Interpreting forum to mean a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged, I came here with the goal of putting my ideas in front of experts, in hopes of a dialogue which (selfishly) might further my own understanding. Basically I grew up in a family which "never talked about anything", and as an adult now, I like talking about things which interest me, even my own detriment.
I feel like I have much personal room for improvement regarding my tone here, and will do my best in the future to not sound like just another pompous culturally insensitive bombastic American, like a certain "newsworthy" fellow countryman of mine, who shall remain nameless.
Regarding custody services, I was selfishly looking for an objective technical barrier or obstacle preventing the creation of such services, having personally interpreted Grayscale Bitcoin investment trust as an early analog of these services.
I would very much like to start another thread to to improve my understanding of digital currencies, Bitcoin in particular, and look forward to more lively dialogue and feedback. Thanks again to everyone for the thought provoking feedback.
Topic: Flawed "analysis", not well thought through (Read 937 times)
Snip~
I'm surprised that you didn't mention a wet fish and blockstream even once, lolI think OP expects for non_Bitcoin users to shill for it and say wow what a good digital currency, of course making fake news and causing panic or hype is our jobs because we're the ones benefiting from it, you'll never see a vegan to admire the taste of kebab.
that happens anyways does it not as even on wall street and other exchanges a good/serious broker is going to recommend buying in "blocks" if he is moving around a lot of money (at this rate a traditional block can be definitely less than $2800 worth of investment or stock)
true but many times i have seen many 'blocks' of about 0.011btc (under $30)
most of the 'block' mentality is a after effect of realising that there is not much volume per orderline to cope with large trades. rather than the cause of lack of volume being people doing trades in blocks.
i remember the bitcoin days of seeing people block trading in 1000btc (~$6,000) but now its diminished down to under $100 and in many times under $30 and even those small amounts still cause the price to move.
to the op
generally you are on point.
for those wanting to trade in and out of fiat, the exchanges are the main route where people need to deposit funds into custodian services. but the liquidity and volatility is less related to AML/KYC headaches, but more so the trust of these custodians.
with the 'we been hacked' excuses to just disappear with peoples funds, many people simply do not trust custodian services. so do not deposit very much with them, nor keep much locked with them for long.
this then creates issues with people who only want to trade a few hundred dollars vs those with hundreds of thousands.. it ends up with many orderlines with 0.xx btc and then a wall(resistance) of multiple bitcoins. this then leads to the large orders getting split up or sold over many orderlines just to fill orders in any appropriate timescale. due again to people not trusting the custodians long term.
generally you are on point.
for those wanting to trade in and out of fiat, the exchanges are the main route where people need to deposit funds into custodian services. but the liquidity and volatility is less related to AML/KYC headaches, but more so the trust of these custodians.
with the 'we been hacked' excuses to just disappear with peoples funds, many people simply do not trust custodian services. so do not deposit very much with them, nor keep much locked with them for long.
this then creates issues with people who only want to trade a few hundred dollars vs those with hundreds of thousands.. it ends up with many orderlines with 0.xx btc and then a wall(resistance) of multiple bitcoins. this then leads to the large orders getting split up or sold over many orderlines just to fill orders in any appropriate timescale. due again to people not trusting the custodians long term.
that happens anyways does it not as even on wall street and other exchanges a good/serious broker is going to recommend buying in "blocks" if he is moving around a lot of money (at this rate a traditional block can be definitely less than $2800 worth of investment or stock) for a multitude of reasons the "big-boy capital reserve" legitimate reason being not to alarm the market that a takeover or a large increase in the ownership of a stock is taking place, thus attracting "ride-alongs" who simply notice the market trend of a bigger shark buying up massive amounts of x stock and riding his coattails up the market.
to the op
generally you are on point.
for those wanting to trade in and out of fiat, the exchanges are the main route where people need to deposit funds into custodian services. but the liquidity and volatility is less related to AML/KYC headaches, but more so the trust of these custodians.
with the 'we been hacked' excuses to just disappear with peoples funds, many people simply do not trust custodian services. so do not deposit very much with them, nor keep much locked with them for long.
this then creates issues with people who only want to trade a few hundred dollars vs those with hundreds of thousands.. it ends up with many orderlines with 0.xx btc and then a wall(resistance) of multiple bitcoins. this then leads to the large orders getting split up or sold over many orderlines just to fill orders in any appropriate timescale. due again to people not trusting the custodians long term.
above explains the thinly traded
below explains volatility
exchanges orderlines are at $1 increments. so say an orderline has 0.011btc filling that order costs less than $30 but would move the price of bitcoin from $2xx0 to $2xx1. so it ends up if there are lets say 10 order lines of 0.011btc, its easy to move the value of bitcoin from $2xx0 to $2x10 or even downwards at a trad cost of under $300
if exchanges atleast done orderlines measured in cents increments per orderline. then the prices would not be so volatile.
