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

361–368 of 368 posts

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#361

Post by monort »

wpietri wrote: post #352
monort wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said that jewelry and industrial use outweighs investment use, but gold reserves (investment) far outstrip yearly transaction amount, that is the difference with other commodities, where it is rare to have more than a year supply. It is a feature of gold and that is why people call it a "store of value".

Transactions are necessary but insufficient for something to become a store of value. For example, steel is sold in great amount, but it is not a store of value.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#362

Post by Frogolocalypse »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #360
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

No. You completely don't get how it works. Only by mining according to bitcoin consensus rules do they get bitcoin rewards. Their fork relies upon you using their node client in order to give them tokens. If nodes don't switch clients, no one even knows the fork exists.

This entire episode over the past year has demonstrated this again and again. Miners talk a big game, but in the end, they do as they're told.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#363

Post by collinmanderson »

cwkoss wrote: post #204
amenghra wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very same reasons they have delays right now. Institutions are able to move money pretty quickly and cheaply between themselves. The reason you don’t get that as an end user is because of compliance, fraud, etc.

I'd argue that Bitcoin would eliminate the fraud aspect (users can not 'fake' deposits), but compliance could certainly remain as an issue.

They might want to check that your wallet isn't on a blacklist.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#364

Post by superbrama »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #345
superbrama wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 find…

You believe housing will fall in fiat? So a $1MM home will be $900k, etc? What’s btc have to do with this? Why would housing go down in fiat if bitcoin is going up in fiat?

Is anyone pricing housing indexes in bitcoin? You could maybe come up with one yourself.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#365

Post by wpietri »

monort wrote: post #361
wpietri wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said that jewelry and industrial use outweighs investment use, but gold reserves (investment) far outstrip yearly transaction amount, that is the difference with other commodities, where it is rare to have more than a year supply. It is a feature of gold and that is why people call it a "store of value". Transactions are necessary but insufficient for something to become a store of value. For example, steel is so…

I think you've reversed cause and effect here. Gold reserves prove that people use it as a store of value, but they're not a necessary condition for something being a store of value.

For example, let's suppose that I made a deal with Porche to buy the first car off their assembly line each year. I take it and store it away as an investment. Is there an existing reserve of 2018 Porches? No, I have the first one. Does anybody else do this? Doesn't matter. It's still a good store of value as long as people keep wanting 2018 Porches.

People could use steel as a store of value; it's just an inconvenient commodity to deal with because the value per gram is so low. You need to store a lot of it. But rarer metals will do fine.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#366

Post by dingo_bat »

emsimot wrote: post #299
dingo_bat wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> idealists > hard fork because people didn't want to honor smart contract Does not compute.

Just because some people have different ideals to yourself doesn't make them any less idealistic.

Honoring a contract you got into is not idealistic?

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#367

Post by goldenkey »

ceejayoz wrote: post #304
goldenkey wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its common for international shops to use Bitcoin. And its common for people to buy home vitamins and supplements, foods, etc.. from their ethnic countries of origin, because they are difficult to find anywhere else. Who exactly determines what someone buying bitcoin is allowed to use it for? If I want to trade it for vitamins or russian crackers or chocolate, am I now banned? Think about what you are saying -- that…

Since you're dancing around the point so much, I'll be more direct. Here are specific questions that I suspect Coinbase also had: What vitamin is unavailable in the US but available internationally? Is said vitamin legal to import to the US? Why does the vendor not take anything but Bitcoin? Why can't you wait a couple weeks to get it? Where were you getting it previously without Bitcoin, given that it's so critical…

I guess every purchase should require an interrogation. Thanks for your thoughts on liberty.

Re: Nasdaq Plans to Introduce Bitcoin Futures

#368

Post by chx »

98Windows wrote: post #307
chx wrote: post #289

What is the difference between Bitcoin futures and gambling?

It's still gambling in a sense however there is a major difference in the type of randomness you are exposing yourself to. At a casino or when playing cards it's very easy to compute probabilities of all possible events - hence the house always wins. Here in order to compute the probabilities of price movements you'd need to model millions of human agents across dozens of markets. So unless someone has a lot of insid…

Or lose a lot of it?
Post reply on HN