We need our own Bitcoin Exchange. Our legal entity must be set on a Moon (yes we said we are going to then moon, what are we waiting for?) site.
Then no petty government shall come and shut down our exchange. If somebody picks the idea that would be great.
With Atomic Swaps and some more Anon Tech the Party will be over for govts. Exchange will be everywhere and nowhare. The problem is how to get fiat in and out without a bank. I haven't researched the problem or the proposed solutions yet. Can anybody share pointers? |
|
|
|
Down again, at least a bit. Still higher than my latest limit buy though  |
|
|
|
Ok. Extracted just north of $1M @ $14,500 USD/BTC.
Once the wire hits my account, I'll load up for round 2.
Very well done! Feel lighter eh? Now that you have more time on your hands, we'd really like to hear that country song. |
|
|
|
A nice time to get in the WOT, ztay  |
|
|
|
volume on the bounce looks bigger than on the dump to me
Maybe, but I think we're not done with the ups and downs yet. Cycles seem to get shorter though. |
|
|
|
|
Managed to get meself a lil moar korn.
|
|
|
|
It's finite upside vs infinite downside, and he knows.
Like Nassim Taleb (and any proper thinking mathematician), I would think the downside is limited (Bitcoin can't become less than $0) and the upside is unlimited (or: potentially much higher than the downside). The perfect example of an asymmetric bet that Taleb has written extensively about. Yes, yes. I meant downside/upside for someone shorting bitcoin. Andreessen did help a little. Thanks, Wekkel! :-) |
|
|
|
tulips
I'm not worrying about the current pullback or sideways motion. I'm confident we're headed higher in 2018. Possibly much higher. The medium-long term future, however, now that gets me thinking. In today's finance news there was ample coverage of both Buffett's and Munger's words. None of them mentioned tulips, but the meaning was clear. I sure imagined their stance on the matter - it's old school finance, for Satoshi's sake! And the guys are not exactly techno-savvy millennials, either. But I don't know why - Buffett's calm, grandfatherly words, spoken with a good-natured smile, unsettled me much more than scumbag Dimon's outburst. Grandpa Warren said he's not interested in shorting, of course. Why would he? It's finite upside vs infinite downside, and he knows. However, he would like some 5 year puts at a strike price near the current spot, if they existed. What made me cringe was my own thought: "Oh how nice! I'm gonna get some now too... oops, there is no such thing." Please tell me I'm wrong, or it doesn't matter, or whatever. Explain me why I'm wrong or it doesn't matter, or whatever it is. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the swings continue. They seem narrower. Nearly 14.5k right now (gdax).
Bob, do you have that country song ready yet? Festival planning is in Phase 2.
|
|
|
|
Are you guys ready to see BTC lose that no.1 spot on coinmarketcap?
No. Nothing sadder than a sad, gay, black cowboy  I should probably go write a Country song to properly convey the depths of my sadness... You could premiere it at the next country music festival. I heard there's a good one in Carolina. |
|
|
|
|
Tentatively climbing back up? A couple of my more adventurous limit buys didn't get filled.
|
|
|
|
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what. Not sure if I understood that correctly but if I did, I could view torrents being replaced by cloud services as a regression from a decentralised system back towards a more centralised one. Cloud services are provided by a small number of large companies. You're right. I expressed my thought clumsily. By "good parallel" I meant to make a point with those that are afraid LN means more centralization. It will also reduce costs, as peer-cloud-peer systems do: most peers don't need to keep seeding the torrent. Anyway I still find torrents useful.
I also still use them, even if they're not that fashionable anymore. What I failed to convey is that they will still be ready to use, and back in high demand, if (when!) circumstances (censorship) will make them necessary again. But anyway, thanks for a civilised response. I prefer reasoned debate than being told to fuck off.
