81–90 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think that Binance is wash-trading Given most of these exchanges are completely unregulated and typically go to great lengths to conceal their identities.... you know they aren't wash-trading how exactly?
I don't say I know, I say that I think. It remains a possibility that they are wash-trading.
https://cryptopotato.com/95-of-bitcoin-trading-volume-is-fak...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as a "market cap" for Bitcoin - seriously, give me a definition of "market cap" for Bitcoin that makes any sense at all compared to something like the future value of cash flows from UNH equity.
The market cap for UNH isn't calculated using future cash flows. The market cap for any security, by definition, is price-per-security * number-of-securities. Similar valuations also exist for gold-funds, which also have no cash flows. You can argue that asset prices should be derived from future cash flows, and hence, both Bitcoin and gold should be almost worthless. But that has nothing to do with the formula for c…
Market cap is an equities concept. The market value of a series of bonds isn't the issuance's market cap. The notional value of all options on a symbol is only useful to operations/settlement folk.
For Bitcoin, "market cap" is meaningless. It's too thinly and opaquely traded. Better would be flow of funds, i.e. value of new money flowing into and out of the system.
Put another way, if you bought all the shares in a company, you'd have the company. If you bought all the bonds of a company, you'd own the debt. The aggregates have meaning. If you bought every Bitcoin in existence (or dollar, for that matter), you would have nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lightning network comes up just about every discussion involving bitcoin transactions, but because it requires the bitcoin network to make confirmations, Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. This is still a problem. Example of the problem: * For 2 users to make 10,000,000 transactions between each other, it would take 10 minutes on the lightning network. * For 10,000,000 users to make jus…
Where can I read more about how you came up with those numbers? I didn't knew that side of lightning.
Since lightning requires Bitcoin to settle transactions between parties, it means that the more users there are making transactions, the more it needs bitcoin.
If it's just a handful of users making a million transactions, then there's no problem since lightning will do the math and then settle on Bitcoin with a handful of transactions. If there's a million users making a handful of transactions, well, then lightning needs to settle a few million transactions on Bitcoin (which takes weeks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't say I know, I say that I think. It remains a possibility that they are wash-trading.
>It remains a possibility that they are wash-trading. https://cryptopotato.com/95-of-bitcoin-trading-volume-is-fak...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but because it requires the bitcoin network to make confirmation It doesn't require the Bitcoin network to make confirmation at all. Two users could do millions of txn/s between each other. The only limitation is their internet speed. The bitcoin network does not need to confirm or even know about anything other than the initial deposits. It could even happen entirely offline in a closed network, though that would b…
>... Lightning only scales with the number of transactions, not users. Is the rest of the sentence that you quoted out of context. Did you not see the example?
You seem to be poking at the need to open a lightning channel to get started using lightning and using the onboarding time to suggest that lightning cannot scale. First of all I think the way you made that argument is entirely disingenuous. Let's look at your first example:
>* For 2 users to make 10,000,000 transactions between each other, it would take 10 minutes on the lightning network.
It would take 10 minute for any two users to get started with lightning in the traditional way because that's the block time used in Bitcoin. For the record, lightning in not just for Bitcoin. It would take 2.5 minutes if using Litecoin for instance.
What you are obscuring here is that once the channel is set up, the two users could transact with each other with no delay. That's what makes your example both incorrect and disingenuous.
Your next example is basically the same thing, but at scale. You are incorporating on boarding times to get a big scary number.
I encourage you to read about channel factories which should alleviate onboarding times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market cap for UNH isn't calculated using future cash flows. The market cap for any security, by definition, is price-per-security * number-of-securities. Similar valuations also exist for gold-funds, which also have no cash flows. You can argue that asset prices should be derived from future cash flows, and hence, both Bitcoin and gold should be almost worthless. But that has nothing to do with the formula for c…
> The market cap for any security, by definition, is price-per-security number-of-securities Market cap is an equities concept. The market value of a series of bonds isn't the issuance's market cap. The notional value of all options on a symbol is only useful to operations/settlement folk. For Bitcoin, "market cap" is meaningless. It's too thinly and opaquely traded. Better would be flow of funds, i.e. value of new m…
That claim about "thinly" contradicts the numbers given in my post above.
That being said I don’t think bitcoin’s trading volume is a majorly faked. I think there are a few bad actors in the exchange industry, especially during the bubble, who were trying to give the illusion of volume and popularity to drive more clients so they could extract their fees + raise money.
If people are truly worried about this issue then just trade on a regulated exchange like CME.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a hard time believe its anything other than market makers providing the illusion of trades. Have you seen the price swings? If there was real volume and real transactions asides from trades, how would such insane swings be possible?
I don't have a crystal ball to claim I know what happens but swings are often due to futures trades and exchanges interested in liquidating longs and shorts. I understand why exchanges are interested in wash trading but I don't know why market makers would provide any illusion since each transaction costs in order of 0.075% of its value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more complex than that. It's the miners, not the devs, on the Bitcoin network refuse to come to a consensus on what Bitcoin should be. It's like a weird 21st-century internet tragedy of the commons.
This is why I think "decentralization" will never work. It's just a power vacuum, that will be filled/abused one way or the other.