So what's the explanation for the combined coins shooting up in value (if only for a little bit)?
There's thousands of people like me checking every minute if we can deposit bch to sell. There's millions waiting and I'm hoping to be the first...
Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
141–150 of 241 posts
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're thinking of this event as a split, dividend, or spinoff, then it doesn't make sense. But it's more like a company cloning itself but adopting a different vision/mission, and awarding shares to all existing shareholders. They could have started fresh like the zillion other cryptocurrencies that have started up since 2009, some of which appear to have real value. You wouldn't look askance at those, at least f…
> it's more like a company cloning itself but adopting a different vision/mission, and awarding shares to all existing shareholders. And that doesn't sound... insane to you? I mean, skipping the problems with physics where a "split" company would have to clone its employee talent pool as well: such a company would share the same products and the same markets and the same sales channels and have zero share of all of t…
It's no different than all the third world countries inventing phantom cash every time they trot out a new currency because the old one suffered astronomical inflation.
All money is funny money. The US government regularly invents phantom cash out of thin air in order to maintain the desired 3% annual inflation. That's hundreds of billions of dollars every year that just poof into existence.
I'm basically with you though, but just out of having not had any need for it yet.
If a need arises, I'll get some just like I had to get 8 different currencies while traveling Europe before the EU. Those leftover bills feel pretty much like funny money to me. There are lots of people who would trade me US currency for them, but I still subjectively value them as basically worthless because ... well it doesn't really matter why (truth is, I'm too lazy/"busy" to go to the bank).
The value of a currency, any currency, (like any other object) is subjective to the holder.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
XT and Classic did fork the blockchain and had the history though, meaning for a time they were an alt-coin with history. That's completely counter intuitive to what you're saying about Matt's example not having a history.
No. XT and Classic were code forks, not blockchain forks. If certain runtime conditions had been met, they would have become blockchain forks, but those conditions were never met.
[deleted]
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're thinking of this event as a split, dividend, or spinoff, then it doesn't make sense. But it's more like a company cloning itself but adopting a different vision/mission, and awarding shares to all existing shareholders. They could have started fresh like the zillion other cryptocurrencies that have started up since 2009, some of which appear to have real value. You wouldn't look askance at those, at least f…
> it's more like a company cloning itself but adopting a different vision/mission, and awarding shares to all existing shareholders. And that doesn't sound... insane to you? I mean, skipping the problems with physics where a "split" company would have to clone its employee talent pool as well: such a company would share the same products and the same markets and the same sales channels and have zero share of all of t…
Looks like you vapor-locked on the physical/digital point before you finished reading.
Let's stay with purely digital. There's an app on your phone that you bought for $1, which seemed like a fair deal to you at the time -- you paid $1 for something you thought was worth $1.
The author adds a feature to the app. You like the feature, and now if someone asked you what the app were worth to you, you'd say $2. In effect, a dollar of value just appeared out of thin air. No magic needed so far for this to happen, I hope.
Same situation but you don't care about the feature -- it's something you don't personally use. But now new buyers are more interested in the app, so more people pay $1 for it. Again, some extra wealth got created just by coding up the new feature. Bubble? New paradigm? It's different this time? Nope.
A new feature got added to Bitcoin. The market says it's more valuable now.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#145Bit tangential, but I read an interesting theory this morning: Because there is greatly reduced liquidity of BCH (most exchanges don't support, hard/slow to deposit into exchanges that do), supply of BCH is artificially limited at the moment. Proponents of BCH can trade their BTC for BCH at a rate greater than they believe it is worth to easily pump the value and 'market cap' (most market cap stats have no measure of…
Yes. Price and market cap mean nothing when there is not sufficient liquidity. There was literally a 60% price spread between exchanges yesterday because arbitraging is incredibly difficult/impossible.
If arbitraging is impossible, can we really call it a single market? If I can’t seek exchange A’s BCH on exchange B, and vice versa, aren’t we actually dealing with two instruments, rather than one? Looks to me like multiple different BCH IOU markets currently exist: one for each exchange.
This really has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, since there’s no connection between it and the tickers on the exchanges (you can’t convert one to the other).
An analogy would be ten different commodity exchanges who all trade “steel” instruments, but neither allow you to either sell “steel” instruments and receive actual steel, or deposit actual steel and receive “steel” instruments. In this case, can we really say these exchanges are trading steel? Why would their steel prices ever reflect the actual price of steel, when the two markets are not connected in any way?
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#146It is hilarious watching people try to reinvent financial institutions without any knowledge of or respect for history.
It makes perfect ironical sense too, we should have seen this coming. Developers are some of the best armchair economists, or like to think they are. Add in the libertarian political strain with some VC/startup evaluations and you've got what we have now: an inflated decentralized currency with a market run by a centralized tech company with infighting of developers (miners) over very shaky economics who have formed into political factions over technical decisions to make even worse economic decisions, all while the people who know whats going on profit massively.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a better phone browser?
Don't post that without an actual recommendation. Which mobile browser renders that legibly? Otherwise it's just noise.
Micah . if you think Benjamin `s storry is great... I just purchased a new Subaru Impreza after earning $7445 this-past/month and-even more than, $10k last-munth . this is actually the easiest job I have ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and immediately started making more than $79 p/h . this link,
------>http://cutt.us/7N2sG
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Translation: I took on a tangible amount of risk in order to exploit a loophole I discovered in order to profit at the expense of an exchange and its legitimate customers, and I am upset that they circumvented my attempts.
I am (no longer) a legitimate customer. I was told by the service that I would receive BCH if I had BTC in my wallet, which I did. That service then did not make good on their word. They lied, simple as that man.
If only there was some kind of governing body to manage currencies and disputes.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not knowledgeable about BTC; this is the part that confused me. If you short a stock, and it distributes dividends or stock or ponies, as Levine says, you have to return that to the borrower. I'm not sure if this is law or just the overwhelming common practice of the markets, but either way we agree on this. You _could_ devise a short agreement where you say "no distributions are owed," but that's not the standar…
This is less like an arbitrary handout from a third party and more like a stock split. If you hold a security, you generally have no idea whether its been lent to a short. The idea of "your" stock being lent doesn't even really mean anything - the shares are fungible. So when the stock splits (or a company is spun off as in the paypal example, etc), you'd be awfully surprised to find the value of your stake halve bec…
BCH _feels_ like a stock split. Where it's not like a stock split is that literally anybody can create a new blockchain just like BCH and give everyone who owns BTC a coin on this new blockchain. In that regard, it _feels_ more like a handout.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins
#150Great writeup. Almost anything written by Matt Levine is worth reading. This is a concise and accurate description of the fun that occurred with Bitfinex's handling of the BCH fork. At least, it's fun if you weren't involved. If you naively held BTC on Bitfinex and were hoping to receive an equal amount of BCH you probably didn't think it was fun. If you carefully read Bitfinex's statements and decided to take advant…
Matt sums it up well in a footnote: Imagine if I announced tomorrow that I had created a new blockchain, called Bitcoin Matt, and that everyone who owned a BTC today will tomorrow own both a BTC and a BCM. Fine, great, you all own BCMs, congratulations. But also anyone short a BTC today will be short a BCM tomorrow, and will be forced to go buy in those BCM shorts. Even with no economic support for BCM -- with nobody…
Could a similar trick be used by a company to screw over short sellers? Say by issuing a class of shares which are essentially worthless, forcing short sellers to buy it to cover their shorts? Or would a short seller simply "borrow" those shares as well?