EG
$2xxx.01 - 0.011btc
$2xxx.02 - 0.011btc
instead of
$2xx1 - 0.011btc
$2xx2 - 0.011btc
some may argue 'but the flip side would be when demand rises it takes more effort for a price rise.' but the same can besaid for the opposite. whn demand depletes it takes more effort to drop the price
generally you are on point.
for those wanting to trade in and out of fiat, the exchanges are the main route where people need to deposit funds into custodian services. but the liquidity and volatility is less related to AML/KYC headaches, but more so the trust of these custodians.
with the 'we been hacked' excuses to just disappear with peoples funds, many people simply do not trust custodian services. so do not deposit very much with them, nor keep much locked with them for long.
this then creates issues with people who only want to trade a few hundred dollars vs those with hundreds of thousands.. it ends up with many orderlines with 0.xx btc and then a wall(resistance) of multiple bitcoins. this then leads to the large orders getting split up or sold over many orderlines just to fill orders in any appropriate timescale. due again to people not trusting the custodians long term.
above explains the thinly traded
below explains volatility
exchanges orderlines are at $1 increments. so say an orderline has 0.011btc filling that order costs less than $30 but would move the price of bitcoin from $2xx0 to $2xx1. so it ends up if there are lets say 10 order lines of 0.011btc, its easy to move the value of bitcoin from $2xx0 to $2x10 or even downwards at a trad cost of under $300
if exchanges atleast done orderlines measured in cents increments per orderline. then the prices would not be so volatile.
EG
$2xxx.01 - 0.011btc
$2xxx.02 - 0.011btc
instead of
$2xx1 - 0.011btc
$2xx2 - 0.011btc
some may argue 'but the flip side would be when demand rises it takes more effort for a price rise.' but the same can besaid for the opposite. whn demand depletes it takes more effort to drop the price
Thanks for the probing questions to draw me out more. I apologize for not getting back sooner and the intentionally “sensational” sounding subject line, which was intended to poke fun at fake news headlines related to DCs we are all seeing.
Anyways, having read and tried to write a plenty of white papers in my day, I recall being blown away by the Nakamoto white paper when a former colleague directed me to it ~4 years ago now. davis196, I am flattered you ask if I cribbed my post from somewhere, though coincidentally my spouse today suggested I try and write an Op Ed piece with some of my ideas. Between the two of you, I’m going to get an outsized ego, so cut it out, please. Seriously though, the OP is my own analysis.
Re-reading that post I agree with MingLee that it sounds like I am trying to argue something. I admit to having a bit of an “axe to grind” as US statesman and polymath Ben Franklin liked to say. Though MingLee might be confusing “market reach” for “thinly traded.” I take thinly traded to mean low trading volume, with Bitcoin for the simple fact that most of the lots are held in “reservation demand”. I was just trying to point out, that creation of a custodian who booked transactions non-anonymously might be a boon for Bitcoin holders from both “legitimate” and “black market” income sources, and no security risk to either, I don’t believe. Anyway if Bitcoin is going to emerge as “the new money”, then it will probably end up supporting as many use cases as people can dream up.
For various reasons, I waited until recently to actually buy any Bitcoin myself, finally succumbing to the following:
So I’m looking at Bitcoin’s Merkle tree stuff, reviewing Taylor polynomials, bitwise operands in C++,, when I look at my new Bitcoin holdings and I’m seeing some pretty wild valuation swings. I was like “darn it, ok, what have I gotten myself into -- I need to try and dig in and understand the economics of what’s going on better”. I do think this is something anyone w/background in mathematics, physical sciences, software with decades of Wall Street IT experience and eastern philosophical study might have pieced together. Okay, maybe not, but I am NOT an economist; I am however close with some very bright ones and we talk about this sort of stuff.
