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

341–350 of 368 posts

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#341

Post by heptathorp »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #273
cookiecaper wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Nodes control consensus in bitcoin, not miners. If miners ever 51% attack, the nodes simply change the pow algorithm. Miners get crushed. That's why they don't dare. You should probably learn how bitcoin works. It's great.

1. How does the entire network just agree to switch to a new algorithm? How do they decide what the new algorithm is?

2. When everybody forks off of the compromised chain, haven't we effectively created an altcoin? What is the value of this nascent altcoin?

3. I'm thinking the value can't be very much, otherwise it would be way out of proportion to the difficulty considering there are not yet any ASICs for the new algorithm. Wouldn't it then be very much worth it for someone to attack it again using, say, a botnet?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#342

Post by corndoge »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #282
geezerjay wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is my opinion that the intrinsic value of bitcoin is far far greater than anyone really comprehends See? It's all speculative bullshit, where people who took a bet on bitcoin increasing price and expect to profit from this price increase are trolling other fools to keep pumping the bubble until they cash out. Bitcoin is quite clearly a pump-and-dump scheme, and here we see some users cheering fools to keep on pu…

I don't think you read past the first sentence.

And rightly so, since the rest of it was a bizarre analogy comparing envelopes to cryptographic hashes that ultimately served no discernible purpose

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#344

Post by Frogolocalypse »

heptathorp wrote: post #341
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You only need to compromise 2-3 of the major mining pools and suddenly a 51% attack isn't so unfathomable, Nodes control consensus in bitcoin, not miners. If miners ever 51% attack, the nodes simply change the pow algorithm. Miners get crushed. That's why they don't dare. You should probably learn how bitcoin works. It's great.

1. How does the entire network just agree to switch to a new algorithm? How do they decide what the new algorithm is? 2. When everybody forks off of the compromised chain, haven't we effectively created an altcoin? What is the value of this nascent altcoin? 3. I'm thinking the value can't be very much, otherwise it would be way out of proportion to the difficulty considering there are not yet any ASICs for the new al…

I don't think you're actually interested in the answers. Any pow change would simply be a hard fork with no or opt-in replay protection. I say none, because there's no need to provide protection to the compromised chain. The patch will have already been developed. The core developers will already have vetted many pow algorithms, and a decision would be made at the time.

It's actually not very complex.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#345

Post by Frogolocalypse »

superbrama wrote: post #324
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get it. No you don't, which is why you're still talking about it the way you are. > you have failed to mention any counterexample. What we have now. Inflation debasing your money. This is actually a game theory problem. There are three groups in bitcoin. The users, the holders, and the miners. To understand the way that relationship works, you have to understand what keeps everyone separated and honest. T…

What you’ve done here is offer a detailed technical explanation and then thrown in something about deflating a debt bubble, without actually connecting them. I’m all for the technology, but the technology itself doesn’t solve any systemic financial issues, not directly. It’s the adoption itself, and how it may be used for legit commerce, say 5-10 years down the road, that would potentially do so. And this would be fa…

I'm pretty sure we're discussing something new now, and that's cool.

> Fixed assets, goods and services, etc., are stable relative to fiat, at least USD.

Not house prices. As bitcoin gets larger and larger, you will see those prices stabilize and start to fall. What i think will happen, is that when the people who own all of those empty houses around the world that are used as a capital appreciation asset, start finding that that capital appreciation isn't increasing anymore, they will either sell them or rent them out. Feds ain't gonna take that lying down of course. They can't afford to, as the gfc proved. I expect an acceleration of qe.

Let's be clear, it is the price of these houses vs bitcoin that matters. If your capital appreciation of bitcoin is greater than housing, you will choose the one that has the best return. Bitcoin compared to the fixed asset market right now is a fraction of a fraction. But that is changing and it is changing fast. When bitcoin is 100 times the asset value of today, that metric becomes apparent.

And frankly it doesn't matter what people think. That's the beauty of the bitcoin design. It works because it doesn't rely upon questioning peoples motives, it relies on just working. And it is working. Oh is it working.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#346

Post by Frogolocalypse »

erkkie wrote: post #333
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners. Miners have a single choice : mine for bitcoin according to node consensus rules, or don't. That is the only power they have.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#347

Post by Frogolocalypse »

geezerjay wrote: post #339
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it doesn't. Bitcoin is money. It is sound money. The ponzi scheme is the fixed asset debt market, and bitcoin is its reckoning.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#348

Post by Frogolocalypse »

corndoge wrote: post #342
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you read past the first sentence.

And rightly so, since the rest of it was a bizarre analogy comparing envelopes to cryptographic hashes that ultimately served no discernible purpose

Don't buy it then. Problem solved.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#349

Post by Frogolocalypse »

victor106 wrote: post #316
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

I agree with most of what you say. There is intrinsic value in bitcoin. The two more important questions are:- 1. Can that value be measured? 2. Do the people buying bitcoin know the reasons behind why they are buying it? I think not. I know so many of my friends who own bitcoin and they have no idea what the hell this thing is. They just bought it as it’s growing up in value. These are the people who would sell it w…

> Fixed assets, goods and services, etc., are stable relative to fiat, at least USD.

Of course it can. Its price. Bitcoin is money. Its price is the only measure of value.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what people want it for. It's money. It enables things. It is just better money, because it can't be seized, payments can be made to anyone, it can be transported anywhere easily and redeemed anywhere easily, and most of all, it can't be debased. Any of these reasons is enough to want to use it, and people might not know all of the details, but they certainly understand the effects on their wealth.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#350

Post by Havoc »

andrewwharton wrote: post #89
Havoc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think I purchased a month of VPN with like half a bitcoin. Oops. Hindsight 20/20 I guess

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We've been cruising past orders of magnitude ($0.10 > $1 > $10 > $100 > $1000 > $10000) and at any one of those jumps it seemed like the top of a bubble and just as likely to go in the opposite direction with the same velocity. Don't kick yourself for spending when you did, because as I'm sure you're aware, it's just as likely that you could be now saying "Thank goodness I u…

Well I certainly missed the bus on this one. But I also think it's too late to climb on now.

As I said I bought VPN with it when this stuff was in baby stages. Now at 10k USD valuation the real world usage hasn't grown all that much from there...certainly nothing like the price growth. So I'm staying really fkin far away from this.

People called it right & made a killing of it - more power to them. Realistically this can't going though without some monster sized improvement in the underlying non-speculative transaction volume.

Real world utility and pricing have to converge at some point. Right now they seem to be growing apart exponentially and all I can think of is RIP whoever is on the wrong side of that when it returns to reality.

Post reply on HN