 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Has anyone got experience in Bitcoin market making?
Please reach out.
What kind of markets are you talking about? Tell us more about yourself and your objectives. Do you want to start an exchange business? If that's your aim, hiring random devs from this forum isn't a good idea unless their talents are acknowledged widely by the community. Market making is maintaining both buy and sell limit orders in an orderbook. I'm looking for people experienced in this business. Not looking to engage developers. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone got experience in Bitcoin market making?
Please reach out.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me ask another question.
What makes a currency useful?
|
|
|
|
Just because transaction fees go up, you say bitcoin is useless?  I myself have never thought about transaction fees in every transaction I make, while there is still a wallet that provides no fees in the withdrawal, take advantage of that. I think don't need to bother with transaction fees, and bitcoin very useful. Useful for what? |
|
|
|
|
Re: Why should people use Bitcoin?
December 08, 2015, 05:52:20 PM
Reply with quote #3
Some good reasons why you use bitcoin.
1. It is fast. Transactions are instantaneous and confirmation times are usually done withing 10 minutes.
2. It is cheap to transfer any amount of money anywhere. Fees are insignificant at this point.
3. Your bitcoin are your alone, they can't be blocked by bank, IRS or any institutions.
4. There are no charge backs.
This is from another thread... from Dec 2015. Only 2 of the pints are still true.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that one particular characteristic is quite persistent - autonomy. Being independent of traditional institutional control the community values the most. It is an interesting point. So it's a safe haven of the 21st century this is where it's likely to derive its value. However, how stable is it? What could impact it?
|
|
|
|
With transaction costs rising above $1 the original promise of cheap remittance using Bitcoin is officially dead. Without utility Bitcoin use is limited to speculation only and even further what is there to speculate about?
I would like to debate this and gauge the community's response to Bitcoin experiment.
With today prices if the fee of your transaction as you post is $1 that means about 55000 satoshis, the size of your transaction is more than the median usual (225 bytes); except if you would like your tx being confirmed in the next block. More over the the tx fees is about $1 because the today price of btc is about $1800. If we go some months ago say 11/2016 the 1btc=$600 with the today network load the same tx fees would cost 33 cents. So, I would like to ask you; Would you like a cheap btc or an expensive one so as if you hold it to be more rich in the future? One can't predict the future. If Bitcoin is not used for remittance because of it's price the demand will likely to go down, no demand... the price will bound to go down. But I like your question. What do we want from Bitcoin? Do we want a stable currency or an ever appreciating in value asset? Could there be an equilibrium? |
|
|
|
If bitcoin is useless, then explain why literally billions of dollars are flowing into it. The market determines the value. The market has spoken. You are wrong.
You are right the market does determines the value. However, ask yourself, how often do markets get it wrong? Remember the Dotcom bubble? or many other time when a security crashed dragging the entire market down. What I'm trying to say is the true value of bitcoin has been misrepresented as cheap money remittance tool. Bitcoin is not a utility anymore. So, what intrinsic value is there? |
|
|
|
With transaction costs rising above $1 the original promise of cheap remittance using Bitcoin is officially dead. Without utility Bitcoin use is limited to speculation only and even further what is there to speculate about?
I would like to debate this and gauge the community's response to Bitcoin experiment.
I think that bitcoin failed his first intent, the original intent was to be a digital money. Here is what Satoshi Nakamoto said in the original whitepaper: "The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party" (Satoshi Nakamoto) I highlight this part "The cost of mediation increases transaction costs", Bitcoin has become what he fought against For those that don't believe that alcoins can replace Bitcoin take a look in the market dominance of Bitcoin. Now Bitcoin is becoming each day more and more the Debian of the digital currencies but it can be the next blockbuster/kodak. As much as I would like to agree with you. Having failed as a remittance mechanism or a good store of value, I'm struggling to see the value of the Bitcoin as an asset class. It can't be used for high value settlement, it's not enough volume. It's destined to remain niche with limited attraction from speculators. The uptick in popularity we are seeing now is driven by a lack of understanding and a short-term desire to make quick buck. |
|
|
|
With transaction costs rising above $1 the original promise of cheap remittance using Bitcoin is officially dead. Without utility Bitcoin use is limited to speculation only and even further what is there to speculate about?
I would like to debate this and gauge the community's response to Bitcoin experiment.
With the in increase in the amount being paid for transaction fees which is quite unfortunate but that does not mean the end of bitcoin we are always very happy to see increase in the price of bitcoin and quickly with the "bitcoin to the moon" threads but not with the cost attached to it. If the rate of increase of transaction has not overshadowed the increase in price, people will continue using bitcoin and its death is not near. What for? |
|
|
|
With transaction costs rising above $1 the original promise of cheap remittance using Bitcoin is officially dead.
if you want to transfer a couple of thousands of dollar with bitcoin you still pay the same low fee of $0.7-$0.8 but with a bank you will end up paying a percentage of what you transfer. so it is still pretty cheap.
Even if your want to move a higher value, volatility kills it. By the time the value is received it can go up or down. So again it's useless.
|
|
|
|
well if frees are what concern you most just loot at paypal of skrill for example. Do you like that better ? I will always prefer having higher fees and no one above me to fuck with my money
Fees discrepancy causes an issue with payment finality. No one maybe fucking with your money but if your money can't reach nowhere on time, who gives a fuck? |
|
|
|
indeed. The low transaction fee's are a lie now. better to buy your pizza with real money or pay more with BTC.
Can anyone tell me for whom those fee's are, and why they are rising?
The fees are being paid to miners to process transactions. The higher the volume of transactions the more effort is required to process, minres are motivated to process transactions that carry a higher fee first. This triggers a cascading effect, if a user what a transaction to be processed sooner he has to pay more. In the traditional processing model, processing fees go down with volume. Users and acquirers work with a predictable pricing structure. Acquirers compete with each other driving making fees more competitive for merchants. Bitcoin turned this upside down and made users compete with each other. I believe this is not sustainable. |
|
|
|
|
With transaction costs rising above $1 the original promise of cheap remittance using Bitcoin is officially dead. Without utility Bitcoin use is limited to speculation only and even further what is there to speculate about?
I would like to debate this and gauge the community's response to Bitcoin experiment.
|
|
|
|
Well, that depends on in what currency the merchant denominated that jeans. If that was $250 but as an alternative payment method he/she accepted 1 BTC (at the then current $250 exchange rate) then he should refund $250 worth BTC. If he sold that Jeans for 1 BTC what was worth $250 in that time then he/she should give back 1 BTC even if it went up to $300 in the meantime.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
Let me ask you this... If say 10 countries/governments in the world, accept it as a legal tender, would you define it as a currency?
If one country accepts bitcoin as a legal tender it would be halfway to becoming currency. But I do not believe it will happen. As to the reason, same as Visa or MasterCard would not have either word bitcoin or it's logo on a card. It's a branding issue. Card schemes do not understand who or what is behind bitcoin so for them to put their cherished brand next to something they have no idea about is impossible. I would say it's the same with countries. Most likely they will develop their own digital currencies. I know Bank of England has 3 man team looking into this and I'm sure others do the same. However, bitcoin can be seen as settlement mechanism between other government backed digital currencies. Time will show. But I'm having difficulty accepting bitcoin as a vanila currency in conventional terms. |
|
|
|
You need to learn to quote properly. You don't need to double post with massive walls of quotes each time but I've already substantiated it, but you haven't other than posting your incorrect opinion constantly so you need to substantiate yours or provide something more than hasn't been disproved time and time again. You're not going to change any ones opinion here but you can keep parroting it like it means something.
Thanks for the opportunity  Could you guarantee me that? Show me this guarantee. I'm not saying gold can't be used as currency, for instance gold coins, but most people won't accept gold coins or bits of gold for things, but you can't make your piece of gold divisible to pay for a packet of cigarettes nor could you get your change back in gold. In fact, I'd say it far easier and quicker to buy cigs for bitcoins than it is gold, so regardless of you saying bitcoin isn't a currency over and over that's just your opinion, and one where you're wrong.
You are confusing convenience with a definition of currency. Gold and later gold standard has been used for thousands of years as currency. As it is less divisible, yes, I agree it is not as convenient as for example bitcoin to make a small payment. But you argue that if it is convenient, divisible and more or less accepted unit of exchange than it is currency. In that case do you consider WebMoney as currency? Oh, look, the troll has an alt account. So cigarettes are currency now but bitcoin isn't? Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true, though maybe in your head it does.
One in constructing an argument based on logical conclusions can chase the opponent's argument into absurd. You argued that if acceptance is one of the key characteristics of currency than cigarettes are wider accepted than bitcoin hence siggies are currency. But currency is a lot more than a divisible, medium of exchange in order for it to be currency it has to be a legal tender and that was argued previously. You can call smonting currency but it does not make it currency in legal sense. In my opinion bitcoin is closer to a unique token but if this token will be backed by gold will it be currency then? Or what needs to happen for it be recognized as currency. In the same what what needs to have happen for digitised gold or other conventional assets to be recognized as a digital asset? |
|
|
|
From all of the anti-bitcoin arguments against it not being a proper currency that i've heard (and trust me i've read TONS) im yet to see a single one that justifies such claim. Every single claims end up being a critique of how it lacks intrinsic value or how it lacks a proper marketcap to be less volatile, both already refuted.
Ok. Let me ask why do we want it to be a currency? Maybe you are looking for credibility? But if all the arguments or critique have already been refuted in your opinion why is bitcoin still only used for gambling and speculative trading and not as a currency? What's stopping it if it's such a panacea? IF you can buy shit with it it s a currency. Why do we want it to be a currency? Because it's arguably the only fair and not corrupt one. Not sure where you get all that bitcoin is used for is trading or gambling either. To buy shit you do not need currency. You can buy shit with gold, a promissory note, or smokes if one is in jail. Bitcoin has some characteristics of currency in particular it's a medium of exchange. The only intinsinс value that it has is based on the fact that it is a pretty good medium of exchange but it would be nothing of there was nothing to exchange it for. If we say that it is not a currency than regulators of this would let it be, if we continue on the path of enchuching onto the hegemony of USD they will shut it down. All they have to do is to say it's illegal and it would be game over for bitcoin. Using smokes is bartering, not buying something. Gold isn't really a valid currency because it is not easily divisible. How do I buy a pack of smokes with a gold bullion? I can't. But wait, I can buy them with bitcoin. Why are you not making the same arguments against fiat? Is that not a currency too?T he gov are not going to shut it down. They'll regulate it because they want to tax it and if people are using it a a currency - which they are - then they're not going to leave it alone so everyone can just have their money to launder or use without having to pay taxes on it. Bitcoin is a currency so stop posting rubbish or half-assedly trolling. I could guarantee you that you would find more people how would accept a piece of gold before they would accept a bitcoin. Following your logic, gold is currency... And a lot more people would accept smoke since this is the most used "currency" in jails around the world. Thanks for the argument So, until bitcoin reaches the same level of acceptance it's NOT a currency |
|
|
|
From all of the anti-bitcoin arguments against it not being a proper currency that i've heard (and trust me i've read TONS) im yet to see a single one that justifies such claim. Every single claims end up being a critique of how it lacks intrinsic value or how it lacks a proper marketcap to be less volatile, both already refuted.
Ok. Let me ask why do we want it to be a currency? Maybe you are looking for credibility? But if all the arguments or critique have already been refuted in your opinion why is bitcoin still only used for gambling and speculative trading and not as a currency? What's stopping it if it's such a panacea? IF you can buy shit with it it s a currency. Why do we want it to be a currency? Because it's arguably the only fair and not corrupt one. Not sure where you get all that bitcoin is used for is trading or gambling either. To buy shit you do not need currency. You can buy shit with gold, a promissory note, or smokes if one is in jail. Bitcoin has some characteristics of currency in particular it's a medium of exchange. The only intinsinс value that it has is based on the fact that it is a pretty good medium of exchange but it would be nothing of there was nothing to exchange it for. If we say that it is not a currency than regulators of this would let it be, if we continue on the path of enchuching onto the hegemony of USD they will shut it down. All they have to do is to say it's illegal and it would be game over for bitcoin. Using smokes is bartering, not buying something. Gold isn't really a valid currency because it is not easily divisible. How do I buy a pack of smokes with a gold bullion? I can't. But wait, I can buy them with bitcoin. Why are you not making the same arguments against fiat? Is that not a currency too?T he gov are not going to shut it down. They'll regulate it because they want to tax it and if people are using it a a currency - which they are - then they're not going to leave it alone so everyone can just have their money to launder or use without having to pay taxes on it. Bitcoin is a currency so stop posting rubbish or half-assedly trolling. An it has nothing to do with trolling. It's a debate. Substantiate your argument and join in. |
|
|
|
|
