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

Coinbase outages

coinbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 310 posts

Re: Coinbase outages

#291

Post by DebtDeflation »

j3th9n wrote: post #279
DebtDeflation wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Coinbase has a $50k a day withdrawal limit Given the price volatility of crypto, that sounds absolutely insane to me. Also, I don't think this prevents a run, on the contrary, when everyone hits the sell button and cannot actually exit then panic will ensue.

A withdrawal limit has nothing to do with being able to exit a trade from BTC to dollars.

The exchanges handle that part of the "problem" by simply having an outage. The withdrawal limit solves the rest of the problem by limiting how much USDT can be converted to USD.

Re: Coinbase outages

#294

Post by ric2b »

amptorn wrote: post #255
_alex_ wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power per tx metric is a dumb metric. Power usage doesnt increase or decrease per tx

It's reasonable to evaluate the usefulness of a system by weighing the resources it consumes against the valuable output it produces. In Bitcoin's case the valuable output is around 10 financial transactions per second, and the resource it consumes is enough energy to power the Netherlands.

The output also includes security/decentralization.

I can handle a lot of transactions on my personal laptop, but how safe would they be?

Re: Coinbase outages

#295

Post by ric2b »

lottin wrote: post #284
_alex_ wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not power per dollar transferred? transactions per 10 minute period is relatively constant over time. The thing that increases the energy usage is the price of bitcoin. It's a dumb metric.

> The thing that increases the energy usage is the price of bitcoin. This simply tells us that bitcoin has a dumb cost structure. Apparently its inventors didn't think about that either. But that's not our problem. Our problem is measuring efficiency, and for that we need a measure of efficiency. And a measure of efficiency needs to be chosen in terms of how good it is at measuring efficiency, not in terms of how goo…

Would you measure a car's efficiency based on how much wiper fluid it uses per mile? The two measures aren't meaningfully linked, so it makes little sense to compute a correlation.

Re: Coinbase outages

#296

Post by ric2b »

JackFr wrote: post #182
andrewmutz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Withdrawal limit or sell limit? Presumably, people can sell all their holdings and withdraw over time.

When the BIG selloff comes, the withdrawal limit isn't gonna matter. 'NO BID' seems inconceivable to some, but it's real and it can happen.

What's a BIG selloff? -90% in 2018 wasn't it?

Re: Coinbase outages

#297

Post by lottin »

ric2b wrote: post #295
lottin wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that increases the energy usage is the price of bitcoin. This simply tells us that bitcoin has a dumb cost structure. Apparently its inventors didn't think about that either. But that's not our problem. Our problem is measuring efficiency, and for that we need a measure of efficiency. And a measure of efficiency needs to be chosen in terms of how good it is at measuring efficiency, not in terms of how goo…

Would you measure a car's efficiency based on how much wiper fluid it uses per mile? The two measures aren't meaningfully linked, so it makes little sense to compute a correlation.

No, because wiper fluid contributes nothing to the outcome, which is the car moving from point a to b. The car will move from point a to point b whether it has wiper fluid or not. But it will not move without fuel.

Re: Coinbase outages

#298

Post by screye »

m3kw9 wrote: post #200
screye wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, dumping once you already knee deep in the dump only ensures a guaranteed loss. If you are confident about the long term prospects of an investment, then holding on for longer might just work. I won't be selling any of my Eth or PoS crypto currencies any time soon. It helps that crypto makes up less than 15% of my portfolio.

Not really, you can dump and buy lower. Dump and not buy back will guarantee losses. Usually you dump based on panic and not buy back that’s how wealth is lost usually. Most assets don’t go to zero after someone sells, they may go lower but will have a bounce point somewhere down the line.

That's genuinely a better plan than just holding.

I don't like active trading a lot, but if I did, then this would be ideal.

Re: Coinbase outages

#299

Post by Balantio »

doomroot wrote: post #159
Balantio wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would say but i haven't checked his data. Generally speaking, every 10 minutes! one block is mined which is incentivived with 6 btc or roughlyl the equivilent of over 150.000$. In avg there are 1000-2000 transactions per block.

We have no idea how many transactions are “in a block”. There are multiple decentralized layers aggregating thousands of transactions down into a single bitcoin block transaction. This doesn’t even begin to touch the sheer magnitude of transactions that exchanges facilitate between their users without touching the blockchain.

From a default btc perspective, we are very aware of how many transactions are there.

Non of my ways of buying/using bitcoins is doing it indirectly.

And i do have to assume that this is nothing you can't estimate. After all either those systems are known and used, than you should be able to verify that this is a potential lightning transaction block which contains more or so.

Re: Coinbase outages

#300

Post by Balantio »

fsflover wrote: post #207
idreyn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's worth clarifying that the number is correct — Bitcoin is currently using 1 Mwh per transaction.

Except there is no connection between megawatts and transactions.

Does BTC makes sense if there would be no transactions?

If transactions are critical for everyone, wouldn't that mean that keeping bitcoin mining alive is a fundamental part of transactions?

We could argue that fiat keeps databases running (if we ignore physical money) and bitcoin is keeping blocks mining active.

I don't think it is wrong to say megatwatts per transactions. We could ignore this completly and say 'the baseload of just keeping btc running is x megawatts per hour' and that would just ring the same bells.

I'm pondering if we could also say something like "btc itself as a cryptosystem motivates actors to consume megawatts per hour due to the interest in btc and the current fiatbtc exchange value"?

Post reply on HN