I feel pretty certain the Bitcoin phenomenon caught Wall Street flat footed. So they’re trying to not just trying figure out how to catch up & get a piece of the Bitcoin pie, but how to take the whole thing. These misdirection “news” stories and good/bad bipolar know-it-all prognostications are really just “competitive business practices” from “legitimate finance”, mind you, designed to shake loose as many larger lots as possible before payday arrives. This all seems pretty lowbrow though, especially if we think for a minute about those who live in areas with low Index of Economic Freedom[url], which it seems like Bitcoin was [it]also[/it] designed to serve as I interpret it. It’s not hard to imagine some hardworking family in one of these regions who needs to use Bitcoin as a store of value. They have a relative or friend in need of some money for school, healthcare, subsistence whatever, so the crawl under their house and dig up a roll of very hard earned bills and buy some Bitcoin at either a new ATM or in the face-to-face market. Sadly, before they get their target QR code from their relative to transfer the needed funds to, some fake news story or poster-boy prognostication creates volatility (to selfishly try and shake loose some lots), and wham before this family knows it a chunk of the needed funds is gone. I think it is an economic fact that if “legitimate” Bitcoin reservation demand were made available to market makers, the couple in this example would be in better shape as volatility effects would be diminished.
Anyways, another thing that strikes me here is a “doth protest too much” quandary. Seriously, since when has Wall Street ever, ever, cared about some measly little fund capitalized at a paltry ~$50B. If Bitcoin were just some hedge fund in Phoenix or something we would never even hear about it. Too many fake news stories; there’s blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
I think you Bitcoin folks have the traditional finance industry scared, so they are acting selfishly because they don’t know what else to do. I’m not necessarily saying “fundamental global redistribution of wealth” here or anything like that, but if you have “the new money”, why would you need any of “the old money”.
Anyways, having read and tried to write a plenty of white papers in my day, I recall being blown away by the Nakamoto white paper when a former colleague directed me to it ~4 years ago now. davis196, I am flattered you ask if I cribbed my post from somewhere, though coincidentally my spouse today suggested I try and write an Op Ed piece with some of my ideas. Between the two of you, I’m going to get an outsized ego, so cut it out, please. Seriously though, the OP is my own analysis.
Re-reading that post I agree with MingLee that it sounds like I am trying to argue something. I admit to having a bit of an “axe to grind” as US statesman and polymath Ben Franklin liked to say. Though MingLee might be confusing “market reach” for “thinly traded.” I take thinly traded to mean low trading volume, with Bitcoin for the simple fact that most of the lots are held in “reservation demand”. I was just trying to point out, that creation of a custodian who booked transactions non-anonymously might be a boon for Bitcoin holders from both “legitimate” and “black market” income sources, and no security risk to either, I don’t believe. Anyway if Bitcoin is going to emerge as “the new money”, then it will probably end up supporting as many use cases as people can dream up.
For various reasons, I waited until recently to actually buy any Bitcoin myself, finally succumbing to the following:
- I would be in position for the possibly whopping “engineered payday” Wall Street thinks is looming.
- I might derive some personal benefit from dusting off my C++ programming skills and dig in and see how everything works. Did I say I think this is the most compelling software mandate I am aware of?
So I’m looking at Bitcoin’s Merkle tree stuff, reviewing Taylor polynomials, bitwise operands in C++,, when I look at my new Bitcoin holdings and I’m seeing some pretty wild valuation swings. I was like “darn it, ok, what have I gotten myself into -- I need to try and dig in and understand the economics of what’s going on better”. I do think this is something anyone w/background in mathematics, physical sciences, software with decades of Wall Street IT experience and eastern philosophical study might have pieced together. Okay, maybe not, but I am NOT an economist; I am however close with some very bright ones and we talk about this sort of stuff.
I feel pretty certain the Bitcoin phenomenon caught Wall Street flat footed. So they’re trying to not just trying figure out how to catch up & get a piece of the Bitcoin pie, but how to take the whole thing. These misdirection “news” stories and good/bad bipolar know-it-all prognostications are really just “competitive business practices” from “legitimate finance”, mind you, designed to shake loose as many larger lots as possible before payday arrives. This all seems pretty lowbrow though, especially if we think for a minute about those who live in areas with low Index of Economic Freedom[url], which it seems like Bitcoin was [it]also[/it] designed to serve as I interpret it. It’s not hard to imagine some hardworking family in one of these regions who needs to use Bitcoin as a store of value. They have a relative or friend in need of some money for school, healthcare, subsistence whatever, so the crawl under their house and dig up a roll of very hard earned bills and buy some Bitcoin at either a new ATM or in the face-to-face market. Sadly, before they get their target QR code from their relative to transfer the needed funds to, some fake news story or poster-boy prognostication creates volatility (to selfishly try and shake loose some lots), and wham before this family knows it a chunk of the needed funds is gone. I think it is an economic fact that if “legitimate” Bitcoin reservation demand were made available to market makers, the couple in this example would be in better shape as volatility effects would be diminished.
