What? That doesn't even make any sense. You can sell the bitcoin for USD then pay your taxes. Just like you can't pay your taxes with 1 billion dollars worth of Facebook stock or gold.
The argument you are looking for is: "USD has value BECAUSE the state makes you pay your taxes in it."
Notice that that argument does not end with, "and this is the only way a commodity or currency can have value." Because there are different reasons that different things have value and more than one thing has value.
Your comment is intellectually lazy and you don't have to believe in crypto to come to this conclusion.
That's a great analogy, thanks for posting. I'm going to use that. I think it really will help drive home the speculative nature of the markets right now, especially to total newcomers who just want a quick buck.
I am not anti-crypto. I think in the future most transactions would move there. But the state of the current crypto's won't get us there. If you close your eyes for a min and just think about the .com bust that is exactly what is happening here. I know of companies during that time that had nothing to do with IT and they would just announce that they are investing in IT and there stocks would triple. Read below for similar crypto news.
Hmm I'm confused in that case. Did the Fed start publishing it again? The link I provided is to the official Federal Reserve website clearly stating they are discontinuing the publication of M3.
The end of the first link provides a response from Bernanke which says that the public would still have access to the data but the fed won’t aggregate it and report it. What the OECD does is the aggregation and reporting based on the raw fed data.
The second link provides why the M3 was useless to begin with.
"Brian Armstrong responded that he had repeatedly warned his staff not to disclose its launch plans to family or friends or to trade in the digital asset themselves."
So the whole staff new about this move, from which it is to be expected to move the market when published?
Companies release products which will change the value of their stocks all the time.. this is exactly how such events are managed. What else could be done? lock up employees at work for a week while the market adjusts?
What else could be done? lock up employees at work for a week while the market adjusts?
An email to everyone, a press release, a blog post stating this new feature will be available to everyone in x days at time T. That would be fair game.
OK, so what about the planning period where you talk to your engineers and ask if they can implement it? Or does the CEO just shoot off the email without consulting anyone? The price would shoot up as soon as that email was sent out, so if anyone was consulted about it then they could insider trade.
No, it wouldn't. At least then not when that email contains information, which is market relevant in any form.
It would only then be fair game if that email goes out at the same time as when the information is publicly available.
I'm not talking about a new iPhone here. But information, which moves the market. For example: A planned merger to which very few people are really privy.
Well, if you work for a financial services company, even if you work in a back office sort of environment like IT -- hell, even if you're a secretary or a network engineer -- you're disallowed from having private brokerage accounts that aren't monitored by the firm.
I've worked in several investment firms and banks, and in all cases I had to use a special employee trading account, often at higher cost btw. What happens on such systems are brownouts / blackouts of transactions for certain stocks. It happened to me more than once in the past that, even if I already have a position, I was barred from even selling the security since it was on one of the several lists that they keep. Some of these lists are private, and they won't tell you when it's coming off the list. That's probably part of the protection against insider knowledge, too.
Like another commenter said, these coin outlets have a lot more to re-live in terms of wheels that have been invented long ago. Someone talked about currency itself, and Roman experiments, but similar lessons will need to be learned with regards to insider trading, exchanges, securities markets and so forth.
Some people do know that its going to be listed. https://www.reddit.com/r/CoinBase/comments/7kfbjj/will_coinb....
The user mukiwa2 said "Bitcoin Cash coming in the next few days!!" 2 days back in that thread and he even joked saying he knew an employee in Coinbase.
That response has since been deleted. I was just talking to my friend about this. Here is the snapshot: https://imgur.com/a/cLlp7
1.) It's just like Visa!! Damn it costs me $500 to send $500
2.) It's just like the bank!! Damn another exchange got shut down/frozen. The insiders made out like bandits
3.) It's just like gold! So rare....oh wait, another crytocurrency just came out with 100M unit of supplies.
4.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
I mean lets be honest... If you knew in advance that this was going to happen, who wouldnt have done something like this? You could have made a quick 100k+.
Some questions I'm curious about (including other exchanges besides Coinbase too).
Do Coinbase employees have to disclose their external crypto-currency trading accounts (as well as for immediate family members) to the internal compliance dept?
Is Coinbase employee crypto trading activity subject to pre-approval prior to trade execution?
What is their policy regarding disclosure of material non-public information of pending changes/additions to their own exchange?
1.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
2.) It's just like Visa!! Damn it costs me $500 to send $500
3.) It's just like gold! So rare....oh wait, another crytocurrency just came out with 100M unit of supplies.
4.) It's just like the bank!! Damn another exchange got shut down/frozen. The insiders made out like bandits
Cryptocurrency is useful. Bitcoin allows me to be my own bank. The rules of consensus define characteristics of money I believe are important. It allows me to save my money outside of the global financial system, a system I believe is corrupt and manipulated. It allows me to program my money, something never before possible. It allows me to transact freely, with whomever I please.
Money is whatever people believe it to be. You may value the USD, and that's entirely your right to do so. I choose value Bitcoin. Everyone is free to use whatever medium of exchange they believe in.
> hacks happen less then let's say you're mugged on the street or your bank account is emptied by carders/hackers.
Pretty disingenuous argument.
In absolute numbers, sure. But that is only because everybody walks down the street. Relatively few people use bitcoin so yes, in absolute numbers, perhaps it is true that more people get mugged on the street / bank accounts hacked. If Bitcoin somehow magically became the world's currency du joir, I promise you the number of stolen bitcoin wallets would far exceed the number of emptied bank accounts & muggers.
Oh, and if my bank account is emptied, I call my bank and say "hey bank, some fuckwit hacked my account" and if they are any good, I'll be back in business. No such luck with bitcoin. If my wallet gets emptied, I'm toast.
> Thanks suckers for giving me your warm wallet.....time to fake a hack and shut down this sucker.
Anyone who appreciates the properties of bitcoin is using a cold wallet. The cold wallets available on the market today are quite robust and easy to use. I'd recommend trezor.
> My $20 request to get on the blockchain STILL isn't done after 5 weeks
Meh, on that transaction a $12 fee isn't too bad. ~$3,440 transmitted for ~$12 in fees, works out to 0.37% fee. That said, if you have some patience doing a similar transaction through ACH can often be free or significantly cheaper.
> It allows me to save my money outside of the global financial system, a system I believe is corrupt and manipulated.
You'd have to be incredibly naive or willfully ignorant not to see the same corruption and manipulation happening right before your eyes in cryptocurrency markets.
This. Large players eventually (and are already) playing the market. Anything involving money will eventually be dictated by the big players. Look at how we buy and sell crytocoins today - most rely on some authority as the middleman as opposed to full decentralized (though you can argue about P2P while also decentralized, it still requires a service to discover seeds and peers).
The only difference is you can fork and run on your own.
I too, like to live dangerously. I run a mail server. A web server. Damn, I was tempted to (partially) host my DNS.
But running my own bank? Hell no. Those who ever had to touch things like PCI compliance or seem actual money transaction requirements will want to stay far, far away from being their own bank, so good luck there, you'll need it.
> It allows me to save my money outside of the global financial system
No, at this point in time, it really doesn't. It would, if it was accepted to be exchanged for things, which is any currency OR asset is, in theory, only good for. If you can't buy (exchange) food with it, it's worthless.
EDIT: yes, you can, in theory, exchange it to USD and some other real currencies - with a big 'if' the exchange you want to use has the means to cover it, you pay taxes on gain, and, if you're really lucky, your bank won't freeze your account when an unprecedented amount of cash flows in.
> Money is whatever people believe it to be.
Money is whatever people _agree_ on. It's not a belief.
