51–60 of 188 posts
> ... no obvious way to tell which is the One True Chain. One obvious way - whether you agree with it or not - is to use hashrate. It's quite unlikely that both chains will have a nearly-equal hashrate for a sustained period of time.
This is a good write-up. There is an insane amount of FUD surrounding Bitcoin, and not all of it is unfounded. I certainly hope that Bitcoin gets its act together, because the volatility makes driving adoption significantly harder than it would otherwise be. It has been very interesting to see how he Ethereum has handled many of these same problems. I would be interested in seeing analysis about the impact to alterna…
Adoption increases market depths, which in turn decreases volatility. And volatility is sharply decreasing: https://mobile.twitter.com/lsukernik/status/8649208737189519...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current price of Bitcoin is mostly driven by the fraud taking place within the Ethereum ecosystem. Let's see where the price is after a few rounds of SEC crackdowns.
It would suffer a temporary drop then inevitably climb back up again. Bitcoin is global at this point. No one jurisdiction is going to shut it down.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-arm_jurisdiction
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-long-arm-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the SEC losing their patience with ICOs and turning on the whole sector would do it. Edit To replies: It does if the SEC decides the concept of cryptocurrency is one which fundamentally exists to bypass regulations for the purpose of fraud. I’d disagree, you’d disagree, but only their agreement matters.
> To be fair, the SEC losing their patience with ICOs and turning on the whole sector would do it. They are already doing just that in the last couple of months, and bitcoin remains unaffected.
As a Bitcoin fan (and someone who owns a little), I think it's a pretty good article. Some more tidbits of information from my perspective: >The anti-2Xers argue that the NYA should not be binding because it was negotiated behind closed doors, and that a change of this magnitude needs to be more carefully considered before it is adopted. No active developers were part of the NYA. Some in the NYA have said that they a…
I think you fail to envision how the dynamics will play out if Segwit2x wins. Core will simply merge the ~1k lines of code that make up the segwit2x features, and mostly everyone will be back to business running Bitcoin Core instead of BTC1, since the two code bases would be equivalent. That's it. No big war. No mass resignation of Core devs. No ceding the control of Bitcoin to "another group". Most Segwit2x supporters want a smooth "reintegration" scenario like that to take place. We don't want to "fire Core" or such nonsense you might read on r/Bitcoin.
Things would be a lot simpler if Core simply agreed to double the block size. That's all we want. A one-time block size increase, to give the blockchain some breathing room while we all continue to work on off-chain scaling (NimbleWimble, LN...) that we all already agree are the proper long-term solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be fair, the SEC losing their patience with ICOs and turning on the whole sector would do it. They are already doing just that in the last couple of months, and bitcoin remains unaffected.
The SEC have only cracked down a handful of obvious scams from the pool of obvious scams. That’s worlds away from a global crackdown on the entire space, or worse, congressional action. Whether or not you agree with said action, I’m sure you can think of reasons, stated or otherwise, that such action might Be taken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with bitcoin?
The current price of Bitcoin is mostly driven by the fraud taking place within the Ethereum ecosystem. Let's see where the price is after a few rounds of SEC crackdowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The SEC have only cracked down a handful of obvious scams from the pool of obvious scams. That’s worlds away from a global crackdown on the entire space, or worse, congressional action. Whether or not you agree with said action, I’m sure you can think of reasons, stated or otherwise, that such action might Be taken.
No they’ve been calling just about everyone operating in their jurisdiction. Many ‘reputable’ ICOs have halted their fundraising as a result of phone calls their lawyers received from the SEC. They’ve only filed suits agains the obvious scams so far, but that’s just a matter of priorities and the fact that they try to be soft handed with non-scams.
> I am fully cognizant of the perils of making bearish predictions about new technology. > But, to quote another well-worn and wholly unreliable aphorism, this time it's different. It really is. and >... because the only other alternative is chaos, and probably the end of the whole Bitcoin experiment. I'm very much a Bitcoin skeptic, but, I'm not sure this time is different, or that Bitcoin will die. For the last 8 y…
Ah yes. Bitcoin died 172 times: https://99bitcoins.com/obituary-stats/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand quantitative finance, but I had the impression portfolio theory can find a place for any amount of volatility. If the volatility is very great or it's correlated with the rest of your portfolio, then your appetite may be small, but high returns may make it still worth buying some. Is that wrong? I also have the impression that bitcoin's volatility has been relatively uncorrelated with other asset c…
No, you're right. For portfolios It's all about the covariance matrix. Having said that, there is probably still the more banal reality of pensions or institutional funds actually needing a portfolio manager to go out and buy bitcoin, which probably would be a publicitly/legal nightmare if done poorly, or if the first person to do it gets burned.