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

Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 241 posts

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#231

Post by gnaritas »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #226
gnaritas wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, front running is risk free because it uses inside information, that's why it's illegal. Trying to trade faster than someone else is not risk free, requires guessing, is gambling, and is not illegal, and is thus not front running. What you're claiming is simply wrong. So please do explain why you think HFT is doing something wrong. It doesn't matter what we call it, you're claiming HFT is doing something they are…

There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. There are no guesses. And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong. This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

> There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning.

False. If there were no risk, it would be illegal, and your'e still tossing out that incorrect term without explanation as to what you mean by it since you clearly can't mean the illegal practice of front-running that we've already agreed they aren't doing.

> There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others.

Not relevant.

> There are no guesses.

False.

> And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong.

Because it's simply not true. Once again, you've ignored my question, you still cant' explain what HFT's are doing wrong, my guess is because you don't actually know what you're criticizing so you toss out flash boy hyperbole like front-running without actually being able to explain what you mean.

> This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

The IEX exists as a reaction to traders who were displaced by HFT creating a desire for an exchange that doesn't allow it; it in no way proves HFT is doing anything wrong. It's nothing more than marketing capitalizing on fear to establish a new exchange, perfectly legal, but it doesn't make the irrational fear against HFT legitimate.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#234

Post by planteen »

Lazare wrote: post #127
Twisell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so how on earth does the fact that derivatives permitted the tulip Bubble is an argument in favor of derivatives? It might a question of point of view. Maybe you focus more on tulip frenzy financial opportunities while I focus more on people that have been burned by it... And yeah if you want to trace it back to 1500 no problem with that, old does not always equal good. It like copyright laws written prior to wide…

> Ok so how on earth does the fact that derivatives permitted the tulip Bubble is an argument in favor of derivatives? It's not, not was I making an argument in favour of derivatives. (I'm generally in favour of them; I just wasn't making that argument.) Rather, I was responding to your argument, which I would paraphrase (I hope not unfairly) as "I hate these new inventions, we should go back to before they existed,…

I suspect it is even older than 1550s. I'm a farmer with land who needs seed. Another farmer is willing to front me seed in exchange for grain in the fall. That is a contract.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#235

Post by clarky07 »

dx034 wrote: post #168
an_account wrote: post #149

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 really a stock split (where you get multiple shares for the same company) but a company split. If a company splits itself into two parts (e.g. Amazon to be split into retail and AWS) they can distribute shares of both new companies to the shareholders of the old company. In that situation you have the same problem. If the new AWS shares are not traded and you were short Amazon, you would have to cover AWS sh…

It's not that either though. if AWS left amazon that would be value leaving amazon stock and going to the new aws stock. in this case there is no value leaving bitcoin. bitcoin is still the same. someone just decided to start a new coin, and instead of starting from scratch, they are copying the bitcoin blockchain up to this point and giving everyone who has a coin now a new coin that has no real value to speak of yet. it doesn't do anything, isn't accepted anywhere, and currently functions worse in every way (these could all change in time, but for now they are true)

Anyone, anywhere, anytime can fork bitcoin and give away new worthless coins. Forcing shorts to go an buy all the worthless coins is simply unreasonable.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#236

Post by clarky07 »

filmackay wrote: post #169
an_account wrote: post #149

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…

it's not a spin off though. nothing is leaving btc. no value is going away. someone else just created something out of thin air. also, bch was never a part of btc. it's simply something new that is using the past history of btc as a starting point, which creates new coins out of thin air, and distributes them to all the holders of btc.

No part of this makes sense for a short to have to go and buy bch.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#237

Post by clarky07 »

tpallarino wrote: post #77
kerkeslager wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming that Bitcoin Cash doesn't have those things? Or are you saying that those things are important factors which differentiate Bitcoin Cash from other forks?

"Nothing stops me from just announcing that I've cloned a copy of the bitcoin blockchain for BCM" You can't just make random forks and have them be worth something. This is the culmination of years worth of debate and has a significant community following.

Not really. It's 1 mining pool with maybe 1-2% of the total hash rate of bitcoin. I'm not sure it has significant community following or backing. I suspect the majority of the community would have preferred not to have the confusion in the market and avoided the split entirely

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#238

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

gnaritas wrote: post #231
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. There are no guesses. And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong. This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

> There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. False. If there were no risk, it would be illegal, and your'e still tossing out that incorrect term without explanation as to what you mean by it since you clearly can't mean the illegal practice of front-running that we've already agreed they aren't doing. > There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. Not relevant. > There are…

The explain what the risk is.

I did not say HFT is good or bad. I pointed out that not everybody likes it or benefits.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#239

Post by [deleted] »

gnaritas wrote: post #231
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. There are no guesses. And not sure how what I'm claiming is wrong. This has been the entire reason why IEX exists.

> There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. False. If there were no risk, it would be illegal, and your'e still tossing out that incorrect term without explanation as to what you mean by it since you clearly can't mean the illegal practice of front-running that we've already agreed they aren't doing. > There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. Not relevant. > There are…

[deleted]

Re: Bitcoin Exchange Had Too Many Bitcoins

#240

Post by gnaritas »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #238
gnaritas wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no risk involved in HFT frontrunning. False. If there were no risk, it would be illegal, and your'e still tossing out that incorrect term without explanation as to what you mean by it since you clearly can't mean the illegal practice of front-running that we've already agreed they aren't doing. > There is however an investment cost for having lower latency connections than others. Not relevant. > There are…

The explain what the risk is. I did not say HFT is good or bad. I pointed out that not everybody likes it or benefits.

The risk is the same risk any other trader takes, they predict price will go one direction based on data they've seen elsewhere and it turns out they're wrong, or the misjudged the volume. HFT is not risk free, you're claiming it is is simply not based in reality, ask any of the many HFT firms that have gone bankrupt how risky HFT is. Claiming someone is trading risk free is essentially accusing them of a crime, where's your evidence to back up this slander?

Once again, you've ignored my question, you still cant' explain what HFT's are doing wrong. It doesn't matter that some people don't like them when those people can't even rationally explain why they don't like them. You still can't explain why you don't like them without falling back on false facts and I've asked many times.

Post reply on HN