2013-04-02 Quartz, How to Short Bitcoins If You Really Must

[dissipate]

The rise of bitcoin, an electronic currency traded on an online exchange, has generated a media frenzy. Once scoffed at, its value has risen by 631% (denominated in dollars) since the start of 2013.

Lots of people think that means we’re in a bitcoin bubble and it will eventually pop. But if you’re one of these bitcoin bears, it’s not easy for you to “short” it—i.e., bet that its value will go down.

http://qz.com/69630/how-to-short-bitcoins-if-you-really-must/

[Piper67]

"If there ever is a way of breaking up a Bitcoin into smaller fractions..."  I guess one ten billionth isn't tiny enough for some people 

[bb113]

"If there ever is a way of breaking up a Bitcoin into smaller fractions..."  I guess one ten billionth isn't tiny enough for some people 

These people haven't even done 10 minutes of research.

[jgarzik]

"If there ever is a way of breaking up a Bitcoin into smaller fractions..."  I guess one ten billionth isn't tiny enough for some people 

Already replied to author with corrections

[Rygon]

This article is full of fail.

First:

There are only 11 million bitcoins in existence, and there can never be more than 21 million, so it’s not a very liquid market. If a way ever emerges to break bitcoins up into even smaller fractions, that might solve the problem, according to traders we spoke to.

Then, an attempt at a correction:

Update: Article has been amended to reflect that bitcoins can already be traded in small fractions, indeed to 0.00000001 BTC (eight decimal places). Nonetheless, even with the ability to break bitcoins into small pieces, there are too few bitcoins in existence for institutional traders to be willing to trade them.

So, 1.1 x 10^15 is not enough units to work with? if that was USD, that would by $1 Quadrillion.

Anyhow, the correct answer was that the Bitcoin market is too small for institutional traders to be bothered with it.

[dree12]

This article is full of fail.

First:

There are only 11 million bitcoins in existence, and there can never be more than 21 million, so it’s not a very liquid market. If a way ever emerges to break bitcoins up into even smaller fractions, that might solve the problem, according to traders we spoke to.

Then, an attempt at a correction:

Update: Article has been amended to reflect that bitcoins can already be traded in small fractions, indeed to 0.00000001 BTC (eight decimal places). Nonetheless, even with the ability to break bitcoins into small pieces, there are too few bitcoins in existence for institutional traders to be willing to trade them.

So, 1.1 x 10^15 is not enough units to work with? if that was USD, that would by $1 Quadrillion.

Anyhow, the correct answer was that the Bitcoin market is too small for institutional traders to be bothered with it.

Too few is correct in this case, as it would require more bitcoins (not more decimal points) to bring the market to an acceptable size.

[christop]

So, 1.1 x 10^15 is not enough units to work with? if that was USD, that would by $1 Quadrillion.

Anyhow, the correct answer was that the Bitcoin market is too small for institutional traders to be bothered with it.

Too few is correct in this case, as it would require more bitcoins (not more decimal points) to bring the market to an acceptable size.

Let them trade in microbitcoins then. There are 11 trillion microbitcoins, after all. (Bitcoin is just an arbitrary unit. Satoshi could have made the Bitcoin equal to 100 satoshis and set the upper limit to 21 trillion Bitcoins, and the effect would be the same.)

[dree12]

So, 1.1 x 10^15 is not enough units to work with? if that was USD, that would by $1 Quadrillion.

Anyhow, the correct answer was that the Bitcoin market is too small for institutional traders to be bothered with it.

Too few is correct in this case, as it would require more bitcoins (not more decimal points) to bring the market to an acceptable size.

Let them trade in microbitcoins then. There are 11 trillion microbitcoins, after all. (Bitcoin is just an arbitrary unit. Satoshi could have made the Bitcoin equal to 100 satoshis and set the upper limit to 21 trillion Bitcoins, and the effect would be the same.)

Let me reword the statement. More bitcoins are needed to bring the value of the market to an acceptable size. Trading in microbitcoins does not solve this problem. The article is correct in saying that there are currently "too few" bitcoins. It neglects to mention that there will always be "too few" at current prices, but regardless there is no error in the text.

[Severian]

http://qz.com/69630/how-to-short-bitcoins-if-you-really-must/

She was spanked this morning:

http://peculium.net/2013/04/02/155/

[jl2012]

So, 1.1 x 10^15 is not enough units to work with? if that was USD, that would by $1 Quadrillion.

Anyhow, the correct answer was that the Bitcoin market is too small for institutional traders to be bothered with it.

Too few is correct in this case, as it would require more bitcoins (not more decimal points) to bring the market to an acceptable size.

Let them trade in microbitcoins then. There are 11 trillion microbitcoins, after all. (Bitcoin is just an arbitrary unit. Satoshi could have made the Bitcoin equal to 100 satoshis and set the upper limit to 21 trillion Bitcoins, and the effect would be the same.)

Let me reword the statement. More bitcoins are needed to bring the value of the market to an acceptable size. Trading in microbitcoins does not solve this problem. The article is correct in saying that there are currently "too few" bitcoins. It neglects to mention that there will always be "too few" at current prices, but regardless there is no error in the text.

There are too few flowing bitcoins because it is still excessively undervalued.