Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
Mousem40 said:
The point is, Satoshi/game theory always suggested that miners wouldn't act as bad agents because it was in their (economic) self interest to mine at a profit. We can see here that that is not the case. Miners are willing to mine at a huge loss for other reasons. These mining pools are so powerful that if they wished, they could divert their hashpower to any Crypto they wanted - for non economic reasons.
What "other reasons" ? Nobody will divert hash power for non-economic reasons because the ultimate reason is economic. It's money, remember? Watch it play out.Behemoth said:
What "other reasons" ? Nobody will divert hash power for non-economic reasons because the ultimate reason is economic. It's money, remember? Watch it play out.
Its not economic though, is it? Otherwise you wouldnt have Nvidea saying that they've got a massive backlog of GPUs because of lack of demand. In their words a 'collapse in mining' leading to a 'cryptocurrency hangover'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15...
Condi said:
Its not economic though, is it? Otherwise you wouldnt have Nvidea saying that they've got a massive backlog of GPUs because of lack of demand. In their words a 'collapse in mining' leading to a 'cryptocurrency hangover'.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15...
GPU mining demand has dropped & Nvidia are holding the bags. That has nothing whatsoever to do with game theory being played out on the BCH fork. You can't mine BCH with a graphic processor.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15...
Behemoth said:
What "other reasons" ? Nobody will divert hash power for non-economic reasons because the ultimate reason is economic. It's money, remember? Watch it play out.
That's true, but two things are important. Firstly, differentiate between monopolistic agents and price takers. The former can act in seemingly non-economic ways to squeeze out competition and maximise profits in the long run (e.g. Amazon, Uber, etc etc). Secondly, CFD / derivatives market means that economic incentives are not necessarily aligned with coin performance. If you have sold $$$ of put options on a currency, you can spend money mining in order to destroy it. In fact, the put premium funds your 51% attack.NickCQ said:
That's true, but two things are important. Firstly, differentiate between monopolistic agents and price takers. The former can act in seemingly non-economic ways to squeeze out competition and maximise profits in the long run (e.g. Amazon, Uber, etc etc). Secondly, CFD / derivatives market means that economic incentives are not necessarily aligned with coin performance. If you have sold $$$ of put options on a currency, you can spend money mining in order to destroy it. In fact, the put premium funds your 51% attack.
Well of course there are many many strategies you can deploy & only the foolish would deploy something obvious (unless it is deployed at full strength, at the outset). One method we may be witnessing with BCH is for one side to shadow mine the other side's coin until enough is accumulated to spring an attack.‘PRG’ tokens ruled to be securities:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10574...
Guess US-based ICO schemes will now be looking over their shoulders..
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10574...
Guess US-based ICO schemes will now be looking over their shoulders..
essayer said:
‘PRG’ tokens ruled to be securities:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10574...
Guess US-based ICO schemes will now be looking over their shoulders..
The SEC will climb this totem pole until they reach the very largest ICOs, taking an ever growing case law file along with them. They're starting at the bottom.https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10574...
Guess US-based ICO schemes will now be looking over their shoulders..
Thesprucegoose said:
The tokens are small fry.
If the sec started to get into exchanges the whole crypto house of cards would collapse.
thats why yank users are banned on many exchanges - Bitfinex, bitmex are the big ones that say no to all US Citizens, of course people flout the rules with vpns but thats the users problem if/when they get caught - and KYC is there in any case where amounts used on platforms are greater than the SEC thresholds. If the sec started to get into exchanges the whole crypto house of cards would collapse.
The big exchanges have nothing to worry about as they have all taken appropriate measures, but then how long will these centralised exchanges last in any case? Even binance (which was more profitable than Deutsche Bank this year will be launching a DEX soon enough.
Bitmex ban US clients because they are not trading bitcoin but OTC contracts, ie CFDs. These aren’t recognised by the SEC.
Delo and Hayes know exactly why CFD issuers swerve all US clients and it’s very unlikely they will be turning a blind eye to the old VPN ruse seeing as they are an overnight boat party away from the US mainland and the orange jumpsuit.
It’s the bigger firms and the properly remote who can afford to play the ‘we did not realise’ game.
Delo and Hayes know exactly why CFD issuers swerve all US clients and it’s very unlikely they will be turning a blind eye to the old VPN ruse seeing as they are an overnight boat party away from the US mainland and the orange jumpsuit.
It’s the bigger firms and the properly remote who can afford to play the ‘we did not realise’ game.