Anyways, another thing that strikes me here is a “doth protest too much” quandary. Seriously, since when has Wall Street ever, ever, cared about some measly little fund capitalized at a paltry ~$50B. If Bitcoin were just some hedge fund in Phoenix or something we would never even hear about it. Too many fake news stories; there’s blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
I think you Bitcoin folks have the traditional finance industry scared, so they are acting selfishly because they don’t know what else to do. I’m not necessarily saying “fundamental global redistribution of wealth” here or anything like that, but if you have “the new money”, why would you need any of “the old money”.
I've known about BTC since it's inception and learned(or at least tried to take in) from a VERY competent privately educated friend on how to properly secure your account and make your ledger untraceable which at the time (around 2010 said friend and I believe most of the community was only using BTC through tor). This was before tails and simply used a throwaway computer and installed a linux-based OS (ubtunu at the time) to access his wallet and also to access the tor network.
I have a B.S in kinesiology so the bulk of my classes have been "hard-science" classes, some notable ones being neuromuscular plasticity, cardiopulmonary physiology and clinical physiology (doesn't sound hard but you try learning in theory then APPLYING and analyzing correctly a 12-lead EKG being graded ENTIRELY by the book (meaning being able to not just point but to say the exact bony landmark/anatomical location of each lead and then doing this on a live subject running on a treadmill). Anyways that's me and my credentials, we have our own take and I myself have had a pretty good darn balanced education, receiving lectures from the gamit of private tutors to 6-10 class size private HS size settings to then obtaining my B.S along with two minors in lit and philosophy (journalism major then changed). I also come from a very well educated family (both parents both post-doc level, 12+ additional years, multiple publications in very respected and time tested scientific journals and still rely on their advice today and can say this with certainty.
It's hard to justify some branches of econ as "hard-science", there are case studies and history involved and that takes interpretation which ultimately always leads to straight speculation which is just a fancy word for opinion.
Some sciences you MUST value over others because they require more "work or diligence" and are thus a "harder science" (with much more concrete data over a much larger sample size and history)
For example math/engineering are the "hardest sciences" of all cause all other branches of the natural sciences builds upon those two, specifically mathematics. As an economist (or someone who sounds like he's done at least some moderate 'hard research" into the field) you have to see the correlation of how fundamental a science is to the pay-grade of the degree... thus typically a B.S (bachelors in science) is "worth more/harder to obtain" than a B.A because of the work/diligence involved.
Also as someone who comes from such a family I unfortunately (or fortunately) am fairly well versed at least in basic latin (origin of the English/western languages as well as western law and medical terminology).
So although it may seem like I'm trying to show off my ego/credentials I just want to know where these statements I am making are coming from. I understand the power and usage behind language and know the hidden meaning behind such words.
1. I fully appreciate Mr. Jimhash's C++ background and wallstreet/supply side? economic theory regarding BTC. He makes some great points but to me it's obvious that he most certainly "has an axe to grind" if not "a blatant agenda" to push. You sir btw have not stated whether your more for Milton or Keysnesian (sp?). (To me Milton is a tool for a failed trickle-down system that sure as hell made my family come out well but has done damage to many in not so good of a position).
As one poster pointed out and honest scholars like myself feel obligated to point out to the general public that while it does indeed in your original post sound like you are STRONGLY implying centralization and STRONG supply-side investor-friendly regulation this is literally the OPPOSITE of not just what the public wants but what INHERENTLY gives BTC it's value. And I truly do appreciate your more sincere sounding 2nd reply these "custodians" strangely sound like 3rd party/private/wealthy interests who simply as you stated "were late to the gate" and now want to strong-arm their way in and buy up the market.
My final and most important point is goes back to basic math in that right when this court case hit https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96118.120 , is when I noticed most clearly that growth CLEARLY resembles exponential growth, which occurs naturally and that BTC is not just some fad but there was some inherent value in the system of exchange in itself (decentralized, transparent, consumer friendly, hard for wall street "sharks" as you mentioned Mr. Hash to may I say "bully" or "lawyer" their way into the market as all market transactions are for the public ledger and there is some honest self-policing going on.
Also while I appreciate you providing the origin of the saying "axe to grind" (someone want to fact check this?) it's also odd that subtly threw in the word polymath (mastery level intelligence in multiple sciences, often of magnitudes of 10 or more) this is that loose use of language that has me very skeptical of the intentions and legitimacy of your views and as a student of the english language and it's uses I think your last quote states your intentions the best. A lot of the educated "old money" crowd (I'm 2nd generation so technically thank god I can saw I earned mine) feel like their overpaid broker or investment banker (let's use honest words here plz I dont think anyone really knows what hedge funds manager really are that don't earn up to a certain $ in income completely missed the ball and now their trying to self-educate themselves and once they finally realized what bitcoins are they are scared the jig is up and that it will be much harder for them to "rig the game(market)".
I'm also weary of the usage of "you bitcoin guys" as we as both gentlemen know that sounds an awful lot like one of those code words used by the country club country to refer to "those people". In the end just remember that no one is stupid and if you seriously had a stake in the game and wrote software (in C++ language I take it?) for these sharks or (hedge fund managers) do nothing but take from the poor just to line their pockets even more. Straight up Milton economic "greed is good" economics, which has been PROVEN over decades to not work. I also don't really know what your implying when you say
Quote
I think you Bitcoin folks have the traditional finance industry scared, so they are acting selfishly because they don’t know what else to do. I’m not necessarily saying “fundamental global redistribution of wealth” here or anything like that, but if you have “the new money”, why would you need any of “the old money”.
And btw I disagree that BTC has a lot of the "true old money" folks running scared because even if BTC replaces fiat the balance of fiat and REAL equity in the hands of the few compared to the amount of BTC traded in the hands of many will still be way in their favor. My children (if and when) will be born with only their grandparents (my parents) to know what its like to truly struggle and from what I've seen in my 30 years of living and learning what I can from people and the earth it's the "new money" people who actually create value. You could argue the same of BTC and i'm sure my post sounds a lot like "i have an agenda" to push to but I've been honest and sincere about myself and what I am and it kills even me who has a trust fund who's parents are one Neurosurgeon and Pulmonary Oncologists (both M.Ds who have both been practicing 15+ years) to just see some entitled brat make money with money.... nothing of value is created nor destroyed. In the end wall street and what your talking about ends up being a zero-sum game in which a bunch of digital numbers and fancy "trader jargon" are used to basically steal money from honest people. At least with BTC there is much less room for real crime "corruption", "market rigging" which can render families homeless and the system was set up with transparency in mind (blockchain ledger, open source software).
Bitcoin and Custody Services.
Oil and water.
Oil and water.
Is this your original thoughts or it`s copy pasted from some aticle OP?
First, i think that every bitcoin wallet is a custody service(maybe i`m wrong).BTC is safe enough.If there were active custody services,they would require a fee to be paid.
Second,most of the major bitcoin price pumps are a result of major increase of btc demand and mass bitcoin
adoption,not fake news.I don`t think that any fake news can cause the btc price to move from 1000 USD to 2600 USD.
Bitcoin could be ETF approved and skyrocket it`s value,but we are just fine without the ETF approval.
First, i think that every bitcoin wallet is a custody service(maybe i`m wrong).BTC is safe enough.If there were active custody services,they would require a fee to be paid.
Second,most of the major bitcoin price pumps are a result of major increase of btc demand and mass bitcoin
adoption,not fake news.I don`t think that any fake news can cause the btc price to move from 1000 USD to 2600 USD.
Bitcoin could be ETF approved and skyrocket it`s value,but we are just fine without the ETF approval.
Why do you need custodian services for an asset which can be held securely in your own computer?
The only services that traditional custodian services have to provide for Bitcoin is settlement, where a customer actually exchanges his bitcoin for fiat. Otherwise, the role of a custodian is redundant in the Bitcoin world. The blockchain plays that role very well.
The only services that traditional custodian services have to provide for Bitcoin is settlement, where a customer actually exchanges his bitcoin for fiat. Otherwise, the role of a custodian is redundant in the Bitcoin world. The blockchain plays that role very well.
While you provide an interesting argument for turning Bitcoin into something that is considerably more "legitimate" in the eyes of a standard market definition, the question becomes whether or not people actually care to have them set up something like that. If there is no desire from the community to move Bitcoin from a thinly-traded asset (which is loosely accurate as a definition considering the wide variety of exchanges and the lack of such diversity with most forex platforms) then why change it?
Seems more like this is an argument to try and justify centralizing* Bitcoin when the community has mentioned multiple times that they're not interested in planting more power in the hands of a few individuals, specifically the custodians you're suggesting.
EDIT: Increasing centralized power in*
Seems more like this is an argument to try and justify centralizing* Bitcoin when the community has mentioned multiple times that they're not interested in planting more power in the hands of a few individuals, specifically the custodians you're suggesting.
EDIT: Increasing centralized power in*
Jump to: