Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

bloomberg.com

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#181
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you haven't created a lot of supply, because people may not be able to sell theirs and if the coin's useless it may not be worth it even if they can. For example, I don't think either of the major exchanges offering shorts (Bitfinex and Kraken) are accepting BCH deposits yet, and they certainly weren't initially after the fork. Even if they were there isn't enough mining power on the chain to make transfe…

> There's also been quite a lot of price divergence between exchanges because people can't transfer their BCH between exchanges. Sounds like an opportunity for exchanges to do off-chain transfers using legal contracts.

It is significantly harder and more expensive to do those off-chain transfers in practice.

I should know: I'm actively trying to sell BCH right now with just that kind of mechanism. What would have otherwise been a few clicks on a screen is proving to be hours worth of back-and-forth, and that's for a relatively small deal with a large degree of trust on both sides.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#182
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think that would work. I'm presenting my understanding of things. Please chime in to correct me where I am off.

Let's start with a simple example. A company has a single class of shares. All these shares are fungible. This means that it does not matter that you hold share number 545 our of 1,000,000 or share number 390,056 out of a million. Each of these million shares is identical to the others. Just the same way each $1 bill is identical to each other $1 bill.

A stock split happens. Now there are twice as many shares. However, at the moment of the split, each share is worth half as much. The total market value has not changed. Of course, trading continues and the shares will move up or down in value.

Short holders will need to come up with 1 additional share for each 1 share that they hold. This is because the stock split affects the exact class of shares that the short holder owe.

If a company issues more shares of the same class, short sellers do not need to do anything. Nothing happened to their shares. I would imagine that the value of each outstanding share would drop, and short sellers would actually profit.

If the company issued shares of another class, that would not introduce new responsibilities to short holders.

Short holders are obliged to do things on shares that they actually own. A dividend affects existing shares, hence short sellers need to pay those dividends. A split affects existing shares, hence short sellers need to find extra shares to make the lender whole. A new stock issue does not affect those existing shares: new shares are being introduced.

Another way to think about this is to think what happens if you are long 1 share of a company. If a dividend is paid, then you are paid 1 share's worth of a dividend. If a split happens, your 1 share is now 2 shares (each at half the price of the original). However, if a company issues more stock, you do not get more shares. The same rules govern short sellers. However, they must give instead of receiving.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#183
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they're very valuable if and only if you cannot use the protection [..] I don't think that's entirely fair. They're also valuable to those who want to transfer money without ridiculous fees, excessive bureaucratic friction, and many mandatory middlemen. What other system would allow you to instantly be able to accept payments without giving an exorbitant portion of your revenue?

But the "ridiculous fees, excessive bureaucratic friction, and many mandatory middlemen" are what buy you the protection. The fees from necessary middleman seem ridiculous when nothing goes wrong, but that is how Visa pays for a chargebacks or fraud protection. The governments bureaucratic friction might seem excessive, but that is how they ensure people are paying their taxes which goes to fund the court systems tha…

Regulation can greatly improve things.

Within the Single Euro Payments Area, credit transfers (i.e. bank transfers) have been free for almost a decade and will be instant (Relatedly, the EU also limits interchange fees for credit and debit cards (to 0.2 and 0.3%, respectively). This is the reason why integrators like Stripe charge 1.4% for European and 2.9% for non-European cards.

Payments can be quick, simple and cheap. All you need is some competition, or regulation to favour end-users' interests.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#184

> But BTC hasn't really lost any value since the spinoff, still trading at about $2,700. So just before the spinoff, if you had a bitcoin, you had a bitcoin worth about $2,700. Now, you have a BTC worth about $2,700, and also a BCH worth as much as $700. It's weird free money, if you owned bitcoins yesterday. Doesn't this throw up any red-flags to the btc/crypto apologist? This type of behavior is not how healthy mar…

I don't know if I count as a Bitcoin apologist, but I'm intrigued why you would say so?

If I gave away a tulip bulb so every Alphabet shareholder, would that diminish the value of Google stock? What if I gave away a sports car?

