Это не совсем так

Когда вы продаёте свои битки за доллары на бирже, например, на Фениксе, вы фактически покупаете токены тезер. Поэтому крах Тезера мало того, что затронет непосредственно крипту, но ещё скорее всего приведёт и к падению не одной биржи. Другими словами, даже если вы никак не касаетесь этих токенов, прямо или опосредованно, вы всё равно окажетесь под ударом. Вариант пересидеть подобный расклад возможен только если вы сидите на куче наличных долларов (как вариант, рублей, но здесь свои сложности и заморочки)

Note that I ain't calling you any names

I don't say that you are wasting my time, I don't call you an ignorant, arrogant, and unable to argue look-alike, and whatever else you say in my regard or blame me with. Oh, sorry, I said you were flat-out wrong with your understanding of scarcity, but that's the way you are. And now you come and say that if I want to continue this debate I need to respond to your point. Nevertheless, which point exactly should I respond to? That volatility is whatever it is? What difference does it make if I'm primarily concerned with the causes of it and don't particularly care which definition of it you choose to use? Further, you make claims that there are dollars in the system but can you substantiate your claims apart from the fact that they were spent on bitcoins? How do you know that these dollars are still in the system? You don't know that and unless you provide evidence, your point is moot

Are you kidding me or what?

It was you who first claimed that I was wasting your time, wasn't it? So what is it if not you being "ignorant, arrogant, and unable to argue" in the first place? To put it differently, what did you expect in return? I guess you should be more self-critical in this regard. Anyway, as I said, you make irrelevant points. You voice some trivialities about volatility, but this is as just irrelevant. How else should I call that but uninformative noise?


So do you confirm that with higher prices there should be a higher supply of bitcoins to the market?

Ну вы ещё подеритесь, горячие финские парни

Я тут давеча хотел закинуть на биржу порядка 700 баксов в битке, с целью превратить их в рубли на еду и карманные расходы, скажем так. Но чувствую, что с выводом даже 40 тысяч рублей могут возникнуть серьёзные проблемы, поэтому я решил не рисковать и выйти в кеш через альтернативные варианты. Думаю, на Btc-e таких сложностей быть не должно. Если, конечно, на них в очередной раз ФБР не наедет (с другой стороны, один снаряд в ту же воронку не падает)

That was just to demonstrate how wrong you are (conceptually)

Oh, wait, wasn't I supposed to be wasting your time? Regardless, volatility itself is only a consequence (the blah blah blah part), so there is no way it can be the crux of it (whatever that might be). In fact, it is pretty inconsequential and uninformative on its own if we are looking for the true causes of it. It is these causes that actually matter. That's why you mostly make noise when you talk about it. Well, do you agree that at higher prices there is less supply? If you do, this is not what we should expect according to the basic market laws, right? We should expect that at higher prices the supply of bitcoins should expand, but does it really?

Что-то я не понял, к чему этот пост

Со снегом зимой в лесу я сталкивался много раз, и должен сказать, что это настоящий пиздец. Там сугробы наметает под два метра и это не Карелия и не Архангельская область. Так что насчёт того, что снега не хватает, это вряд ли, такого добра и даром не надо (если об этом речь). Интересно, если здесь такие люди, которые реально пробовали прятать деньги или драгоценности в лесу? Хотелось бы услышать их комментарии касательно деталей процесса


Ага, а на банку наклейку сверху шлёпнуть "Баксы в собственном соку"

Короче, пошёл на хер! Всю малину бирже обосрал своими предъявами

А кто хозяин Exmo в реальности? Папаша Мюллер (зачёркнуто) Лернер или некто Паниковский (зачёркнуто) Петуховский? Вроде слухи были, что Exmo и Btc-e - это одна тема, за которой стоят одни и те же люди, но сейчас эти слухи сошли на нет. Поэтому связь может прослеживаться только на уровне движка биржи, который, возможно, был в своё время куплен у Btc-e (коли там дыры остались). С другой стороны, если на Btc-e эти дыры закрыли, а на Exmo нет, то эта связь не более чем на уровне покупатель-продавец, я так считаю  

