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

351–360 of 368 posts

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#351

Post by mirimir »

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.

I agree with you that Bitcoin price is hugely speculative. There have been many bubbles. Most notably, $100->$1000->$200, in late 2013 through 2014, and $500->$10000->??? in 2016-2017. The future is unknowable, but arguably much of the overall ~10^6 increase since 2010 reflects real growth in demand. I mean, only some thousands were fully aware of Bitcoin in 2010-2011. Now billions are.

Even so, I don't believe that it's a Ponzi scheme. Maybe someone controlling Mt Gox accounts orchestrated the 2013-2014 bubble. Mt Gox had huge market share back then. But now, I doubt that any player dominates enough to run a Ponzi scheme.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#352

Post by wpietri »

monort wrote: post #280
wpietri wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd do better to spend a minute Googling before saying something so definitive. The use of gold for jewelry and industrial applications outweighs the investment use of it: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274684/global-demand-for... Gold has been valued from time immemorial for its unique aesthetic and practical properties entirely aside from its value as a currency. That's clearly distinct from, say, paper doll…

You are looking at the wrong metric, it seems like they count only transactions, not holdings. Only Fort Knox holds over 4000 of metric tons of gold.

Sorry, I'm not following. The thing that makes a store of value useful is stable demand. This metric demonstrates stable demand. Holdings are irrelevant.

As an example of the difference, look at oil or bananas. Demand for those is significant, but because storage is inconvenient, holdings are low compared with total commodity flow.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#353

Post by jnordwick »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #335
jnordwick wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you can take delivery and sell on spot market either now or in the future (with carry costs) or buy on the spot now, carry, and sell into the future. This keeps the prices linked.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#356

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…

Responding to

> 1. Can that value be measured?

Of course.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#357

Post by pointsphere »

pryelluw wrote: post #239
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask yourself first, why did the value climb 16x? Oh I can do that. I expect it to be 100x or more greater than what it is today. The reason why it is 16 as opposed to 8 or 32 is simply the speed of the uptake. It is going up in value because it is in the process of deflating the fixed-asset debt bubble. The only real question is, how big is that bubble. > I would also spend some time understanding what "investing"…

Since you are clearly very well informed (no sarcasm intended), do you mind helping me with something Ive been struggling with? In your opinion, what is the intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

There is no "intrinsic value", but the subjective value of Bitcoin is that could be a better money than any money that has existed so far.

Strictly speaking "intrinsic value" does not exist, there is only subjective value placed on things based on their properties and usefulness to humans.

Gold only has "intrinsic value" because we value that we can use it to build machines or shiny jewellery. But that is only valuable because we value machines and shiny things. Even air is only valuable to us because we require it to survive, but anaerobic lifeforms don't care. So the value is not intrinsic, but only subjectively "intrinsic" because most people value staying alive.

So the subjective value of Bitcoin is based on its its properties. Humans happen to use money, and the properties of Bitcoin could theoretically make it "better" money than any money that has existed so far.

Anything can be money, but is judged on how "good" a money it is depending on several criteria such as:

1.) Scarcity: Only a select group can create money.

2.) Durability: Should be resistant to aging and natural elements.

3.) Divisibility: Can be divided into smaller sub-units.

4.) Transportability: Easy to transport and transact in.

5.) Recognizability: Should be difficult to counterfeit.

6.) Fungibility: Any $1 bill is equal to any other $1 bill.

Bitcoin could theoretically be better in every category.

However, it is still suffering from lots of problems.

Currently "portability" is often suffering due to network congestion and high fees, which also impacts "divisibility" as it becomes impractical to move small amounts.

However, there's still a good chance that either Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Cash or any other of the current cryptocurrencies will find a way to scale and retain good portability and divisibility.

tl;dr Bitcoin has no "intrinsic value", nothing does, but the subjective value is that it could be better money than any other.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#358

Post by nicky0 »

wyldfire wrote: post #214
nicky0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is holding Bitcoin hard? That's the point of it. It's a store of value that's easy to hold directly.

If you hold it, you own the risk of securing it. If I were a mutual fund, I'd much rather pay a premium to someone with expertise (like an exchange or some agent of the exchange).

I agree but it is ironic, because one of the great strengths of Bitcoin is that, with just a little education and following the right basic procedures, anyone can hold it directly with very little risk. No need the need for any middlemen, custodians or trusted third parties.

But yes I can see that some people/businesses would want to outsource that risk by trusting someone else to do it properly.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#359

Post by [deleted] »

pointsphere wrote: post #357
pryelluw wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are clearly very well informed (no sarcasm intended), do you mind helping me with something Ive been struggling with? In your opinion, what is the intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

There is no "intrinsic value", but the subjective value of Bitcoin is that could be a better money than any money that has existed so far. Strictly speaking "intrinsic value" does not exist, there is only subjective value placed on things based on their properties and usefulness to humans. Gold only has "intrinsic value" because we value that we can use it to build machines or shiny jewellery. But that is only valuab…

[deleted]

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#360

Post by vasilipupkin »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #346
erkkie wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in theory. But in practice, if tomorrow fork XYZ comes out and miners decide to mine that fork, instead of the current one, the current one is finished. So, don't they hold all the power in practice ?
Post reply on HN