Sounds like you're intentionally trying to be disagreeable. You don't like the features Bitcoin provides. That's fine, don't use it. Plenty of other people do like them. That's what gives Bitcoin its value.
I started writing a long comment about currencies, assets, rarity, and a few more things, but I realized it's pointless.
Please get some history books out and read about money. Read about ancient Rome and what problems rose when mad emperors decided to replace money with new coins out of the blue. Read about why and how the US dollar is not based on gold any more. Read about hyperinflation after WWII. Money is regulated to protect us from ourselves.
Now take a look at the war between BTC and BTH, at how the majority of miners are not willing to overcome technical issues and work together, the incredibly waste of energy and hardware, computing the nothing, and tell me: do you honestly think it's not history, repeating itself, just in another light?
Of course, there are always some who don't care, "get rich or die trying". I'm not one of these believers.
Your examples comes down to centralized decision & regulation, isn't money printing also "regulation" that's how they call it, wile bitcoin is the most decentralized currency, no Emperor can replace it, no changes can be done without widespread conses.
The incredible energy for digging out gold just to keep it in locked boxes, same for all precious metals, diamonds.
Gold has real life use even in electrical circuits, besides being pretty. Diamond is used in the industry as well, not just engagement rings. They are also all physical objects.
> no Emperor can replace it, no changes can be done without widespread conses.
When was the last time humans were capable of agreeing and working together for long term? The blockchain thinks it's got rid of the mad emperor problem, where in reality the BTC/BTH, ETC/ETH hard forking an existing blockchain is very similar, and introduced a whole new spectrum of problems humanity tried for centuries to solve, without success: reaching consensus.
Gold real life use is a myth, around 10% of the demand, copper is much more valuable from this perspective.
When the US constitution was born, I don't know, democracy? BTC/BTH, ETC/ETH, crypto is even more democratic as the other side can go on their separate ways, as oposite to countries.
How can you be your own bank? You can't loan yourself money, any Bitcoin you save won't gain interest, and you can't extend yourself a line of credit. The only bank-like thing you can do is store money, which is probably the smallest responsibility banks have.
If you take the time to learn what's trustworthy, principled, and safe...you won't have any of these issues.
Except (2), but that's being worked out right now.
Furthermore, it's way too early to compare crypto to established finance. Just because crypto awareness has gone mainstream, doesn't mean it's ready to compete just yet.
It's still technology for early-adopters. Those who don't understand that will get screwed...as it happens with every other early technology.
> 1.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
I will say that one of the early benefits to bitcoin, low/nonexistent middlemen fees, is not really a thing anymore. Every single time you move across wallets, at current prices no matter how much coin you're moving, you're out the equivalent of $20USD.
Considering that basic BTC opsec is to move your coins around regularly, this is painful unless you have insane amounts of money to throw around.
When Coinbase launched Bitcoin Cash at 17:20 PST (01:20 BST) it was valued at about $3,500 (£2,612) per coin.
At the time it suspended it, the company was quoting a price of about $8,500.
Trade of Bitcoin Cash was frozen just four minutes after it began on the firm's Global Digital Asset Exchange (Gdax) and existing orders were cancelled.
So the prices more than doubled in just 4 minutes. It might not even be a case of insider trading rather very, very thin order book.
> Update - All BCH markets will remain cleared and offline until 9am PST 12/20/17. At that time, BCH markets will enter post-only mode for a minimum of one hour to allow liquidity to be established.
That is to say no matching orders allowed of any kind - limit or market which can suck the liquidity and cause a huge price jump.
One might think that Coinbase/GDAX understand liquidity and market making after so many years. But no. Makes you wonder what kind of stuff is going on in other exchanges.
>People might not like it but if Coinbase/GDAX cannot understand liquidity issues after so many years, it doesn't bode well for cryptocurrencies in general.
All of the exchanges are repeating mistakes already learned by the financial industry.
It's why they'll always be amateurs until an actual major financial institution devotes serious time/effort/money to it.
While it's valid to question insider trading in cryprocurrency, I don't think that's what made the difference here.
Coinbase had said they would add BCH to their exchange before the end of the year months ago. And people had noted BCH appearing in their API a day or two ago, and then the trading pages were up for an hour or two before the official announcement, with some very large orders being placed in advance of trading going live, with the price already set at $1000 dollars higher than any other exchange was offering.
Add to this the fact that anyone who held BTC on Coinbase in August receiving BCH, plenty of people still holding BCH from the last time the price spiked, and the exceptionally deep pockets of certain people/groups who are supporting BCH.
You didn't need to be a Coinbase employee to know this was coming, and that it would, at least short term, have a significant effect on the price. Crypto traders live on big news and swings like this, and it was inevitable that it would be a big event.
Coinbase said they would add BCH withdrawals to their exchange (for funds that were on there during the split) sometime before the new year months ago, and then consider whether to add trading at some unspecified point in the future after that. There is a very big difference between the effects of dumping a bunch of formerly-illiquid funds on the market and opening up a new market to buy something.
Bitcoin price started to tank on December 18th @ 00:00 UTC while BCH started an up-climb at right about the same time. This could be explained by the anticipation of the announcement from Coinbase. But then shortly after Coinbase stopped all trades for BCH, I saw this on Twitter [1]. I don't know, but this last bit is definitely looking very odd.
Here's a question - What was the end game of the guys during the accumulation phase? To pump the price and sell, right? So we see the pump in action. Then there should be the sell/dump. What happened to that?
If I scroll to a week ago between 13th and 14th there is an identical pattern. There is accumulation and then a pump followed by sell:
https://imgur.com/a/Hysfc
Book is a set of "I buy X at Y" and "I sell K at P" standing orders ordered by the "best to worst" based on the price:
Buy|Sell
1000@5|100@5.1 <-- top of the book/best price
1000@4.9|100@5.5
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000 <--- bottom of the book, worst price - this is "sucker catcher". If someone clown with more money than brains throws a marker order with the quantity higher than posted by everyone above, it will catch the bottom of the book.
At this point no trades are happening because no one is offering to buy at a price that someone else is willing to sell.
A market order is an order that does not specify the price. Only action and qualities. This is the only type of an "immediate" order because as long as there is anyone on the other side willing to sell or buy a quantity, it will be executed against the most eligible entry ( top ) of the book.
What happens when you do a limit order? The limit order "Buy 5@4.95" will be inserted into the book based on the price so with this order the book will look:
1000@5|100@5.1
5@4.95|100@5.5
1000@4.9|
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
As you can see still nothing is trading because there's still a spread.
What happens if someone does "sell 5000@5" against the book above:
1000@5|5000@5 <--- locked market
5@4.95|100@5.1
1000@4.9|100@5.5
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
The market is now locked - there's someone who wants to buy @5 and someone who wants to sell @5. Result of this is automatic market unlock:
5@4.95|4000@5 <--- unlocked market
1000@4.9|100@5.1
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
with a single 1000@5 traded so the "new price" of the asset is now @5
What happens when trading is suspended and market "ran away" i.e. significantly moved. Nothing special actually. All non-canceled orders are entered into a queue in an order of entry and are executed based on the book replay as if there was no suspension at all.
> Is it another company that did not get anyone from Island or InstaNet or Brut?
Do you mind giving some context to this statement? What I know of the ECNs you mentioned is from reading the book 'Dark Pools'. It would be great to get some insight into the innovations that were developed in all three projects, that have become a mainstay in 'fintech'.
Fundamentally, what ECNs brought to market is a total automation (and enormous speed) of running a basic limit book both internally and against other market participants.