You may think of it as just being a side note

In respect to volatility being "a statistical measure of dispersion" and blah, blah, blah, you obviously fail to see that I'm not talking about volatility in general. This is boring, and it is boring not because it is boring on its own but because I'm talking about what makes Bitcoin volatility so special and particular. You see, it's a difference that makes the difference, and I'm talking specifically about the underlying causes that create this difference. Anyway, you talk about big money but where is that money exactly? What makes you think that it still sits in the orderbooks? We've seen the price surge massively recently, so it would be legit and reasonable to say that all this new money was spent on buying bitcoins, but do you have any evidence that it is still in the market and not gone elsewhere?

Then what's your point?

I don't see any connection to my claim. As I see it, it is pretty meaningless. Well, not so much meaningless as irrelevant to the matter discussed. Technically, you are wrong even in that since you obviously think that something is scarce just because it has limited supply. This is a wrong approach to scarcity because, for example, 21M bitcoins taken on their own are neither scarce nor abundant. Scarcity refers to the amount of something related to the number of people using it. And guess what, higher prices mean more people using bitcoins and hence bitcoins become more scarce since otherwise no higher prices are possible. As simple as that


This is not about volatility and some charts in general, this is about volatility of Bitcoin and its charts specifically

При обыске может и не найдут

Зато могут найти при всяких прочих событиях. Вообще, люди, предлагающие идею закопать деньги где-нибудь в лесу, на мой взгляд, большие выдумщики. Как вы это реально себе представляете? У вас есть уверенность, что когда вы пойдёте в лес, за вами никто не пойдёт следом и не откопает вашу нычку? Кроме того, что если деньги потребуются, например, зимой, когда в лесу сугробы метровой толщины? Я понимаю, закопать на огороде или где-то рядом, но в лесу?


Я бы не стал воспринимать всерьёз подобный художественный свист (зачёркнуто) вымысел. Всё, что на виду, найдут в первую очередь. В фильмах и двери с ноги выбивают и стены кулаком пробивают (и замки отсреливают, не боясь словить рикошет в голову)

I disagree with that

Price rising makes things more scarce at that price level specifically. Well, actually it may not work with things which have an unlimited supply, but it is certainly the case with things which are scarce on their own (like Bitcoin with its 21M supply of coins). Otherwise, there wouldn't a price rise in the first place. In general, your claim is in direct contradiction to basic market laws. In layman terms, if something goes up in price, it pretty much means either supply runs dry or demand is expanding, or both. Any of these means more scarcity. In a nutshell, no price rise without an increase in scarcity


We are getting straight into gory details

Which make these examples not very useful overall. In case of gold, more specifically, it is not actually gold value which is rising, it is the dollar value going down like it happened in 2009-2011 during the rounds of the so-called quantitative easing. Basically, gold value remains more or less the same over decades. In fact, it even goes down somewhat. Apart from that, we don't know whether it is people hoarding gold or some governments (like those of Russia and China). In other words, leave gold alone


O'really? I remember you were saying different things (something like correlation doesn't mean causation). Just take a look at the charts and you will see that the charts confirm my view. Whether it is a causal effect of higher prices is debatable, of course, but the correlation is certainly there

Мы вас не знаем

Но знаем людей, у которых зависали аналогичные суммы на полтора месяца, причём особо мерзко выглядели попытки биржи выставить клиента дураком, и это только то, что всплыло на публику. Касательно европейского рынка, лично я не думаю, что данная биржа пользуется какой-то исключительной популярностью среди европеоидов. Полагаю, что на этой бирже в основном русскоязычный контингент трётся и люди, которые работают с рублями (выходят из крипты в российскую финансовую систему)


С этим можно согласиться, но надо смотреть детали (может там что-то страшное)

