Couldnt bitcoin be stabilized just by limiting the volume of trades?

don giovanni

member

Activity: 80

Merit: 10

Quote from: nimda on March 07, 2013, 02:25:30 PM

Quote from: Luno on March 07, 2013, 12:41:38 PM

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.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

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.

Merralea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Merralea on March 07, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

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.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: kokjo on March 07, 2013, 12:25:02 PM

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:46:33 AM

Quote from: kokjo on March 07, 2013, 11:32:11 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:24:38 AM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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.

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: Luno on March 07, 2013, 12:41:38 PM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 01:02:02 PM

Quote from: bb113 on March 07, 2013, 12:40:01 PM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Merralea on March 07, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

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.

don giovanni

member

Activity: 80

Merit: 10

Quote from: bb113 on March 07, 2013, 12:40:01 PM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Merralea on March 07, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

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.

Luno

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Merralea on March 07, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

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?

don giovanni

member

Activity: 80

Merit: 10

Quote from: Merralea on March 07, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

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).

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:46:33 AM

Quote from: kokjo on March 07, 2013, 11:32:11 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:24:38 AM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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?

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: kokjo on March 07, 2013, 11:32:11 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:24:38 AM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: greyhawk on March 07, 2013, 11:24:38 AM

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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?

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

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

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!

Merralea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

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.

marhjan

full member

Activity: 215

Merit: 105

Poorer than I ought to be

Quote from: don giovanni on March 07, 2013, 10:49:59 AM

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.

don giovanni

member

Activity: 80

Merit: 10

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?

Topic: Couldnt bitcoin be stabilized just by limiting the volume of trades? (Read 1050 times)