It's weird free money, sure, but that's because someone is willing to speculate against you. The reason it's initially given away instead of sold is marketing. There are new coins being made every week and you have to stand out.

I don't see any more red flags than with every other altcoin out there. If anything the fact that Bitcoin value hasn't changed means the market doesn't value this new coin very much. It's unfortunate that Levine repeats the $700 value because it's not possible to trade in the open market yet.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#185

> The way short selling works is that X borrows a share from Y and sells it to Z. So Y owns one share, and Z owns one share, and X owes one share, and everything balances out and there's only one share outstanding. Is that really true? That would mean that both Y and Z should get dividend payment, which doesn't make sense. I always assumed that when X borrows one share from Y, the Y does not own that share any more.

Apparently, X will have to supply Y with all dividends thus making Y's position exactly the same as owning a share. I think the only difference is that Y can't sell the share? Then again, it can sell the IOU of the share to someone, and it probably costs the same as the share...

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a stock split (which would issue you more BTC), but a demerger - or a spin-off. This is where a company gives out shares in proportion to existing shareholding. It's like BTC has "spin off" BCH which was part of BTC - but now trades independently. I'd say a LOT of people do not understand this, because the price of BTC should have fallen, which I guess makes sense since this BTC has no entitlements and there…

Except that many people believe these new shares are worthless, so the price drop should be ~$0. Don't assume the market doesn't know this and isn't telling you this already.

(And before you say something about the bcash price not being zero: right now there are no functioning markets where you can deposit any to sell it.)

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#187
post #106
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't all the alt-coins examples of this happening? That anyone can fork a blockchain and give it their own rules? The market value of a coin isn't limited to a strict mathematical function of mining power or exchanges backing it. That's the point Matt is making.

Before Bitcoin Cash, all (afaik) other alt-coins weren't based on BTC's blockchain history. Ethereum, for example, raised development money by selling off the early coins on the chain.

> all (afaik)

No, this has been done a number of times. Clams, lumens, byteball, this thing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1883902.0 all come to mind.

It isn't done often because it's not seen as a useful technique mostly: you just gave a ton your asset to people who think it's worthless, and who may actively dislike it. Not a great way to maintain a market price.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#188

> But BTC hasn't really lost any value since the spinoff, still trading at about $2,700. So just before the spinoff, if you had a bitcoin, you had a bitcoin worth about $2,700. Now, you have a BTC worth about $2,700, and also a BCH worth as much as $700. It's weird free money, if you owned bitcoins yesterday. Doesn't this throw up any red-flags to the btc/crypto apologist? This type of behavior is not how healthy mar…

> This type of behavior is not how healthy markets work.

You cannot deposit Bcash in any exchanges. Make sense now?

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#189
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who want to buy BCH have relatively unrestricted access to the market since most of the exchanges have reopened BTC deposits. (Of course, whether they can withdraw that BCH is another story entirely.) Most people who want to sell do not have access since BCH deposits are either not available or require multiple days worth of confirmations. Can you see the problem here?

You're saying that people buying BCH right now aren't aware that there's a huge glut of supply waiting to flood the market, and aren't taking this into account in their buying decisions? There is no need for anyone to have BCH in hand today, no reason for someone to value a BCH today more than a BCH in a week. If they thought that thousands of people selling BCH once they are able will lead to a drop in price, they w…

> You're saying that people buying BCH right now aren't aware that there's a huge glut of supply waiting to flood the market, and aren't taking this into account in their buying decisions?

Why do you think buyers even exist right now... with the tiny amounts available it's just as likely that it's a few people painting the ticker trading with themselves at more or less arbitrarily high prices.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#190

Excuse my ignorance, but this seems like the obvious solution to me: Distribute 1 BCH to each (actual) BTC holder on the exchange, completely ignore margin orders. So shorts don't owe and also longs aren't credited BCH. Fair and no way to game. Why aren't exchanges doing this?

It makes sense to me, I might be wrong.

Random: there two YouTube live streams during the fork - WorldCryptoNetwork and Cryptoverse - both with 3000+ liveviewers - both featured on YouTube home page in technology section.

Massive event!

Post reply on HN