131–140 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how most asset trading works, but outside of crypto these third parties are actually trustworthy
> outside of crypto these third parties are actually trustworthy With multiple layers of mutualised failsafes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a poker player, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but: How did he think you were cheating? You had no way of knowing what that card was, right? And if you did somehow know what it was, surely you could have pre-arranged more subtle ways to tip off a player you were conspiring with?
I guess they thought I produced the bluffing player's card to prevent the other player from folding. But you're right that a dealer who was trying to do that could've done so in any number of subtle ways. I couldn't really figure out why they were accusing me at the time, or what I would've gained from it, but it all happened very fast. There are dealers who are true shuffle mechanics and either know for sure or have…
To answer your real question - my guess is that this was a place that had a history of moving fast and breaking things. But probably more importantly - there was no way for that person to benefit from the mistake. The BTC price recovered automatically through the quick arbitrage market. The only way they could have benefited would have been if they were the counter party in the sale, which is highly unlikely.
Now, why FTX was a place that operated like this is another question altogether.
> What they missed was the decimal point was off by a few spaces. Rather than selling BTC at the current market price, they sold it for pennies on the dollar. The result was immediate. The price of BTC shot from a high of $65k to as low as $8k on some venues. Wouldn't this sell just be gobbled up quickly by buyers? Why would it move the BTC price so dramatically to the downside? Surely this couldn't have been that mu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t that just mean the trading is done by a trusted third party? Fine until the third party goes belly up.
This is how most asset trading works, but outside of crypto these third parties are actually trustworthy
>The tricky thing about risk is that it's usually invisible, right up until it comes around and bites you in the ass. Saved!
I guess we have different definitions of "invisible"
This seems to imply that risk checks are somehow either unnecessary or impractical for manual trades, which is completely untrue. This is 100% a case of 'we chose not to implement that'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the total (ostensible) value of all coins that have been mined in a given cryptocurrency. These values should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, as they are considerably larger than the total value that could be realized if holders of a currency decided to try to cash out.
You realize that this is how valuations for publicly-traded companies are calculated, right? Also the networths of people whose vast majority of wealth is tied to publicly-traded shares.
Honest question: How do you determine that something like this was an honest mistake? Once, when I was much younger, I had a side gig dealing poker at an underground club in NYC. One morning at the end of 10 hours dealing, I accidentally exposed a burn card which turned out to be something one of the players was representing (bluffing), with about $10k on the table. It was an honest mistake - literally a fat finger m…
Not a poker player, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but: How did he think you were cheating? You had no way of knowing what that card was, right? And if you did somehow know what it was, surely you could have pre-arranged more subtle ways to tip off a player you were conspiring with?
Let's say you have a seriously strong hand, and there's only one way you could see that you could be beat. The opponent may have that hand now, or they may be hanging around in an attempt to upgrade to that hand while bluffing in the meantime.
In some cases, the above scenario is obvious. Everyone at the table knows well enough what each player is attempting to project. Every player knows which cards to look for to be revealed. It can be devastating to the bluffing player for that card to be accidentally exposed as a burner card.
Given there was a burner card exposed, then there was at least one more card to be added to the community cards. At this point, the bluffing player would be in a tough spot. The player with the stronger hand would likely be raising / re-raising to call the bluff and / or get more chips into the pot.
Continuing the game after the exposed card would have been pointless. You also feel stupid getting exposed on a bluff, when you otherwise might not have had to show your cards. You're probably going to be very pissed.
Edit: The dealer would have had no way of knowing what the burner card was, but the dealer could have known what card the bluffing player was looking for. However, I don't see how it would make sense to expose that card intentionally as a cheating move. Maybe the dealer could have used that as a signal to expose the bluff. My guess is the bluffing player was bluffing in an attempt to make their hand (fake it until you make it) and the other player sensed that. Maybe the other player wasn't convinced and would have won the hand regardless. But at the point of seeing the exposed card, they both knew it was over.
NOTE: We would have to know more about how this played out to do much more speculation than the above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HFT algos are going to make quick work of the opportunity well before your broker can even think about executing your limit order.
I thought the real market also has circuit breakers in place. If the market falls X% too quickly, trading is halted for some amount of time.