Oh, well, fuck off then. (J/k hehe...) |
|
|
|
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what. |
|
|
|
Translation of SEC concerns: "Futures as implemented now are totally inadequate since they can't manipulate the price." At least the way I understand it. |
|
|
|
Missed the dip. Too short  Come on, missy, do it again for me pleeaze... |
|
|
|
Just to be clear, those numbers were pulled out of a near total contextualized assessment of BTC market dynamics accounting for historical happenings, momentum and future probabilities of a variety of events that have not yet happened, including trade volume representations, knowns, unknowns and uncertainties. In other words, I am employing a kind of amalgoratiated "speculation" within conformity of the WO tradition.  So...from your ass? How brutal, Arriemoller!  |
|
|
|
Thanks for the summary, Peter! Zohar modeled the flow of coins as a random walk. For example, if a channel starts with Alice and Bob each holding $100 dollars, and if you imagine them routing through their channel N payments of $10 each, we'd expect the channel to be fully lopsided after routing 100 transactions ( [$100 / $10]^2 ). It might actually be even worse than that if the transactions are not independent (and I assume they aren't, at least until the salary-in-BTC is a reasonable assumption). If recharging the channel costs $30, then fees need to be at least $30 / 100 = $0.30 per transaction per hop. If it takes 5 hops to route your payment, that is at least $1.50 in fees.
However, increasing the number of channels per LN node makes the average unbalance converge to a normal (Gaussian) distribution: a bell centered on zero with a standard deviation (width) that grows with average transaction size. The number of channels can be increased with limited (ideally null) additional financial exposure by making the channels smaller - if the hypothetical transaction slicer/packetizer is in place. Besides, you're assuming funding a channel costs 15% of the channel capacity (30$ for 200$ capacity). I don't think this is realistic, as the blockchain related funding cost should only be a function of the number of utxos under SW regime. And it would definitely be a SW transaction. I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Won't LN make payment processors like Bitpay totally obsolete? But I think LN fees will be too high and the network too impractical to compete with on-chain payments on an uncrippled cryptocurrency. <crystalball> Incentives, Peter. With the entry cost of setting up a LN hub close to the simple funding of channels, my guess is there will be fierce competition on prices, some of which motivated by purely political, rather than financial, reasons (as in: I, for one, will start a hub as soon as it's practical). With such low-denominator price wars, and low ROI volunteers helping the net nearly for free (as full nodes already do today), I don't see how a high fee level could be sustained. </crystalball> There was a really interesting talk on "Recharging Lightning" at Scaling Bitcoin Stanford by Aviv Zohar. You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/3pd6xHjLbhs?t=1h2m21sHe showed that LN fees in fact wouldn't be as low as many people expect because: - channels eventually become depleted and need to be "recharged." This costs 1 on-chain fee which needs to be amortized over the life of the channel. That's right. That's where CoinJoin-like refunding can help. Actually, I'm not 100% positive that system has been extended to deal with refunding yet, but it can and it will. You can then plan your re-fundings in advance, and pay a fraction of the fee if you are willing to wait. - the bigger you make the channel the longer it lasts before needing a "recharge," but then the more money you tie up. There is an opportunity cost associated with this money tied up in a channel (modeled as an interest rate by Zohar).
Zohar shows that the only way fees can be very very small, is if channels are very very richly funded OR if on-chain fees are also very small. Neither of these conditions will hold however (well outside of a highly-centralized hub-and-spoke model where the hubs control all of the LN channels).
I would much prefer a written source, but I do get the gist of the model, which seems indeed sensible. I would like to see some quantitative estimates on "very very richly founded". In principle, I agree that at first it could be so that you need a mammoth channel to deal with the occasional mammoth payment (or several squirrel payments), but once a system is in place that implements a kind of "packet switching" for payments, splitting them over different channels/routes, that problem will disappear. All it takes for the system to work in a quasi-steady state is the global I/O of the channels to nearly null out, which means little fresh btc need enter/exit the LN. Alternatively, Average Joe - who runs a LN hub whose net capacity flow is negative (more BTC going out than in) - could send fiat or other low-fee cryptos into some LN-friendly exchange, which in turn would refill Joe's channel with positive capacity. It remains to be seen how the flow will be organized, although until salaries are paid in BTC I imagine normal user channels would send more than they receive on average. The net effect for Joe would be that of "buying moar", which for an enthusiastic LN volunteer (possibly politically motivated), sounds quite desirable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
