Gibt es eine Zusammenfassung, zu was sich der Emittent des ETF tatsächlich verpflichtet hat?
Jedes Finanzprodukt braucht heute ein Termsheet. https://derinet.vontobel.ch/PDF_TS/CH0327606114d.pdfEin Tracker oder ein ETF muss natürlich das Underlying abbilden, sonst kommts in die Tonne. Also MUSS BTC tatsächlich gehandelt werden, sonst geht's schief - 100%. |
|
|
|
If so, is anybody able to transfer this message / techy stuff into PBOC minds ? Adam Back the cypherpunk himself ?
You should probably look towards people who are native to Chinese. And what do you exactly mean by getting 'fired' ?
If there is widespread consensus (among the community, nodes and economic majority) for a certain change and if the miners are refusing to follow this consensus, a POW change can be implemented. I looked around in the dev team - but there is no native Chinese . And why would you think that miners could not just set up enough nodes with their liked verision of code i.o. to save their very huge investments of miners ? Those node costs seems very little to this in comparison. |
|
|
|
Wenn ein ETF aufgelegt wird und jmd darin investiert, so muss der Betreiber des ETFs sich hedgen (egal ob Lieferpflicht oder nicht), also BTC kaufen.
Das muss der Betreiber nur soweit er sich in den ETF Bedingungen eindeutig dazu verpflichtet hat. Sonst kann er zum Tracken des Kurses weitere Derivate (Optionen, Futures, Fiatrücklagen) nutzen. Da der Ausgleich sowieso nur in Fiat erfolgt, wäre der Kauf des Basiswertes zusätzlicher Aufwand, würde das Risiko erhöhen und begrenzt den Nachschub des Derivats. Theoretisch ja, da man aber immer wieder feststellen muss, ist der BTC unkorreliert zu all den anderen Assets - das ist ja genau der selling point - also taugt zum Hedgen NUR!! BTC selber. Ich lade jeden herzlich ein, dies mal zu versuchen ohne BTC / oder wir besuchen mal Vontobel, der das schon macht. |
|
|
|
Wie seht Ihr den Einfluss des ETF auf den aktuellen Kurs?
Logischerweise dürfte dieser ETF ( ohne Lieferpflicht des Basiswerts) überhaupt keinen Einfluss auf den Kurs haben, ähnlich wie die abgegebenen Lottoscheine keinen Einfluss auf das Ergebnis der Ziehung der Lottozahlen haben. Praktisch handeln Trader nicht logisch. Die meisten Menschen sind ja geistig nicht mal in der Lage, Giralgeld als Derivat zu begreifen, selbst wenn man es ihnen erklärt. Ich kann deiner Logik nicht folgen. Kannst du das bitte erklären? Verstehe ich auch anders: Wenn ein ETF aufgelegt wird und jmd darin investiert, so muss der Betreiber des ETFs sich hedgen (egal ob Lieferpflicht oder nicht), also BTC kaufen. Das wird sicher den Kurs zunächst positiv beeinflussen. EDIT: Es is nicht klar, ob dies derzeit schon passiert, denn der Zeitpunkt des Hedgings ist 'egal' - Hauptsache der ETF Betreiber verdient seine Marge.... |
|
|
|
Nice and shiny - good start! I'd like to see a section, where merged features SW + BU is promoted - Here we go! (If you can have all , you should take it !)  |
|
|
|
SegWit or BU are only short term decisions and improvments. I'm sure that in long term Bitcoin will be replaced by the other leading crypto. You can resent, you can steam but Bitcoin is still number 1 because it has first movers advantage and a lot of speculation driving price up. As Google hasn't appeared in the first days of internet, the same is in crypto. Improved and sophisticated projects are underway. Differently from BTC they will have advantage to learn from their predecessors mistakes. If you think of 'store of value' - only there is nothing better... All other things you might think of could be build on top. |
|
|
|
Could they fear with SW, LN, MimbleWimble, .... (see e.g. BS Roadmap) these tasks cannot be ensured ?
1) SW does nothing to jeopardize their plans, whatever they may be. 2) The same goes for LN. 3) MimbleWimble might have an effect, but they can't prevent that one. also Chinese miners (in collusion) might not risk to let bitcoin be changed to be more anonymous?
Now this may be an interesting assertion. That may result in miners getting 'fired'. If so, is anybody able to transfer this message / techy stuff into PBOC minds ? Adam Back the cypherpunk himself ? And what do you exactly mean by getting 'fired' ? |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cnLedgerGiven the fact that Chinese exchanges are really forced to ensure proper AML and KYC, also Chinese miners (in collusion) might not risk to let bitcoin be changed to be more anonymous? Could they fear with SW, LN, MimbleWimble, .... (see e.g. BS Roadmap) these tasks cannot be ensured ?
|
|
|
|
Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.
NO, you add an automatically adjusting blocksize to leave less management into human hands. Humans are corrupt, and greedy, the only way to solve the block increase is to make the code automatical, to not rely on infighting every 4-5 years. If you define 'automatically' = adjusted by the free market = Austrian economics type You are with BU Otherwise there is a BIP from sipa, adjusting by some 'magic rules' in code derived by extrapolation into future.... |
|
|
|
Sidechains are more suited to micro-transactions. It will take time, but I think that will be the direction to take.
But aren't sidechains proven impossible to secure? I have no idea honestly. I have only read about it while doing my reading about Bitcoin. Another thing I'd like to know is considered Lightning a sidechain? My understanding is sidechains are secured via the parent blockchain hashing power. Which is why it makes sense. Then the side-chain can have different ratios of value to the main chain, and in effect "fill the gap" for lower-end purchases. As it is not atomic on chain, every interface invents new risks. Just very simple to understand. |
|
|
|
So who the hell is still supporting BU? I support BU. Bitcoin Unlimited is a tool to allow node operators and miners to more easily configure their nodes' blocksize limits and signal their preferences to the network. This is what we need right now. That's a good start, but in the spirit of honoring Satoshi we must make BU as unlimited in as many ways as possible. Miners should also be allowed to vote on changing the block reward, the block time, and the PoW. Those three things are still based on magic numbers and arbitrary choices imposed by the crippling tyranny of BlockStreamCore, so we must abolish them ASAP. During times of high traffic (Black Friday->Cyber Monday, Xmas Eve), higher block rewards and lower block times will help relieve congestion so Bitcoin Unlimited will function as digital p2p ecash. Miners must also be able to vote on changing the PoW to PoS, so the environment will start being saved from catastrophic climate changes caused by greedy ASIC capitalist fossil fuel consumption. Yeah, you re breaking the ice. But unlimted means more than you might think of. You can do all sorts of things that you described above on your (BS) 2nd layers. Bitcoin itself just will stay at 21 Mio + PoW. And yes it could have SW in too. |
|
|
|
Luke Jr says pay a $5 transaction fee and the transaction will go through every time.
That is one sure shot way to make sure that Bitcoin remains out of the reach of most people in developing countries.
No. He rathers says: Pray! No pay... And yes: Blockchain without bitcoin will fail.  |
|
|
|
Also, plenty of Segwit implementation bugs in bitcoin-related software haven't been uncovered yet...
It's interesting how BU actually has observable, network threatening bugs running live on the real Bitcoin network, whereas Segwit has been tested on the testnet extensively for over a year (testing that was hilariously construed as "ignoring the scaling issue") to weed the bugs out. Maybe if you cared about bugs, you'd also be interested in the testing regime too? Not sure if you know anything about software dev? In an ideal world you d have three layers: Dev net Test or UAT Prod And even in this world some bug can be only found in prod cause first 2 nets have not the density of prod. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is real money. More real than fiat since the gold standard was broken by Nixon 1971.
I m very fond of seeing the difference to electronic fiat, stored in central databases.
Bitcoin is stored in its blockchain database.
Who is the very admin in both cases? Who controls the funds?
With bitcoin, you are!
|
|
|
|
diese Macht ist endlich wie der BTC
Denn der BTC ist endlich, irgendwann wird diese Manipultion nicht mehr möglich, oder sie laufen Gefahr, den Einsatz zu verlieren, auch höhere Gewinne (Gier als Antireb BTC zu halten, im Wissen das er endlich ist).
Da sind wir wieder beim Longinvestor, der dies weiss
Kann dir nicht folgen. Man muss die Kommastelle doch einfach nur immer weiter nach vorne versetzen und z.B. behaupten, daß 1mBTC für 1k$ ein Schnäppchen sind. Da ist nix endlich. wenn du dann aber 1 BTC hast wieviel € ist der dann wert? Die Gesamtmenge ist fest, die Kommastelle sind auf 8 begrenzt. Dann lohnen sich heute auch faucets Muss zugeben keine Ahnung davon zu haben, was Faucets sind. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen <-- hat sehr für BitCoin gebrannt aber leider ein paar unglückliche entscheidungen getroffen Welche? Ich stelle mir manchmal vor, wo wir heute wären, wenn Gavin noch Core wäre... Hätten wir den community split? Und zum Thread: Wo wäre der aktuelle Kurs? |
|
|
|
If you don't let Greg Maxwell take over Bitcoin to install SegWit altcoin, Price Waterhouse will lose $76 million. Blockstream has so far raised $76m in funding for experimental ideas like its in-development sidechains network, while inking partnerships with more traditional financial firms like PwC.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-blockstream-greg-maxwell-blockchain-uncontrollable-noun/Why do people just stand by and let this private takeover happen? Are we sheep? Mega fud trolls best. Segwit is adding smart contracts capabilities from the best developers of the world. I dont care for whom they are working. Important is the best tech and cheaper transactions without bloating the blocks and then schorr signatures. However we will see at the end of the year What makes you sure that BU idea is limited to fix the blocksize only? |
|
|
|
Calling a soft fork an 'altcoin' makes you the only sheep around here.  Ok. Good comment. We call it SoftCoin from now on. I would prefer the hard bitcoin with unlimited value.  |
|
|
|
I love 4 digits. Gentleman 5 digits incoming... |
|
|
|
Core is in the sheep hearding seat. Their task is to bypass consensus features. I still hope for a change of motive because we should do both in one go: fix issues and allow nodes to choose scale = swabu
fixed that for you I m happy for any such quick fixes esp in these times. |
|
|
|
Lucifer and Crawly king of hell lol. Are you sure we would've ended up like ETC/ETH? like everyone could profit 10% on their stashed bitcoins instantly?
I think not. good thing about open source always majority wins but if you put it that way then the majority is the central authority only with the exception that everyone is free and capable to join or become part of the majority.
Core is in the driver seat. Their task is to deliver consensus features. I still hope for their insight that we need both in one go: SW And BU = swabu |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
