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

331–340 of 368 posts

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#331

Post by jnordwick »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #308
jnordwick wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many products that are settled both ways, and some financial futures that are physically settled.

Sure. But physically settled funancial futures such as bond futures are physical because customers actually want to get delivery of the underlying bonds. In the case of bitcoin futures, most likely they don't. Physically settled futures cost the exchange more in terms of additional expenses / infrastructure. So the exchange will go with physical only when there is a clear customer demand for that.

You're going off track. I'm just saying that phys settled allows the future to track the underlying better because you can take delivery. This is a completely seperate issue on if you actually want to hold the underlying (many people would prob love the idea of using cme to deal in btc directly since current exchanges are so terrible at it).

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#332

Post by zenlikethat »

usrusr wrote: post #322
zenlikethat wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are liquidation limits on the exchanges. I think Coinbase limits to $10k USD in exchange for your Bitcoins. You can get increases by providing additional identity verification. IRS is way up in Coinbase’s business since this is essentially a huge potential avenue for laundering and tax evasion.

So it might be that bitcoin is rising and rising ever more not just because owners are bullish on future development but also because some of those who are not are disallowed from selling? Best store of value ever, backed by inability to sell.

That’s certainly possible, however I suspect many of them just keep watching their money go up (at least for now). If really motivated you can find other ways to sell like LocalBitcoins, it’s just not as convenient as pressing the “sell” button.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#333

Post by erkkie »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #296
erkkie wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a hybrid PoS/PoW system? In reality, bitcoin as PoW is also near monopoly, more like oligopoly, still requiring trust.

If you think this you don't understand the technology, and therefore don't understand its value.

Elaborate? I mean mining pools in China with the oligopoly bit. Are you saying that's not a problem? I would say the current bitcoin PoW scheme is inherently seeking to end up in a few actors having most of the power due to the higher and higher barriers of entry to mining on custom silicon. ELI5 why I'm wrong?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#334

Post by runeks »

cookiecaper wrote: post #258
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it. You don't understand the application of decentralization and consensus in bitcoin, and how its application separates it from all other alts. Bitcoin is the only real crypto-currency, because it is the only one to have achieved actual decentralization, and therefore is a working implementation of the previously thought unsolvable solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem. Doesn't mean other people don't und…

> Bitcoin is the only real crypto-currency, because it is the only one to have achieved actual decentralization This is ridiculous because Bitcoin is arguably much more vulnerable to centralized manipulation than fiat money. You only need to compromise 2-3 of the major mining pools and suddenly a 51% attack isn't so unfathomable, and that's just one potential attack vector. The pools obscure the real source of the mi…

> You only need to compromise 2-3 of the major mining pools and suddenly a 51% attack isn't so unfathomable, and that's just one potential attack vector.

If an attacker manages to gain control of 51% of the processing power, he can either a) choose to earn ~$350,000 per hour playing by the rules (mining to his own address) or b) perform a double spend attack on someone (in which case he needs to own over ~$350,000 and find someone willing to pay him in cash before either the mining pool or the network discovers the attack). Which will he realistically choose? The settlement time for USD is in the order of days. Will he risk a USD transfer being aborted before he can get his money, or play it safe and generate 12.5 bitcoins (~$100,000) within 20 minutes to his own address?

Also, exchanges and nodes can easily see that a fork is ongoing, with just barely half the hashing power on the honest chain. Chances are exchanges would shut down, clients would warn of a 51% attack, and the attacker would be left with the only option of mining honestly on the longest chain to his own address, thus taking money from poorly secured mining pools, but not affecting the stability of Bitcoin.

> What happens if a bitcoin core dev gets compromised?

I don’t know. What do you suggest would be the consequences of a single Bitcoin Core dev getting comprised? I highly doubt any code of his would even be merged into master, much less make it into a release.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#335

Post by vasilipupkin »

jnordwick wrote: post #331
vasilipupkin wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But physically settled funancial futures such as bond futures are physical because customers actually want to get delivery of the underlying bonds. In the case of bitcoin futures, most likely they don't. Physically settled futures cost the exchange more in terms of additional expenses / infrastructure. So the exchange will go with physical only when there is a clear customer demand for that.

You're going off track. I'm just saying that phys settled allows the future to track the underlying better because you can take delivery. This is a completely seperate issue on if you actually want to hold the underlying (many people would prob love the idea of using cme to deal in btc directly since current exchanges are so terrible at it).

why does it track better just because you take delivery? either way, whether you take delivery or not, the exchange has to decide on a settlement mark to market price. So, delivery or not, it will track the same.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#336

Post by vasilipupkin »

lunchables wrote: post #317
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it takes usually 2 to 3 days for the ink to dry in the ledger, and costs you $3 every time you wrote in it, and consumed more electricity than your house does in a week, and you do it this way because you want it to be trustless.

His analogy isn't perfect with all respect to bitcoin, but it is for that explanation. And transaction fees doesn't really matter when it's used as long term value storage for a significant amount of money. The small transaction fee is basically irrelevant.

I don't get it. why is it a store of value? what makes it have value? For example, suppose I just got paid and I buy bitcoin today. What is the force that will make my bitcoins not be worth 0.5X over the next 20 years ?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#337

Post by vasilipupkin »

jcoffland wrote: post #260
vasilipupkin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't people in Latin America just buy gold or dollars to store value ? I mean it's a circular argument. To say bitcoin is a store of value, there has to be an apriori reason why it has value. It can't be a store of value because it is. Right ?

Why are you easily able to see gold as having intrinsic value but not Bitcoin? Both are valuable because a lot of people say so. There is no other value but utility and most currencies, including the dollar, do not have any utility other than their ability to function as currency.

Gold has physical value, right ? For example, used in electronics, jewelry, etc. but gold is a terrible investment so if bitcoin is like gold should we also assume it's a terrible investment like gold ?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#338

Post by sctb »

virtuexru wrote: post #19

Ah yes Bitcoin; the completely useless electricity waster is finally hitting Wall St. I wonder how the futures will affect price & how much of it will be settled in actual BTC vs USD. AM I DOING THIS RIGHT HACKER NEWS? LUL

Would you please stop?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#339

Post by geezerjay »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #224
mirimir wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bitcoin would have to drop 85% in value from where it is now to only have doubled in value over the past year. I'll take 100% yearly value growth any day of the week.

Your argument boils down to claiming that a pump and dump scheme is sound investment because those who enter early can still earn some cash when the bubble bursts.

Ponzi schemes are similarly profitable but for some reason they are frowned upon.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#340

Post by geezerjay »

hw wrote: post #210
vasilipupkin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understood, but that doesn't explain why it's a store of value meaning why can't bitcoin cost 5k vs 10k

supply vs demand. More and more people are getting introduced to bitcoin, understanding it and buying into it. There's also a cap on the total number of bitcoins, so scarcity is another factor. Just like why gold is worth X instead of X/2

> More and more people are getting introduced to bitcoin, understanding it and buying into it.

That's pretty much the definition of a pump-and-dump scheme.

Post reply on HN