DonkeyApple said:
Bitmex ban US clients because they are not trading bitcoin but OTC contracts, ie CFDs. These aren’t recognised by the SEC.
Delo and Hayes know exactly why CFD issuers swerve all US clients and it’s very unlikely they will be turning a blind eye to the old VPN ruse seeing as they are an overnight boat party away from the US mainland and the orange jumpsuit.
It’s the bigger firms and the properly remote who can afford to play the ‘we did not realise’ game.
Am I right in thinking CFDs were banned in 2010 in the US on the back of the recession? Delo and Hayes know exactly why CFD issuers swerve all US clients and it’s very unlikely they will be turning a blind eye to the old VPN ruse seeing as they are an overnight boat party away from the US mainland and the orange jumpsuit.
It’s the bigger firms and the properly remote who can afford to play the ‘we did not realise’ game.
Do you see a time they'll be allowed again?
Behemoth said:
NickCQ said:
USD serves just as well in these situations though?
Yes, dollarisation is a common result (as is gold hoarding), but I think Bitcoin's qualities give it the potential to be far superior.So, say bitcoin saves you 5% or so on transaction fees (vs say smuggling gold.) Your wealth still is wiped out by the 70%+ haircut you are taking to liquidate in a market with only distressed sellers
Also what often happened in Indonesia was people taking payment offshore when they sold, so no need for transferring money in the first place
wisbech said:
I was in Indonesia for the 98 meltdown - USD and gold were used to get money out of the country. But that was the relatively easy bit. Trying to find someone to buy your local assets so you could transfer them out was the tricky bit...
So, say bitcoin saves you 5% or so on transaction fees (vs say smuggling gold.) Your wealth still is wiped out by the 70%+ haircut you are taking to liquidate in a market with only distressed sellers
Also what often happened in Indonesia was people taking payment offshore when they sold, so no need for transferring money in the first place
You're too late if you have to compete with distressed sellers. A pair of gold dealers were executed in Iran last week for taking too much margin as Iranians run for a safe haven. Venezuelans have already lost all their wealth & very few had the foresight or ability to move their assets well before the sSo, say bitcoin saves you 5% or so on transaction fees (vs say smuggling gold.) Your wealth still is wiped out by the 70%+ haircut you are taking to liquidate in a market with only distressed sellers
Also what often happened in Indonesia was people taking payment offshore when they sold, so no need for transferring money in the first place
t hit the fan. Other societies have deep traditions of holding value outside fiat (eg gold in India).Here's an excellent non technical interview with Adam Back. He goes back a long way & is even cited in the Bitcoin white paper. The first part takes you through Bitcoin's history & the second through some contemporary developments building on top of Bitcoin like Lightning & Liquid sidechains.
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/adam-back-o...
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/adam-back-o...
La Liga said:
m I right in thinking CFDs were banned in 2010 in the US on the back of the recession?
Do you see a time they'll be allowed again?
I can’t honestly remember. I don’t think retail were ever permitted. What did happen maybe around 2010 or earlier was the offer of extradition and an orange jumpsuit for anyone accepting US clients. Do you see a time they'll be allowed again?
I can’t ever see a time that the rules on OTCs are reversed.
Behemoth said:
You're too late if you have to compete with distressed sellers. A pair of gold dealers were executed in Iran last week for taking too much margin as Iranians run for a safe haven. Venezuelans have already lost all their wealth & very few had the foresight or ability to move their assets well before the st hit the fan. Other societies have deep traditions of holding value outside fiat (eg gold in India).
Quite, so unless you have the foresight to sell up in advance bitcoin doesn’t make a difference. And if you are selling in a non distressed market, chances are that more normal money transmission is still working. Certainly the case in Indonesia if you had sold in 1996t hit the fan. Other societies have deep traditions of holding value outside fiat (eg gold in India).Pretty much all societies have deep traditions of holding value outside fiat. Real estate for example or equity. Returns on holding cash aren’t great
Edited by wisbech on Monday 19th November 00:00
DonkeyApple said:
La Liga said:
m I right in thinking CFDs were banned in 2010 in the US on the back of the recession?
Do you see a time they'll be allowed again?
I can’t honestly remember. I don’t think retail were ever permitted. What did happen maybe around 2010 or earlier was the offer of extradition and an orange jumpsuit for anyone accepting US clients. Do you see a time they'll be allowed again?
I can’t ever see a time that the rules on OTCs are reversed.
I remember when the US banned online gambling and what a hammering the shares of related companies took.
The ‘land of the free’; buy lots of guns but the government will protect you from doing what you want with your own money.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff