Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 368 posts

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#171

Post by jonknee »

Kiro wrote: post #64
ashark wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine I'd get three "CME? Dunno WTF that is", "How about Chicago Mercantile Exchange?", "Oh yeah, I recognize that from the boring parts of morning news updates on the radio. They do something with soy beans, right?" and two "yeah, still dunno. Is it a farmer's market?" Midwestern US city (not Chicago).

Outside of the US I don't think many would know what Chicago Mercantile Exchange is though while most would probably know Nasdaq.

But every single person who is qualified to trade futures would know about the CME... It's the 900lb gorilla.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#172

Post by ceejayoz »

goldenkey wrote: post #145
ceejayoz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rudeness can't have helped, but I'd imagine the "I desperately need my 'vitamins' that can only be bought with Bitcoin" bit is what got the account flagged.

It actually was vitamins from a foreign shop that took international payments thru bitcoin. I could have shown them if they wanted proof. However they never let me have any recourse. Just instaban, goodbye. As hard as it might be to believe its their job to remain professional. And they failed at that. My account didn't get flagged - I got outright banned- lets not mince words. Coinbase is ran by a bunch of assholes.

It's also their job not to get the company shuttered for knowingly allowing drug money to flow through their books.

If it's weird to me that you need to buy vitamins from a foreign company using Bitcoin (you couldn't get them for a month or two from a provider who takes PayPal/CC, and you couldn't go without for a little while?!), it's going to be really weird to the compliance department of a financial institution responsible for KYC stuff.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#174

Post by seibelj »

jonknee wrote: post #165
seibelj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh... you have to physically store those things? Easy to steal? Can't send to someone across the country instantly? Bitcoin is way better than gold or dollars when you are in an unstable country. People in Venezuela are huge crypto-heads for that reason

> Easy to steal? Bitcoin is perhaps the most commonly stolen store of value the world has ever seen. It has its advantages, but being difficult to steal (or lose permanently!) is not one of them.

Perhaps it's easier to steal in different ways. Computer-based hacks, bugs, social based attacks (phishing, etc.) sure... but harder to break into a house and steal, as the private key can be hidden better. Easy to assume the safe is where 20 gold bars are.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#175

Post by ncallaway »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #167
wizardforhire wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is data, so are files, so are ledgers. Every program physically resides somewhere... Just because it's infinitesimally small and it's interface obfuscated doesn't mean it isn't real. Cue Feynman quote "the world is real and it's made of atoms!"

So does that mean a 1 weighs more than a 0? Big-endian bytes weigh less than little-endian ones? What about polarization? North heavier than south?

If I move a rock from my left to my right does the rock weight more?

Just because a physical thing changes state doesn't mean it weights more.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#176

Post by Frogolocalypse »

ncallaway wrote: post #175
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does that mean a 1 weighs more than a 0? Big-endian bytes weigh less than little-endian ones? What about polarization? North heavier than south?

If I move a rock from my left to my right does the rock weight more? Just because a physical thing changes state doesn't mean it weights more.

> If I move a rock from my left to my right does the rock weight more?

It does to your left and your right. If I have a piece of paper with a one on it, and another one with a zero on it, and I exchange them. Do they weigh differently?

Its a bit surprising that I'm being downvoted on a tech forum for asserting that information doesn't have weight.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#177

Post by mirimir »

krrrh wrote: post #105
knownothing wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as you don't buy in at one of the speculative bubbles I'm not so sure about that. You could have bought BTC anytime before the past week or so and it would have appreciated significantly, regardless of whether you bought it in a peak or trough. It's just a question of magnitude. E.g. if you bought 1 BTC at the lowest or highest price in 2015 you would still have outrageous returns on it today. This is not t…

Let’s see how everyone feels after the next correction. The headlines today seem to change every time I load google news. Up 10%, down 20%. There’s no way to know where it will go from here.

The thing is, for someone who bought a year or more ago, anything less than a 50% correction is small. Also, prudent folk take some of their winnings out of play.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#178

Post by jnordwick »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #140
minimax wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people trade physically settled commodities futures contracts without handling the underlying products. You just have to make sure you close or roll your position before it settles.

Of course, but you could get stuck in a position. What's the point when cash settling accomplishes the same thing ?

Physically settled allows the future to better match the price of the underlying since you can take or give delivery in it.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#179

Post by xbzbanna »

koolba wrote: post #25
londons_explore wrote: post #20

Can an expert explain for the less informed: * Do futures markets typically stabilize the price of a commodity? * Who loses out if a futures contract can't be fulfilled (for example due to lack of liquidity in the underlying market)?

> Do futures markets typically stabilize the price of a commodity? Kind of. It doesn't necessarily stabilize the prices of the commodity so much as allow the transferring of the risk associated with price movements. > Who loses out if a futures contract can't be fulfilled (for example due to lack of liquidity in the underlying market)? The exchange acting as the clearing house is on the other side of each contract so…

Does this mean that tons of money could be invested in these - let's say a trillion dollars going long on bitcoin via cash settled futures - and the underlying price wouldn't necessarily go up at all? I always thought the play with bitcoin was to wait until the "dumb money" got in via financial institutions. But if the whales are just betting on the real price with cash settled futures, does that mess up my assumptions about supply/demand?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#180

Post by vasilipupkin »

jnordwick wrote: post #178
vasilipupkin wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but you could get stuck in a position. What's the point when cash settling accomplishes the same thing ?

Physically settled allows the future to better match the price of the underlying since you can take or give delivery in it.

That's not correct. They still have to pick a settlement price. Physically settled futures makes sense when customers are interested in the commodity itself and cash settled makes more sense for pure speculation.
Post reply on HN