Pre-ECN having major volume if one wanted to sell a million shares and not to get screwed, one needed to develop a very good relationships with specific traders. Now most of such trades are considered to be pretty basic - you may get a little bit of slippage but by god you don't need to call a desk. It really solved front-running issue - it is possible to do a limit 5.1722 500k order but tell ECN to only display "100@5.1722 until 500k filled". So no desk knows that some fund wants to by 500k shares so it can't trade against this order.
ECNs were f!cking amazing and when Datek started routing limit orders to Island (genius play) from retail investors the days of crazy spreads, slippage and free money became history. Some of them also allowed you to do cross-exchange routing - I think BRUT was first to do it - so you could send your order via BRUT to a specific exchange. This killed NYSE/PHL/AMEX arbitrage (AMEX and PHL were slower than NYSE so it was possible to do a trade on NYSE and take offsetting position on PHL/AMEX immediately locking the spread)
Since ECNs would self-cross at the NBB and NBA even if the market had no action because the likes of NITE and GSCO were slowing down just to get better money on the order flow, the trading simply moved to Island and Instinet forcing regular market makers to play ball.
The effect of ECNs in trading was equivalent of introducing Ansible and Puppet management in server management. Crypto-exchanges now act the same way as the who who say "We only manage our servers using Vt100 terminals using vi"
It is actually funny. Your comment made me pull out the code I wrote a few years to run a multi-book to basically do what BRUT did except it could trade anything. I'm now absolutely convinced that no existing crypto exchanges have anyone with a clue. As long the current exchanges provide APIs and someone like Lloyds would underwrite counter-party hedge, BRUTing them is a license to print money. They will get absolutely destroyed. It would be equivalent of Michael Phelps swimming against 7 year olds.
As another comment pointed out, this is yet another example of cryptocurrency markets having to relearn what the financial industry has already learned.
In a way, it's interesting to see this sort of recapitulation take place.
I have a pretty good understanding of economics but what makes market and limit alone responsible for a price jump. When matching orders were allowed yesterday didn't the price also jump? Thanks.
It seems there is some misunderstanding here. Post only mode means they will disallow any price matching to happen. So you can only enter limit orders and that too which doesn't match with any other price.
And it's not a leap to suggest that these cryptocurrencies are going to be treated like securities by regulatory bodies. If the SEC argues successfully (which they seem to be leaning towards) that they're securities, a slew of regulations will begin to apply.
Simply put, you don't need a law that's SPECIFIC to cryptocurrencies in 2017.
Coinbase is in the USA, which makes it fall under the SEC, but Gemini (which all of /r/bitcoin is apparently moving to) isn't -- it's in Canada and the UK.
That's what makes regulating bitcoin hard. It soon becomes a diplomatic problem.
And there's nothing that these agencies can do to stop the actual wallet-to-wallet transfer short of nuking all miners or knee-capping and getting your private key. So even if you were found guilty, you could conceivably flee the country along with a ton of currency.
Regulation is meaningless without the actual threat of enforcement. It means all exchanges can pick up and move to more friendly countries.
This same pattern seems to repeat immediately preceding any "big announcement" for pretty much every single coin/token out there. It's obvious that insider trading is rampant across the entire cryptocurrency market.
I hope Coinbase and their employees' activities are properly investigated at some point. I think they'll find a lot of "interesting" activity going back very far, assuming Coinbase hasn't "lost" or modified records to hide those activities by now.
Regulations are the next logical step here. My best guess is that the red tape will at least dampen a lot of the mania around cryptocurricines and bring people back to reality.
I like the volatility :/ I made a couple hundred bucks of lint money yesterday playing the dip. Paid for my dogs' food for the month and a nice night out with my wife and her mother. Even though I have some skin in crypto, at this point I personally don't really care whether it keeps going up or crashes since I've already made back what I put in. But gaming volatility is a nice way to pass the evening...
I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who got burned by this. Anyone who is trading crypto knows that there is a lot of risk. Also, everyone who was paying attention knew that BCH was coming to Coinbase before the end of the year, since September. If you're acting like this is a big deal, put your big boy pants on and/or stop trading crypto.
This is the second event involving BCH which is looking very "artificial" for the lack of a better word. About a month ago, BCH started an abrupt up-climb while the prices on BTC started to fall dramatically. BTC recovered soon after by hitting all-time highs while BCH prices fell pretty hard. Now we get these talks of insider trading at Coinbase. I don't have much stake in cryptocurrencies and I actually did not mind the BCH fork, hoping that the 2 cryptos can just co-exist. But from what I'm seeing now this has nothing to do with advancing Bitcoin and is just a money grab by Roger Ver.
I'd like to see Bitcoin advanced past the congested network and high fees that we see today, and I think Roger Ver does too. He certainly also wants to make money, but what's wrong with that? What I think is objectively bad is a worse product for more money.
Basically it will be too much bandwidth for most users to bother running their own core, meaning increased centralization for BCH and easy way to kill it in the future through some government action or bug.
The thesis of the article is that if bandwidth requirements are too high, then people will stop running full node wallets on their laptops, thus reducing the number of full nodes in the network.
In reality, you would have to be insane to store bitcoins with a C++ program permanently connected to and broadcasting your IP address to a p2p network.
Now, it may be that many bitcoin nodes are run by insane people who do exactly that, but if the foundation of Bitcoin's security is that its users have no understanding of computer security, then the whole thing is doomed to failure anyway.
I used to do that (I guess I'm a bit crazy).... since then I changed the mac address on my router to get a new IP, encrypted my wallet and deleted plain text wallets...
Obviously you don't store coins in a publicly accessible node, I don't know where you got that idea.
You run the node and connect your light wallet to it, so that you don't need to trust someone else's node to tell you what is going on. I run mine on an old netbook.
Some people might store their private keys on the nodes themselves, they shouldn't.
Reminds me of when ZRX was added to Poloniex out of the blue. I very much doubt people with such knowledge wouldn't trade based on it. It's practically impossible to catch anybody short of getting the SEC involved. It's not like Coinbase is keeping track of everyone's wallets or has any ability to get info from other exchanges.
I also think it's funny that people are complaining about this. Isn't this part of the appeal of crypto trading? That the government doesn't 'level' the playing field?
Did anyone not expect this? For example, I believe they may add Ripple next so I have made moves into Ripple knowing the price will spike if they add support. What's to prevent Coinbase employees to do the same?
I watched this happen live. There was a very obvious trading software malfunction. Here's what I watched happen.
People could place orders before trading started. I was watching BCH/USD and BCH/BTC which had a fixed price, $3100 USD and 3.00 BTC respectively.
BCH/USD had a huge amount of buy pressure (people buying BCH with cash); BCH/BTC had a huge amount of sell pressure (people dumping the airdrop).
Only BCH/USD went live; BCH/BTC remained paused. (That was weird, I thought it looked like a human somewhere hit enter too soon, but apparently it was intended)
Once trading started (BCH/USD only), people couldn't place new sell orders. The unlimited buys cleared, including the guy on reddit whose order was "Buy $100000 USD of BTC at market price", which was filled at 6k and then he was unable to place a sell at 9k. Apparently placing buys without limits is common because unlimited buys are filled before limited ones are.
Since you couldn't place a new sell; the price was not bounded; the book cleared and everything was stuck at 9.5k for a couple minutes. There was a little bit of trades, not sure if it was only people with existing orders that were glitched or if maybe some people weren't glitched, maybe all the activity was orders placed before trading opened.
They realized the issue and paused trading; orders began to accumulate again roughly around here; here's a screenshot of the orders accumulating https://i.imgur.com/0NTyYXx.png There is incredible sell pressure here, the price was obviously out of whack with actual supply/demand.
(MY SPECULATION) Since there was never a functioning market I'd expect Coinbase to rewind all the trades which is what it looks like they are doing.
I might have gotten some of the details wrong, I am just a detached layperson learning about finance who happened to see this go down.
Sorry reddit, no consipiracy here. But none of those posts in r/bitcoin are actual humans anyway, it's all fake bots and a couple poor suckers who don't realize they're arguing with a content farm. Here's some required reading about the bitcoin information manipulation shitshow. https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/infor... TLDR: Nothing is real, everything is fake news, you think it can't possibly be that bad? it's actually worse than that.
I tried to buy it last night and this morning for the ~3K price, and I was blocked by Coinbase. Now it's past the 4K point.
Maybe there's no grand conspiracy, but there's something plasticy about the price movement combined with blocking of new buys at the lower prices (on Coinbase).
I haven't heard any suggestion that they're going to roll back any of the trades that happened, in fact I'm not sure they even can because that money may not even be on the exchange anymore. Their plan seems to be to clear orders, reopen trading again about a day after last attempt (so about now), and hope it goes better this time.
That reddit link was incredibly informative and worth reading. It finally explains why /r/bitcoin looks like such a meme-driven asylum. All the propaganda, censorship, astroturfing and fake news reminds me of how /r/The_Donald gained support.
This is an extremely well written piece of (false) propaganda. Going into why would take a long time, and each person who cares and isn't sure will need to do his or her own research.
Here's the stickiest thing about this entire thing to me: the name.
Roger Ver (one of the people behind bcash) has said repeatedly that he believes that his fork deserves the name "Bitcoin" and that it is the "real" bitcoin. It seems obvious that the intent here is to confuse people.
This, to me, seems like blatant fraud. It is concerning to me that coinbase would continue to allow this market confusion to build by listing this under the name "bitcoin cash". Things like this make me long for better regulation in this space.
Full disclosure: I say this as somebody who holds both bitcoin and bcash in nearly equal amounts. I mean to say that I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Are you trying to say that the price of bitcoin crashed from ~$3000 to ~$300 immediately on August 1st 2017, and that coincidentally at the same time, a brand new asset appeared that had the same price that bitcoin did a few seconds earlier?
If you run a website and your database gets pwned by hackers, do you just give up and say oh well, I guess the pwned version is the real version now? No, you restore from a backup, and if that involves recreating some of your integrations with third-party providers then so be it.
It split into ~$2700 plus ~$300. Not sure what the exact numbers were, but there was a clear pattern of one falling as the other rose, and same thing the other way around.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, block size increase alone is not sustainable. The BCash boyz are stubborn and in denial. Might work for now but in the long term they will need another fork to increase the block size again and so on. They don’t have a Lightning Network either which is already available on Bitcoin Testnet and proved to be extremely fast (almost instant) at very low cost. I hold both but I’m realistic. I only hold BCash because I know the price is being pumped so I’ll make some money with it.
It looks like the actual block size limit that most miners are using on Bitcoin Cash right now is 2MB, which isn't so much of an increase from Bitcoin at all. (The odd ones out are BTC.com with a 4MB limit and ViaBTC which has the full 8.) The new Cash difficulty algorithm also has an unfortunate tendency to oscillate when there's a sudden change in price relative to Bitcoin's price.
Also, Bitcoin Cash supporters have a habit of... well, frankly, outright lying sometimes. They were still pushing the idea it was faster than Bitcoin back when it was running at hours per block most of the time, and the usual response to people who discovered this was to tell them that the block time varied and was as low as a minute per block. This was technically true - in fact, often an equal number of blocks were produced at the minutes per block and hours per block rate, in alternating 144 block chunks of each. Can you perhaps see the problem here?
Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
It was hard enough to get the support required to implement SegWit on Bitcoin proper, even though it had a far more immediate need for it. Bitcoin Cash was literally founded for the purpose of avoiding SegWit and making the Lightning Network impossible. The idea that all its supporters will suddenly see the light of SegWit is implausible.
Most Bitcoin Cash supporters supported Segwit, they just didn’t support Core artificially limiting the block size to force people to use their proprietary solution and then lying about it.
There were about 11 hard forks to Bitcoin before Bitcoin Cash was created - some of them temporarily decreasing the block size with the intention of putting it back into place when needed. BTC veered from that intention.
Rather than engage in an argument on semantics let's look at the facts of the matter. The Bitcoin project has been the organization behind the official Bitcoin client since Satoshi was still around. If you were to start up an ancient Bitcoin client today it would follow the Bitcoin project's chain. The BCash chain would be considered invalid as it does not conform to the restrictions of a valid block according to the ancient Bitcoin client. The Bitcoin project chain would still be considered a valid chain. Contrary to most of the FUD around Segwit, the reason why it is considered a soft fork is because while it is a change in what constitutes a valid block, it does not violate any of the previous rules for a valid block.
I have neither, Why can't he call his fork Bitcoin Cash? He claims that it adheres to the Bitcoin.org idea than BTC.
Him & a vocal community (/r/btc) appears to believe in that. What gives BTC (and /r/bitcoin) the right to the name Bitcoin considering both are forks from the original chain?
The point is that Bitcoin Core is as much of a fork as Bitcoin Cash.
You're mixing up soft fork with a hard fork and implying that soft fork is somewhat better, when in reality it is just technical concept and has nothing to do with it.
Actually in current situation we already have example, the soft fork (SegWit) implements a complex mechanism to add segregation witness feature and allow for off-chain transactions.
The change in Bitcoin Cash is simply raising the block limit to 8MB. In fact initially bitcoin had no limit for the block size and the limit was added to prevent DDoS.
That limit was meant to be increased as there would be higher demand.
That is not true. Initially Bitcoin crashed when blocks went over a couple of hundred kilobyes. Satoshi put in this hard cap when this inadvertent limit was fixed.
One is the fork and the other is the original. By not taking the Bitcoin name the Bitcoin Cash group has already admitted that they are the fork. They should be proud about it and give themselves a new name that stands for their ideals.
That said I personally don't believe that the name will make a difference in this battle.
In terms of how chain splits work there is not a technical differentiation between a "fork" and the "original". In the case of the hard fork on block 478559 there was a pretty significant change to the consensus rules (EDA, 8MB blocks & no segwit).
What happened on block 494782 was also a fork in some respects, there was well telegraphed plans to change the consensus rules on that block, but no one mined/accepted blocks with those rules.
Right now if you run an ancient bitcoin node it will still see the segwit addresses and the real Bitcoin chain as valid just fine. It cannot follow the BCash chain because it's not a valid chain to it. Also, the Bitcoin project has been marching along same as always, it seems disingenuous to claim that the original is a fork when it's the same exact project and it is still a valid chain for every Bitcoin node out there. I think it goes without saying that the original Bitcoin project should be considered the rightful owners of the trademark "Bitcoin" regardless of whether or not they legally own the trademark for it.
Well, it should mostly see the real Bitcoin chain as valid until it doesn't. Older full nodes have a bug where they can't handle chain reorganisations properly with blocks that are the full 1MB in size, so the moment they see an orphaned block they break horribly. (Relatedly, if any big block pusher argues increasing the block size is just a simple matter of changing a few constants, that's a good sign they don't know what they're talking about.)
Ah, good point I remember something about that bug a number of years back. Point being SegWit is designed to be compatible with old versions of Bitcoin. Bugs aside it's still a valid chain, old Bitcoin nodes just break on blocks that are considered valid by their own rules.
You own your Bitcoins in the full meaning of the word. You fully control them, by way of your private key, but you also trust that the rules of Bitcoin won't change. The former ownership is technical but the latter is social.
There is an implicit social contract towards anyone who buys Bitcoin to be able to spend them any time in the future, under the same rules as today. That includes not having to upgrade to another ruleset with arbitrary changes.
For this reason it was important that the block size increase was made opt-in, and that any hard forking fundamental changes that are required in the future are trivial or have pretty much unanimous support.
I think you're being disingenuous. "bcash" has become a derogatory term and your use of it belies your bias. Do you also rail against Bitcoin Gold, BitcoinDark, Bitcoin Plus, eBitcoin, BitcoinZ, Bitcoin Red, Bitcoin Scrypt...? Or only the one that threatens Bitcoin's HODL culture?
I think it's worth pointing out that "bcash" was something coined by the bcash community. The only notable opposition to it was by Roger Ver because he wanted his fork to have the name "Bitcoin" in it. I don't think it helps anything to accuse the poster of being disingenuous for using a term that the community themselves came up with.
To clarify, I was referring to /r/btc where I lurk from time to time. There were plenty of people bikeshedding over the name but Roger Ver is the only notable public figure who has thrown a temper tantrum over the name. Just because now everyone wants to claim that "BCash" is a propagation campaign just because Roger is hysterical over it doesn't mean that BCash wasn't coined in /r/btc back over the summer.
That's not true, there's a handful of people that now want to call it BCash just because it annoys Roger Ver. People in /r/btc that support it. Just because they want to annoy Roger Ver does not mean that they aren't a part of the community anymore and it doesn't mean that they oppose it.
But as it were I'm not suggesting that the majority are calling it anything other than "Bitcoin Cash" for months now. I'm just pointing out that when Bitcoin ABC was new members of /r/btc were pointing out how that name was confusing and that is where BitCash and BCash were originally coined. Go to /r/btc and look at the posts from back then if you don't believe me, people were posting about coming up with a better name. Those posts weren't just some Bitcoin Project conspiracy, they were from members of the community that wanted a better name. Personally, I don't care what they want to do. They are free to come up with whatever cryptocurrency floats their boat and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, the fact that it annoys Roger Ver makes me really want to refer to it as BCash.
I had to look it up, because as an outsider this argument is surreal to me. And sure enough, if you go in /r/btc and perform a search for the term “bcash”, there are pages of results that show the community at large generally hates the term.
Seems a little extreme to me but it is what it is, I guess.
I totally agree with that, I'm not trying to claim that the community as a whole currently likes or supports the name BCash, just that it wasn't "the other side" that originally came up with it like so many people claim.
One possible way to distinguish between both would be continuity: if you had a Bitcoin node running several months before the announcement, and kept running the same unchanged software until today, which one would your node be following now? That one probably has a bigger claim to both being the "real" Bitcoin, and having the plain unadorned "Bitcoin" name.
As to whether it merits having "Bitcoin" in the name, both are close enough that one could be considered a small variant of the other. That might be enough for the other one to merit being called "Bitcoin something".
To me it seems like Bitcoin Cash profits greatly just from having the word "Bitcoin" in front of it. Surprised no one just copyrights it and sues other coin makers. I guess that's against he community, but imo it needs to be done.
I don't hold any bitcoin or bitcoin cash...I say this as just a general consumer. The "bitcoin" name has brand value, and having "bitcoin" cash is going to inflate the market value of the it and confuse consumers into thinking some coins are more trustworthy. Especially as this goes more mainstream and your Aunt and Grandma can buy BCH on Coinbase. Or whatever new altcoin comes up that tags on the words "bitcoin."
Not really. There's Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Ruby, Bitcoin Plus... the list goes on and on but the 'Bitcoin' name hasn't helped any of them much.
I've said this before -- but this fork should have broken the illusion that people had that bitcoins are rare. If viable forks are possible, then they will continue to happen, each of them increasing the number of 'bitcoins' in circulation.
Each fork will need to serve a niche to get attention. That's still a high bar to set. A number of forks have been created that have next to no value or interest.
It seems like one of the disadvantages of Satoshi being anonymous is that Bitcoin wasn't trademarked, which allows for forks like Bitcoin Cash to use the name Bitcoin. I think this is kind of an interesting case of why trademarks are important as having both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash must be very confusing to new users on Coinbase.
At least when governments fork Bitcoin and force people and financial organizations to use it instead of other digital currencies, they can still call it Bitcoin legally.
I think of cryptocurrency as a wild wild west of high risk investing (aka gambling). Companies like Coinbase is in the business of selling you wagons and oxen so you can participate if you wish. I think the real problem is that this became a gold rush, so too many people who don't know what they're doing are participating.
I spent a bit of time reading this but I have to be honest, it's hard to know how true the post is, and the nuances are so specific it's not that interesting to someone not on one of those subreddits or dev team.
What I got out of it: several groups of humans splintered. One side is accused of trying to sabotage the other. The other side denies it.
I didn't pick up much of BTH's ramifactions from reading that, though. I guess you posted it to suggest that the increased blocksize isn't in Blockstream's best interests, and perhaps they played a role in militating against it.
Put simply: Bitcoin has split into two camps. Big blockers and small blockers. Blockstream is a small block company. Bitcoin Cash is a big block technology.
So Bitcoin Cash and Blockstream are politically opposed.
Blockstream is a company developing blockchain technologies that employs some of the Bitcoin Core developers and the main developer of the Lightning Network for off-chain transaction channels. (Bitcoin Core is the software usually used to run full Bitcoin nodes; it's basically Satoshi's original client, renamed to clarify that users don't have to choose it as their wallet back when running a full node started to become user-unfriendly.) It's become associated with a conspiracy theory that claims the entire Bitcoin Core development community, including the developers not employed by them, is plotting with the banking industry to sabotage on-chain Bitcoin in order to force everyone to use banks to transfer Bitcoins, basically.
Watching this all go down, I don't see why it would be insider trading. They opened their retail side (Coinbase) at the same time as their exchange (GDAX) and gave minutes notice before going live.
There was about 0% chance there would be enough liquidity on the exchange to support a dual launch, so the price skyrocketed. There wasn't time to deposit enough BCH to give liquidity either. I don't care about traders making bad moves on GDAX, but to screw their retail clients so much is not cool.
The user mukiwa2 said "Bitcoin Cash coming in the next few days!!" 2 days back in that thread and he even joked saying he knew an employee in Coinbase.
That response has since been deleted. I was just talking to my friend about this. Here is the snapshot: https://imgur.com/a/cLlp7
Wasn't this known well in advance? I had someone tell me that Coinbase was introducing BCH over a month ago and he's not connected in any way to the company. The only way he could have known is if this was public knowledge up until this point.
203 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 1432 ms ] threadThe Federal Reserve doesn't even publish the amount of M3 money anymore: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm
If that doesn't give you pause, I don't know what will.
If you want to pay your taxes using gold coins, go right ahead. They will gladly accept it.
The argument you are looking for is: "USD has value BECAUSE the state makes you pay your taxes in it."
Notice that that argument does not end with, "and this is the only way a commodity or currency can have value." Because there are different reasons that different things have value and more than one thing has value.
Your comment is intellectually lazy and you don't have to believe in crypto to come to this conclusion.
You do not pay taxes with bitcoin because the government does not accept it. Simple as that. Not lazy, just fact.
If that's the logic we're going with, I can pay my taxes with baseball cards and beanie babies too.
except they do. See below.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MABMM301USA657S
I am not anti-crypto. I think in the future most transactions would move there. But the state of the current crypto's won't get us there. If you close your eyes for a min and just think about the .com bust that is exactly what is happening here. I know of companies during that time that had nothing to do with IT and they would just announce that they are investing in IT and there stocks would triple. Read below for similar crypto news.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-18/fintech-m...
> Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
St Louis fed is publishing third party estimates there, official reporting stopped in 2007.
https://mises.org/library/death-m3-fifth-anniversary
And
https://www.garynorth.com/public/6538.cfm
TLDR:
The end of the first link provides a response from Bernanke which says that the public would still have access to the data but the fed won’t aggregate it and report it. What the OECD does is the aggregation and reporting based on the raw fed data.
The second link provides why the M3 was useless to begin with.
Not really. The USD is as real as the US government. If the US government collapses I'm not going to trust Bitcoin to save me.
So the whole staff new about this move, from which it is to be expected to move the market when published?
Charitably put, that's naive.
An email to everyone, a press release, a blog post stating this new feature will be available to everyone in x days at time T. That would be fair game.
It would only then be fair game if that email goes out at the same time as when the information is publicly available.
I'm not talking about a new iPhone here. But information, which moves the market. For example: A planned merger to which very few people are really privy.
I've worked in several investment firms and banks, and in all cases I had to use a special employee trading account, often at higher cost btw. What happens on such systems are brownouts / blackouts of transactions for certain stocks. It happened to me more than once in the past that, even if I already have a position, I was barred from even selling the security since it was on one of the several lists that they keep. Some of these lists are private, and they won't tell you when it's coming off the list. That's probably part of the protection against insider knowledge, too.
Like another commenter said, these coin outlets have a lot more to re-live in terms of wheels that have been invented long ago. Someone talked about currency itself, and Roman experiments, but similar lessons will need to be learned with regards to insider trading, exchanges, securities markets and so forth.
That response has since been deleted. I was just talking to my friend about this. Here is the snapshot: https://imgur.com/a/cLlp7
1.) It's just like Visa!! Damn it costs me $500 to send $500
2.) It's just like the bank!! Damn another exchange got shut down/frozen. The insiders made out like bandits
3.) It's just like gold! So rare....oh wait, another crytocurrency just came out with 100M unit of supplies.
4.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
Oh well, who cares. It's for gambling!!!!
Do Coinbase employees have to disclose their external crypto-currency trading accounts (as well as for immediate family members) to the internal compliance dept?
Is Coinbase employee crypto trading activity subject to pre-approval prior to trade execution?
What is their policy regarding disclosure of material non-public information of pending changes/additions to their own exchange?
1.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
2.) It's just like Visa!! Damn it costs me $500 to send $500
3.) It's just like gold! So rare....oh wait, another crytocurrency just came out with 100M unit of supplies.
4.) It's just like the bank!! Damn another exchange got shut down/frozen. The insiders made out like bandits
Oh well, who cares. It's for gambling!!!!
Money is whatever people believe it to be. You may value the USD, and that's entirely your right to do so. I choose value Bitcoin. Everyone is free to use whatever medium of exchange they believe in.
Thanks suckers for giving me your warm wallet.....time to fake a hack and shut down this sucker.
> The rules of consensus define characteristics of money I believe are important
My $20 request to get on the blockchain STILL isn't done after 5 weeks!!!
> It allows me to save my money outside of the global financial system
Oh no my Xcoin crashed 50% today!!
> a system I believe is corrupt and manipulated
I lost so much money because of this stupid coin....if only someone can save me from the scammers.....
> It allows me to program my money, something never before possible
In javascript!! secure it is.
> It allows me to transact freely, with whomever I please
It costs me $500 to send $500......sob
The rest is just not true, the fees are high now because companies are slow to adopt seqwit and lighting network is in the works.
But hey the FED printed another few billions of dollars, fancy calling it quantitative easing, that devalues your money and makes assets expensive.
If my credit card number is compromised, I report that to the bank and the money shows back up in my account in short order.
My money doesn't seem to have been significantly devalued by quantitative easing - inflation stayed at very low levels throughout the process.
Pretty disingenuous argument.
In absolute numbers, sure. But that is only because everybody walks down the street. Relatively few people use bitcoin so yes, in absolute numbers, perhaps it is true that more people get mugged on the street / bank accounts hacked. If Bitcoin somehow magically became the world's currency du joir, I promise you the number of stolen bitcoin wallets would far exceed the number of emptied bank accounts & muggers.
Oh, and if my bank account is emptied, I call my bank and say "hey bank, some fuckwit hacked my account" and if they are any good, I'll be back in business. No such luck with bitcoin. If my wallet gets emptied, I'm toast.
Anyone who appreciates the properties of bitcoin is using a cold wallet. The cold wallets available on the market today are quite robust and easy to use. I'd recommend trezor.
> My $20 request to get on the blockchain STILL isn't done after 5 weeks
Here's a recent transaction I made using Segwit just today. Confirmed within 30min: https://blockchain.info/tx/308da302ef589872809f61282154263a4...
> Oh no my Xcoin crashed 50% today
Bitcoiners are well aware we're still in the price discovery phase. Volatility is understandable.
> I lost so much money because of this stupid coin....if only someone can save me from the scammers....
I don't expect anyone to bail me out. Unlike everyone with a 401k and an index fund.
> In javascript!! secure it is.
You're talking about Ethereum now. Bitcoin isn't programmed in Javascript.
> It costs me $500 to send $500......sob
Again, my segwit transaction from earlier today shows how much FUD and misinformation you're spewing: https://blockchain.info/tx/308da302ef589872809f61282154263a4...
I have the following hopes for bitcoin: 1) People upgrade to segwit
2) The people spamming the network stop
3) Lightning Network will reduce some previously onchain transactions
4) Schnorr signatures will compress transactions even more
That sounds kind of like hoping that people sending spam via e-mail just stop one day.
You'd have to be incredibly naive or willfully ignorant not to see the same corruption and manipulation happening right before your eyes in cryptocurrency markets.
The only difference is you can fork and run on your own.
Sure. If you think the only function of a bank is to maintain a ledger and transfer money.
I too, like to live dangerously. I run a mail server. A web server. Damn, I was tempted to (partially) host my DNS.
But running my own bank? Hell no. Those who ever had to touch things like PCI compliance or seem actual money transaction requirements will want to stay far, far away from being their own bank, so good luck there, you'll need it.
> It allows me to save my money outside of the global financial system
No, at this point in time, it really doesn't. It would, if it was accepted to be exchanged for things, which is any currency OR asset is, in theory, only good for. If you can't buy (exchange) food with it, it's worthless.
EDIT: yes, you can, in theory, exchange it to USD and some other real currencies - with a big 'if' the exchange you want to use has the means to cover it, you pay taxes on gain, and, if you're really lucky, your bank won't freeze your account when an unprecedented amount of cash flows in.
> Money is whatever people believe it to be.
Money is whatever people _agree_ on. It's not a belief.
Please get some history books out and read about money. Read about ancient Rome and what problems rose when mad emperors decided to replace money with new coins out of the blue. Read about why and how the US dollar is not based on gold any more. Read about hyperinflation after WWII. Money is regulated to protect us from ourselves.
Now take a look at the war between BTC and BTH, at how the majority of miners are not willing to overcome technical issues and work together, the incredibly waste of energy and hardware, computing the nothing, and tell me: do you honestly think it's not history, repeating itself, just in another light?
Of course, there are always some who don't care, "get rich or die trying". I'm not one of these believers.
The incredible energy for digging out gold just to keep it in locked boxes, same for all precious metals, diamonds.
> no Emperor can replace it, no changes can be done without widespread conses.
When was the last time humans were capable of agreeing and working together for long term? The blockchain thinks it's got rid of the mad emperor problem, where in reality the BTC/BTH, ETC/ETH hard forking an existing blockchain is very similar, and introduced a whole new spectrum of problems humanity tried for centuries to solve, without success: reaching consensus.
When the US constitution was born, I don't know, democracy? BTC/BTH, ETC/ETH, crypto is even more democratic as the other side can go on their separate ways, as oposite to countries.
countries go their separate ways. Sometimes peacefully sometimes with horrible violence.
Do you not see massive issues with that happening with currency? Some dev gets pissed one day and fractures the currency market?
As a tangent, what is that? Didn't find it on google (thought I wanted the wikipedia on caligula).
I think it was a reference to one of the previous comments in the chain.
Except (2), but that's being worked out right now.
Furthermore, it's way too early to compare crypto to established finance. Just because crypto awareness has gone mainstream, doesn't mean it's ready to compete just yet.
It's still technology for early-adopters. Those who don't understand that will get screwed...as it happens with every other early technology.
I'm glad my knowledge of Bitcoin will prevent the price from fluctuating.
> 1.) It's just like dollar! Shoot, coinbase won't allow me to trade it for 3 months! Every country is banning it? It went up 20% then dropped 50% today?!
Note the last sentence.
Considering that basic BTC opsec is to move your coins around regularly, this is painful unless you have insane amounts of money to throw around.
Why? For tumbling/obfuscation purposes?
At the time it suspended it, the company was quoting a price of about $8,500.
Trade of Bitcoin Cash was frozen just four minutes after it began on the firm's Global Digital Asset Exchange (Gdax) and existing orders were cancelled.
So the prices more than doubled in just 4 minutes. It might not even be a case of insider trading rather very, very thin order book.
That is why this happened:
https://status.gdax.com/
> Update - All BCH markets will remain cleared and offline until 9am PST 12/20/17. At that time, BCH markets will enter post-only mode for a minimum of one hour to allow liquidity to be established.
That is to say no matching orders allowed of any kind - limit or market which can suck the liquidity and cause a huge price jump.
One might think that Coinbase/GDAX understand liquidity and market making after so many years. But no. Makes you wonder what kind of stuff is going on in other exchanges.
All of the exchanges are repeating mistakes already learned by the financial industry.
It's why they'll always be amateurs until an actual major financial institution devotes serious time/effort/money to it.
Coinbase had said they would add BCH to their exchange before the end of the year months ago. And people had noted BCH appearing in their API a day or two ago, and then the trading pages were up for an hour or two before the official announcement, with some very large orders being placed in advance of trading going live, with the price already set at $1000 dollars higher than any other exchange was offering.
Add to this the fact that anyone who held BTC on Coinbase in August receiving BCH, plenty of people still holding BCH from the last time the price spiked, and the exceptionally deep pockets of certain people/groups who are supporting BCH.
You didn't need to be a Coinbase employee to know this was coming, and that it would, at least short term, have a significant effect on the price. Crypto traders live on big news and swings like this, and it was inevitable that it would be a big event.
[1] https://twitter.com/whalepool/status/943279673554894848
If I scroll to a week ago between 13th and 14th there is an identical pattern. There is accumulation and then a pump followed by sell: https://imgur.com/a/Hysfc
Is this also related to Coinbase?
Ps: I don't trade, I'm a hodleur
I don't know if that makes it special, but it does mean it's something different from, say, Bitcoin Diamond or Bitcoin Gold.
Buy|Sell
1000@5|100@5.1 <-- top of the book/best price
1000@4.9|100@5.5
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000 <--- bottom of the book, worst price - this is "sucker catcher". If someone clown with more money than brains throws a marker order with the quantity higher than posted by everyone above, it will catch the bottom of the book.
At this point no trades are happening because no one is offering to buy at a price that someone else is willing to sell.
A market order is an order that does not specify the price. Only action and qualities. This is the only type of an "immediate" order because as long as there is anyone on the other side willing to sell or buy a quantity, it will be executed against the most eligible entry ( top ) of the book.
What happens when you do a limit order? The limit order "Buy 5@4.95" will be inserted into the book based on the price so with this order the book will look:
1000@5|100@5.1
5@4.95|100@5.5
1000@4.9|
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
As you can see still nothing is trading because there's still a spread.
What happens if someone does "sell 5000@5" against the book above:
1000@5|5000@5 <--- locked market
5@4.95|100@5.1
1000@4.9|100@5.5
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
The market is now locked - there's someone who wants to buy @5 and someone who wants to sell @5. Result of this is automatic market unlock:
5@4.95|4000@5 <--- unlocked market
1000@4.9|100@5.1
..
..
..
100000@1|1000000@10000
with a single 1000@5 traded so the "new price" of the asset is now @5
What happens when trading is suspended and market "ran away" i.e. significantly moved. Nothing special actually. All non-canceled orders are entered into a queue in an order of entry and are executed based on the book replay as if there was no suspension at all.
Do you mind giving some context to this statement? What I know of the ECNs you mentioned is from reading the book 'Dark Pools'. It would be great to get some insight into the innovations that were developed in all three projects, that have become a mainstay in 'fintech'.
ECNs were f!cking amazing and when Datek started routing limit orders to Island (genius play) from retail investors the days of crazy spreads, slippage and free money became history. Some of them also allowed you to do cross-exchange routing - I think BRUT was first to do it - so you could send your order via BRUT to a specific exchange. This killed NYSE/PHL/AMEX arbitrage (AMEX and PHL were slower than NYSE so it was possible to do a trade on NYSE and take offsetting position on PHL/AMEX immediately locking the spread)
Since ECNs would self-cross at the NBB and NBA even if the market had no action because the likes of NITE and GSCO were slowing down just to get better money on the order flow, the trading simply moved to Island and Instinet forcing regular market makers to play ball.
The effect of ECNs in trading was equivalent of introducing Ansible and Puppet management in server management. Crypto-exchanges now act the same way as the who who say "We only manage our servers using Vt100 terminals using vi"
NBB is "national best bid" and NBA is "national best ask"
In a way, it's interesting to see this sort of recapitulation take place.
What possible legal action can he take? Breach of contract, maybe?
There's no laws regarding cryptocurrency insider trading or manipulation as far as I know.
And it's not a leap to suggest that these cryptocurrencies are going to be treated like securities by regulatory bodies. If the SEC argues successfully (which they seem to be leaning towards) that they're securities, a slew of regulations will begin to apply.
Simply put, you don't need a law that's SPECIFIC to cryptocurrencies in 2017.
That's what makes regulating bitcoin hard. It soon becomes a diplomatic problem.
And there's nothing that these agencies can do to stop the actual wallet-to-wallet transfer short of nuking all miners or knee-capping and getting your private key. So even if you were found guilty, you could conceivably flee the country along with a ton of currency.
Regulation is meaningless without the actual threat of enforcement. It means all exchanges can pick up and move to more friendly countries.
Source: https://gemini24.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204734485-Is-...
I hope Coinbase and their employees' activities are properly investigated at some point. I think they'll find a lot of "interesting" activity going back very far, assuming Coinbase hasn't "lost" or modified records to hide those activities by now.
Basically it will be too much bandwidth for most users to bother running their own core, meaning increased centralization for BCH and easy way to kill it in the future through some government action or bug.
In reality, you would have to be insane to store bitcoins with a C++ program permanently connected to and broadcasting your IP address to a p2p network.
Now, it may be that many bitcoin nodes are run by insane people who do exactly that, but if the foundation of Bitcoin's security is that its users have no understanding of computer security, then the whole thing is doomed to failure anyway.
You run the node and connect your light wallet to it, so that you don't need to trust someone else's node to tell you what is going on. I run mine on an old netbook.
Some people might store their private keys on the nodes themselves, they shouldn't.
