If you want to see some examples of crypto scams go to /r/cryptomoonshots on Reddit. Almost everything posted there is some sort of rug pull scam with fake upvotes.
Post reply on HN