131–140 of 151 posts
2 bad news day in a row, and BTC is sensibly at the same price level... This resilience is making me more skeptical of a upcoming crash event. Price stability is sinequanone for acceptance as a currency.
Interesting comment on Reddit: "I had a job interview with MtGox a couple of weeks ago for a frontend developer position. After talking about their technical environment I declined the position. Contemplated publicizing my story, but I have zero proof that the interview took place. But fuck me is their environment fucked up. Either way, I have been recommending to my friends to move any BTC away from Gox as soon as p…
I believe it. I've talked to a backend developer at Coinbase, he said their codebase is a mess and that he wouldn't hold any in their system. Also I submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7169114 a couple of days ago based on what I found on Reddit. And this is Coinbase, the good guy. MtGox has always been a clusterfuck. This feels like the internet used to feel like. Back when you just used to assume that a…
I feel like the "immaturity" argument is just an excuse. Bitcoin itself is young, but we know how to handle encryption materials safely, we know how to process online transactions, we know how to write exchanges, etc. Mt. Gox wasn't taking on any new problems here. Most of the new stuff that goes into Bitcoin is abstracted away by the Bitcoin protocol.
It'd be very nice for newer players with extensive experience in this area to step up. If not with a new service, then maybe fortifying an existing one (like Coinbase).
Consider this a reminder that while Bitcoin may be an interesting technological achievement, as a tradable asset it is still basically a toy. Crappy exchange technology combined with low liquidity is a perfect recipe for this kind of volatility.
This is more about a crappy exchange that has been crappy for most of its existence than about Bitcoin itself. The sky is not falling. MtGox may fall after this, but IMO that would be a good thing.
Consider this a reminder that while Bitcoin may be an interesting technological achievement, as a tradable asset it is still basically a toy. Crappy exchange technology combined with low liquidity is a perfect recipe for this kind of volatility.
While I am in no position to predict the future of bitcoins, all new markets have these problems. At an early point in their history, stocks also had low liquidity and crappy technology. Both of these conditions will improve as an asset becomes more popular. It is a chicken-and-egg problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that YC embraces technical debt. Exponential market growth means you can hire developers to re-write the problems in a couple years.
Unless, of course, you are a company like Mt Gox and your technical debt is so huge that it sinks you. This is not a dig at Coinbase. I'm just suggesting that endorsing technical debt in the finance sector may not be smart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it. I've talked to a backend developer at Coinbase, he said their codebase is a mess and that he wouldn't hold any in their system. Also I submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7169114 a couple of days ago based on what I found on Reddit. And this is Coinbase, the good guy. MtGox has always been a clusterfuck. This feels like the internet used to feel like. Back when you just used to assume that a…
Up until a few days ago, I had been too lazy to go through the trouble required to ensure that I trusted my ability to administer and recover my own personal Bitcoin wallet, instead deferring the responsibility to the online service that I stored them with. Though I realize the flaws in this method, I just didn't feel up to it. With all of this news about MtGox, I've accelerated my transitioning process.
There is no reason not to have a local wallet. There have been major coin thefts from online services, even very reputable services, sometimes sinking the entire thing. Cryptocoins are worth a lot of money and people will steal them from you if you leave them vulnerable. Cloud coin storage is always vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't Microsoft providing the software. It was software running on Windows. The actual software was an in-house developed matching engine called Tradelect. LSE eventually switched away to a 3rd party matching engine with their acquisition of MilleniumIT.
True, but Microsoft had a big role in it. "The new technology platform has been developed using the Microsoft .NET Framework, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, and marks the final phase of the Exchange's four-year Technology Road Map project. " [1] I was also told that there were Microsoft engineers on site doing training and review through the project. Either way, my point is that building a trading platfor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've talked to a backend developer at Coinbase, he said their codebase is a mess and that he wouldn't hold any. This, and a few other things I've witnessed firsthand makes me wonder if Y-Combinator doesn't need better technical intelligence or some form of auditing. It could be done in a non-intrusive spirit of openness. Basically position it as a "show and tell" focused on technical process. Just have companies show…
I think that YC embraces technical debt. Exponential market growth means you can hire developers to re-write the problems in a couple years.
And there's nothing wrong with technical debt in and of itself. Just like financial debt it's a tool of leverage and time-shifting costs. However, just like financial debt, it can bite you, so it's generally a good policy for companies to be open about what debts they have and their plans for dealing with it.
Relevant to the discussion, a level of debt for one company may not be appropriate for another kind of company, and this is especially true of financial companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless, of course, you are a company like Mt Gox and your technical debt is so huge that it sinks you. This is not a dig at Coinbase. I'm just suggesting that endorsing technical debt in the finance sector may not be smart.
There are many types of technical debt. It's something that accumulates organically in any real world project, because the real world doesn't care if your code is a paragon of programming excellence or not. It's expected, and simply part of the process, to develop technical indebtedness. The important part is controlling that indebtedness so that it doesn't cause major disruptions -- this usually means periodically c…
Which is short-sighted, really. Technical debt has somewhat the same properties as financial debt, which is why public companies have to disclose monetary debt and have plans for dealing with it. It's high time that the culture caught up to technical reality and started to treat technical debt in the same way. This is especially true for finance!
In a way you are basically saying the same thing, but the warning sign to note is your observation that "the real world doesn't care." It would be insane for the real world to not care about a company's financials, particularly its debt. It's just as insane with technical debt.
Oddly funny, that the physical gold and silver buyer's mantra of "if you don't hold it, you don't own it" would apply to BTC.
If you buy only one single (bitcoin|oz of gold) now, one day you could be rich beyond imagination!
The potential future price of (bicoin|gold) is over $100,000.
There are only xxx (bitcoin|oz of gold) produced per year so it must be scarce and valuable!
I'm in (bitcoin|gold) for the long haul! Buy and hold! Keep on stacking!
The price of (bitcoin|gold) is manipulated downward. Buy now while it's cheap.
The global economy is going to crash soon! Buy (bitcoin|gold) now or you will die when the crash happens!