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

Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

mtgox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#171

Post by white_devil »

hobolobo wrote: post #166
white_devil wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each branch is supposed to function as a bank , right?

They're not autonomous though - individual branches don't hold the value of all their customers' accounts as cash. You're subject to a daily limit (though you can take more if you give them notice).

Now we're just being pedantic. My point was that each branch should have enough cash to act as a "proper bank", whatever amount of money you'd reasonably expect one to have in its vault.

But I'd sure expect more than 10k euro.

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#172

Post by burgerbrain »

white_devil wrote: post #171
hobolobo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not autonomous though - individual branches don't hold the value of all their customers' accounts as cash. You're subject to a daily limit (though you can take more if you give them notice).

Now we're just being pedantic. My point was that each branch should have enough cash to act as a "proper bank", whatever amount of money you'd reasonably expect one to have in its vault. But I'd sure expect more than 10k euro.

If they barely had 10k in their vault, then it logically follows that they almost never need that much (otherwise they would obviously make it a point to keep more). If they rarely need that much, then it logically follows that somewhere at or less than 10k is a reasonable amount to have. There is no sense in taking the increased liability of having more if they don't need to.

Furthermore, acting as a "proper bank" means they do a lot more than just acting as your personal piggy-bank/mattress. If they have all their money tied up in cash, it means they can't actually be preforming real bank activities (investment).

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#173

Post by white_devil »

burgerbrain wrote: post #172
white_devil wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we're just being pedantic. My point was that each branch should have enough cash to act as a "proper bank", whatever amount of money you'd reasonably expect one to have in its vault. But I'd sure expect more than 10k euro.

If they barely had 10k in their vault, then it logically follows that they almost never need that much (otherwise they would obviously make it a point to keep more). If they rarely need that much, then it logically follows that somewhere at or less than 10k is a reasonable amount to have. There is no sense in taking the increased liability of having more if they don't need to. Furthermore, acting as a "proper bank" m…

Fair enough. But basically me and a couple of other people on this thread wanted to point out that the banking system is not very sound.

I just chimed in with my anecdote.

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#174

Post by burgerbrain »

white_devil wrote: post #173
burgerbrain wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they barely had 10k in their vault, then it logically follows that they almost never need that much (otherwise they would obviously make it a point to keep more). If they rarely need that much, then it logically follows that somewhere at or less than 10k is a reasonable amount to have. There is no sense in taking the increased liability of having more if they don't need to. Furthermore, acting as a "proper bank" m…

Fair enough. But basically me and a couple of other people on this thread wanted to point out that the banking system is not very sound. I just chimed in with my anecdote.

Your anecdote has more to do with the logistics of running a bank than it does with the soundness of banks though.

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#175

Post by danssig »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #152
danssig wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't either but that's because I can imagine Facebook just straight-up stealing it. Nothing about security.

Totally off-topic, but I find this attitude curious. What makes you think facebook would do something of that sort? What possible evidence do you have for the potential of this sort of outright criminal behavior? It seems to me your loathing of facebook is completely irrational. Unfortunately its this irrationality that drives most discussions regarding facebook in tech circles.

If someone is a known thief, it stands to reason that they will probably steal again if the price is right. Zuckerberg showed, unambiguously, that he will not only steal ideas but sabotage the people he's stealing from. I would say very little is beneath such a person.

Re: Those 500K Bitcoins that caused the flash crash weren't real

#176

Post by white_devil »

burgerbrain wrote: post #174
white_devil wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. But basically me and a couple of other people on this thread wanted to point out that the banking system is not very sound. I just chimed in with my anecdote.

Your anecdote has more to do with the logistics of running a bank than it does with the soundness of banks though.

That may be, but it doesn't affect how sound the banking system is.

You think this is enough nitpicking, or do you want to go on?

Post reply on HN