Сейчас народу поприбавилось

Ну а поскольку жадность сильнее здравого смысла, то это ещё только цветочки. В случае Exmo никто вкладываться в расширение бизнеса особо не будет, поэтому следует в будущем ожидать ещё больше maintenance works, пока мыши совсем не разбегутся. Да и с таким отношениям к клиентам (и их деньгам), не думаю, что будет много желающих активно торговать. Если Btc-e оклемается, то народ потянется обратно (возможно он уже потянулся обратно). С таким подходом удел Exmo - это средней паршивости обменник, а не полноценная биржа

This is not so much an argument

As a counterargument to your claim that Bitcoin is like any other regular stock market out there, which I can't agree with. Well, to be honest, I never thought of that, i.e. about Bitcoin price rising too fast, but why not? After all, I'm speaking about the rise and the fall, not so much about just the fall alone taken separately from the preceding rise. This is what volatility is all about, right? And if it makes my point clearer, then you're welcome. Really, if the price rises too fast, we could very well expect it to fall as fast, as simple as it gets

Which are these?

But it doesn't actually matter since the stock kings which you are likely to name have never made like 1000% profits within a single year (I mean after they have become the kings, obviously), so your whole point is not viable anyway. I refer to your comparison of stock markets to Bitcoin. Regarding your other points, especially the Tether part, this may well be only our wishful thinking (I'm on your side in this question, just in case). Also, I don't see easy ways to get fiat into the system, so there can be a shortage after all. Which is why Tether, by the way

I don't like much Marx either

But I have to agree with him on that matter (about practice being the ultimate judge). I see that you are hell-bent on trying to catch me with your stocks vs Bitcoin analogy, but, first, Bitcoin is the king while there are no kings among stocks. And, second, strictly speaking, there is no infinite supply of dollars to the Bitcoin market by any means as opposed to stock markets. This is what Tether likely tries to do, i.e. convert Bitcoin market into a sort of stock market but they will likely fail because they miss the king part. Anyway, we can only wait and see how it plays out eventually

According to Marx, practice is the criterion of truth

Regarding stock markets, here you miss another thing which I specifically mentioned. Stocks are bought with dollars or whatever, and there is never shortage of fiat currencies. Now imagine there is only one stock in the market, which is what Bitcoin is. With Bitcoin we have only 21M coins (well, somewhat less than that but you get the point). As I said, it is the limited supply of bitcoins which makes Bitcoin market very peculiar and different from other markets. That's the whole idea behind my point. Altcoins simply don't cut it since when Bitcoin surges like these days, altcoins go down. So they can be safely discarded. In other words, it is a monodrama, sort of

Okay, let's look at another example

We basically have a sellers market with Bitcoin transactions, i.e. buyers (Bitcoin users in this case) are competing between themselves for the early inclusion of their transaction in the next block. In this way, they are constantly bidding the fee up, right? But does it mean that every transaction with the fee above average gets included if there is a jam (which loosely matches the shortage of bitcoins)? Nope. You have to bid significantly higher to get your transaction included soon. This leaves a very long tail of a relatively small number of transactions with very high fees, and it is the same with prices and orderbook bids. Anyway, if you look at recent Bitcoin corrections, you will see that I'm in fact right, and with rising prices volatility rises even faster, in relative terms as well


Let's just say that I eagerly hope you're right

You still don't get it

With run-away prices, you will always have shortage at both sides, though it is caused by the actual shortage only at one side (remember, it is a balance, an equation of sorts). No matter how high the supply of dollars is, the price will always rise enough to make them scarce at that price and on a way to that price. It is not just a matter of price fall (which seems be the root of your confusion), it is rather a matter of rise first and fall then. That's likely the reason why Tether continues to create their tokens out of thin air. But, as I said, it makes the market susceptible to extreme volatility. Just mark my words, we will see the price crash 50% or more in the future

But how can it be otherwise?

You seem to have missed the whole part of my post about the price rise. When the price rises and there is only a limited supply of whatever gets traded (which is the case with Bitcoin), there is no way there can be enough bids just below the balance, which seems to be your point. If there were, the price would just rise even higher due to competition between buyers. It is sort of an equation where you can't just diminish (or increase, for that matter) only one side of it without affecting the other