Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 01:33:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Couldnt bitcoin be stabilized just by limiting the volume of trades?  (Read 1053 times)
don giovanni (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 02:49:59 PM
 #1

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?
1711719201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711719201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711719201
Reply with quote  #2

1711719201
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711719201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711719201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711719201
Reply with quote  #2

1711719201
Report to moderator
1711719201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711719201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711719201
Reply with quote  #2

1711719201
Report to moderator
1711719201
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711719201

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711719201
Reply with quote  #2

1711719201
Report to moderator
marhjan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215
Merit: 105


Poorer than I ought to be


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 02:59:35 PM
 #2

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Who exactly do you propose defines the value of "n coins" and "period t?"  This is a much bigger problem than you realize especially when the btc protocol is designed to be decentralized.  On a very basic level what you propose decreases market liquidity and would likely over time lead to lower value for btc.  The fact the MtGox is currently woefully inadequate to handle periods of peak trading DOES NOT mean we should give up.

Donations happily accepted @ 15qxNsc7pBiz5kXpAJykw4etzMbZitm2mk
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:19:48 PM
 #3

I don't see why this is such a big problem. Bitcoin is growing and this is the only way for people to figure out its value, it is healthy. In the meantime price everything in a currency that is more short term stable and convert using whatever algorithm you think is best.
Merralea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
 #4

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:23:59 PM
 #5

Quote
if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t
Regulations you want? No!

This is the free market, let it flow!

greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1009


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:24:38 PM
 #6

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Are you a communist, son?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:32:11 PM
 #7

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Are you a communist, son?
insulting people on thier political opinions are not arguments.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1009


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 03:46:33 PM
 #8

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Are you a communist, son?
insulting people on thier political opinions are not arguments.
Are you a communist, son?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
 #9

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Are you a communist, son?
insulting people on thier political opinions are not arguments.
Are you a communist, son?

Are you a libertard, boy?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
don giovanni (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 04:37:45 PM
 #10

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.

Im not saying they should limit any 1 person to do a massive trade, that they should limit massive trades in general, even if its just the summation of a bunch of independent small trades. And leave exchange Z to go where? The 2nd place exchange that has only 5% market share? All mt gox has to do is stop massive buy/sells and the market will actually become usable (at least for those of us who actually use it as a currency and not a get rich quick scheme).
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
 #11

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.

Im not saying they should limit any 1 person to do a massive trade, that they should limit massive trades in general, even if its just the summation of a bunch of independent small trades. And leave exchange Z to go where? The 2nd place exchange that has only 5% market share? All mt gox has to do is stop massive buy/sells and the market will actually become usable (at least for those of us who actually use it as a currency and not a get rich quick scheme).

What was the exact problem this caused you?
Luno
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 04:41:38 PM
 #12

Mt.Gox usually craps down when volume is too high, preventing people selling as fast as they want. So in reallity, we have such a system.
don giovanni (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
 #13

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.

Im not saying they should limit any 1 person to do a massive trade, that they should limit massive trades in general, even if its just the summation of a bunch of independent small trades. And leave exchange Z to go where? The 2nd place exchange that has only 5% market share? All mt gox has to do is stop massive buy/sells and the market will actually become usable (at least for those of us who actually use it as a currency and not a get rich quick scheme).

What was the exact problem this caused you?

Buying coin at $ dollars then having it suddenly worth 20% less minutes later, then 10% more minutes later, then 20% less again, and so on, constantly, without any sort of balance. As a currency bitcoin is a joke and all because mtgox wont implement a cap on trade.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 06:23:41 PM
 #14

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.

Im not saying they should limit any 1 person to do a massive trade, that they should limit massive trades in general, even if its just the summation of a bunch of independent small trades. And leave exchange Z to go where? The 2nd place exchange that has only 5% market share? All mt gox has to do is stop massive buy/sells and the market will actually become usable (at least for those of us who actually use it as a currency and not a get rich quick scheme).

What was the exact problem this caused you?

Buying coin at $ dollars then having it suddenly worth 20% less minutes later, then 10% more minutes later, then 20% less again, and so on, constantly, without any sort of balance. As a currency bitcoin is a joke and all because mtgox wont implement a cap on trade.

That's not an actual problem you had using bitcoin as a currency. If you feel like letting mt gox tell you how much a bitcoin is worth that is a problem you've created for yourself.
nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 06:25:30 PM
 #15

Mt.Gox usually craps down when volume is too high, preventing people selling as fast as they want. So in reallity, we have such a system.
This. We don't need MtGox to artificially cap trades when they're already naturally capped by MtGox's single Intel Celeron processor.
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1009


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 07:13:56 PM
 #16

Everytime someone executes a $100k+ trade it causes the value of btc to jump wildly, if the exchanges capped trade volume at n coins over a period of t, wouldnt it then follow that whomever is doing these large trades would be forced to break them into smaller increments over time thereby stabilizing the price of coin?

Are you a communist, son?
insulting people on thier political opinions are not arguments.
Are you a communist, son?

Are you a libertard, boy?

insulting people on thier political opinions are not arguments.
Merralea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 07, 2013, 08:08:35 PM
 #17

Short answer: no.
Long answer: This would be far too easy to work around with things like multiple accounts, and even if it was airtight money would simply leave whatever exchange instituted the practice. Assuming that it was both airtight and that by some triumph of stupidity Exchange Z wasn't abandoned (we are now in hypothetical territory as this is impossible), it would destroy bitcoin's credibility and ensure that mainstream adoption never took place, not to mention piss off the minarchists/anarchists.

Im not saying they should limit any 1 person to do a massive trade, that they should limit massive trades in general, even if its just the summation of a bunch of independent small trades. And leave exchange Z to go where? The 2nd place exchange that has only 5% market share? All mt gox has to do is stop massive buy/sells and the market will actually become usable (at least for those of us who actually use it as a currency and not a get rich quick scheme).
I'm not talking about limiting 1 person either; don't know where that came from. And yes, to a different exchange, where the small hands will follow. Money flows to wherever's least regulated. Just ask the Cayman Islands.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 08:15:09 PM
 #18

if the gox did make such a rule, people would begin to use other exchanges for either ideologic reasons, or becuase mtgox are ganerally assholes.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
don giovanni (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 07, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
 #19

Mt.Gox usually craps down when volume is too high, preventing people selling as fast as they want. So in reallity, we have such a system.
This. We don't need MtGox to artificially cap trades when they're already naturally capped by MtGox's single Intel Celeron processor.

lol point well taken. I guess we're stuck with this silly string economy until someone figures out a better way.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!