Surely if there is wrongdoing it is not the work of one employee.
https://cryptowat.ch/gdax/bchusd/1m
I also think it's funny that people are complaining about this. Isn't this part of the appeal of crypto trading? That the government doesn't 'level' the playing field?
People could place orders before trading started. I was watching BCH/USD and BCH/BTC which had a fixed price, $3100 USD and 3.00 BTC respectively.
BCH/USD had a huge amount of buy pressure (people buying BCH with cash); BCH/BTC had a huge amount of sell pressure (people dumping the airdrop).
Only BCH/USD went live; BCH/BTC remained paused. (That was weird, I thought it looked like a human somewhere hit enter too soon, but apparently it was intended)
Once trading started (BCH/USD only), people couldn't place new sell orders. The unlimited buys cleared, including the guy on reddit whose order was "Buy $100000 USD of BTC at market price", which was filled at 6k and then he was unable to place a sell at 9k. Apparently placing buys without limits is common because unlimited buys are filled before limited ones are.
Since you couldn't place a new sell; the price was not bounded; the book cleared and everything was stuck at 9.5k for a couple minutes. There was a little bit of trades, not sure if it was only people with existing orders that were glitched or if maybe some people weren't glitched, maybe all the activity was orders placed before trading opened.
They realized the issue and paused trading; orders began to accumulate again roughly around here; here's a screenshot of the orders accumulating https://i.imgur.com/0NTyYXx.png There is incredible sell pressure here, the price was obviously out of whack with actual supply/demand.
(MY SPECULATION) Since there was never a functioning market I'd expect Coinbase to rewind all the trades which is what it looks like they are doing.
I might have gotten some of the details wrong, I am just a detached layperson learning about finance who happened to see this go down.
Sorry reddit, no consipiracy here. But none of those posts in r/bitcoin are actual humans anyway, it's all fake bots and a couple poor suckers who don't realize they're arguing with a content farm. Here's some required reading about the bitcoin information manipulation shitshow. https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/infor... TLDR: Nothing is real, everything is fake news, you think it can't possibly be that bad? it's actually worse than that.
I tried to buy it last night and this morning for the ~3K price, and I was blocked by Coinbase. Now it's past the 4K point.
Maybe there's no grand conspiracy, but there's something plasticy about the price movement combined with blocking of new buys at the lower prices (on Coinbase).
Indirect evidence is them erasing this blip from their tickers
Obviously also there are some really angry customers who lost large amounts of cash
EDIT: And theymos's reply with the other side of the story https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/infor...
I will note however that people are paid by Roger Ver himself to make comments like this. eg: https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/infor...
Roger Ver (one of the people behind bcash) has said repeatedly that he believes that his fork deserves the name "Bitcoin" and that it is the "real" bitcoin. It seems obvious that the intent here is to confuse people.
This, to me, seems like blatant fraud. It is concerning to me that coinbase would continue to allow this market confusion to build by listing this under the name "bitcoin cash". Things like this make me long for better regulation in this space.
Full disclosure: I say this as somebody who holds both bitcoin and bcash in nearly equal amounts. I mean to say that I don't really have a dog in this fight.
Bitcoin has a continuity in price, in name, in code, in software, all the way back to when people first started talking about it in 2009.
The idea that bcash is and always has been bitcoin is betrayed by the simple fact that there isn't a continuity in price back to the genesis.
The sum of XBT+BCH price on exchanges fluctuated less than either coin alone.
That's just absolutely absurd.
If you run a website and your database gets pwned by hackers, do you just give up and say oh well, I guess the pwned version is the real version now? No, you restore from a backup, and if that involves recreating some of your integrations with third-party providers then so be it.
People are trying to move their coins out of storage onto exchanges, and seeing about an hour before they even get 1 confirmation.
Also, Bitcoin Cash supporters have a habit of... well, frankly, outright lying sometimes. They were still pushing the idea it was faster than Bitcoin back when it was running at hours per block most of the time, and the usual response to people who discovered this was to tell them that the block time varied and was as low as a minute per block. This was technically true - in fact, often an equal number of blocks were produced at the minutes per block and hours per block rate, in alternating 144 block chunks of each. Can you perhaps see the problem here?
Then they can just implement Segwit. I'm not really seeing the problem here. One version of Bitcoin works today, the other doesn't. It's not really that complicated.
Him & a vocal community (/r/btc) appears to believe in that. What gives BTC (and /r/bitcoin) the right to the name Bitcoin considering both are forks from the original chain?
You're mixing up soft fork with a hard fork and implying that soft fork is somewhat better, when in reality it is just technical concept and has nothing to do with it.
Actually in current situation we already have example, the soft fork (SegWit) implements a complex mechanism to add segregation witness feature and allow for off-chain transactions.
The change in Bitcoin Cash is simply raising the block limit to 8MB. In fact initially bitcoin had no limit for the block size and the limit was added to prevent DDoS.
That limit was meant to be increased as there would be higher demand.
That said I personally don't believe that the name will make a difference in this battle.
What happened on block 494782 was also a fork in some respects, there was well telegraphed plans to change the consensus rules on that block, but no one mined/accepted blocks with those rules.
You own your Bitcoins in the full meaning of the word. You fully control them, by way of your private key, but you also trust that the rules of Bitcoin won't change. The former ownership is technical but the latter is social.
There is an implicit social contract towards anyone who buys Bitcoin to be able to spend them any time in the future, under the same rules as today. That includes not having to upgrade to another ruleset with arbitrary changes.
For this reason it was important that the block size increase was made opt-in, and that any hard forking fundamental changes that are required in the future are trivial or have pretty much unanimous support.
But as it were I'm not suggesting that the majority are calling it anything other than "Bitcoin Cash" for months now. I'm just pointing out that when Bitcoin ABC was new members of /r/btc were pointing out how that name was confusing and that is where BitCash and BCash were originally coined. Go to /r/btc and look at the posts from back then if you don't believe me, people were posting about coming up with a better name. Those posts weren't just some Bitcoin Project conspiracy, they were from members of the community that wanted a better name. Personally, I don't care what they want to do. They are free to come up with whatever cryptocurrency floats their boat and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, the fact that it annoys Roger Ver makes me really want to refer to it as BCash.
Seems a little extreme to me but it is what it is, I guess.
It's like saying that the People's Front of Judea is fraudulent because they don't really represent Judeans like the Judean People's Front.
As to whether it merits having "Bitcoin" in the name, both are close enough that one could be considered a small variant of the other. That might be enough for the other one to merit being called "Bitcoin something".
I don't hold any bitcoin or bitcoin cash...I say this as just a general consumer. The "bitcoin" name has brand value, and having "bitcoin" cash is going to inflate the market value of the it and confuse consumers into thinking some coins are more trustworthy. Especially as this goes more mainstream and your Aunt and Grandma can buy BCH on Coinbase. Or whatever new altcoin comes up that tags on the words "bitcoin."
Vs a store of value that just racks up transaction fees.
If you were right, we would have seen many successful copycat forks since then, but we haven't.
That seems to be a theme in the last day or two by the BCH proponents.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/info...
What I got out of it: several groups of humans splintered. One side is accused of trying to sabotage the other. The other side denies it.
I didn't pick up much of BTH's ramifactions from reading that, though. I guess you posted it to suggest that the increased blocksize isn't in Blockstream's best interests, and perhaps they played a role in militating against it.
So Bitcoin Cash and Blockstream are politically opposed.
The user mukiwa2 said "Bitcoin Cash coming in the next few days!!" 2 days back in that thread and he even joked saying he knew an employee in Coinbase.
That response has since been deleted. I was just talking to my friend about this. Here is the snapshot: https://imgur.com/a/cLlp7