This is a variant of a bank run.
Yes.
A central bank run?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 405. (Read 2032286 times)
Yes.
A central bank run?
What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
That article is well worth a read.
The argument for denying the large cash withdrawal the Pension Fund Association wanted to make goes from
Quote
International anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines require banks to monitor and report suspicious activity on accounts.
to
Quote
Banks are completely within their rights to refuse to enact transactions that they believe may be intended to facilitate financial crime or money laundering.
So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump.
So essentially the bank is both judge and executor? wow. And the "international guidelines on AML" (which seem to get elevated to law here) are written by who?
It'll be interesting to follow this. If the refusal of the cash withdrawal is deemed lawful (which I assume will happen), the mechanism which Hans Peter Konrad doesn't want to admit he understands can continue.
Quote from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
The director of the Pension Fund Association ASIP, Hans Peter Konrad, has been angry for weeks about the fact that pension funds suffer from negative interest rates. He says: “We do not understand why the banks are getting involved.”
If on the other hand the bank is forced to allow the cash withdrawal... get out the wheelbarrows?
This is a variant of a bank run.
This is where everyone has to dig deep.
yes it does so.......
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.Any rationale for this?
There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.
good point.
So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.
Okay then, for a start, is the average output size decreasing (and at the same rate or at least with some correlation)?
Remember, also, that "error" can be positive or negative, so much if it will cancel out. Just making the argument that error is decreasing in magnitude doesn't explain a year-long trend in one direction. There could be some systematic (one directional) trend in error though, but not necessarily.
Address balances don't matter by the way, nor does address reuse, because outputs feed transactions, not addresses.
What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
That article is well worth a read.
The argument for denying the large cash withdrawal the Pension Fund Association wanted to make goes from
Quote
International anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines require banks to monitor and report suspicious activity on accounts.
to
Quote
Banks are completely within their rights to refuse to enact transactions that they believe may be intended to facilitate financial crime or money laundering.
So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump.
So essentially the bank is both judge and executor? wow. And the "international guidelines on AML" (which seem to get elevated to law here) are written by who?
It'll be interesting to follow this. If the refusal of the cash withdrawal is deemed lawful (which I assume will happen), the mechanism which Hans Peter Konrad doesn't want to admit he understands can continue.
Quote from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
The director of the Pension Fund Association ASIP, Hans Peter Konrad, has been angry for weeks about the fact that pension funds suffer from negative interest rates. He says: “We do not understand why the banks are getting involved.”
If on the other hand the bank is forced to allow the cash withdrawal... get out the wheelbarrows?
What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.
It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.
Aren't "inflation" (monetary) and "negative rates" directly correlated (by central bank action)?
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.Any rationale for this?
There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.
good point.
So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.
What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/
It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.
It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.
just brainstorming...
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs in log plots, and completely ignore the second gox bubble, usd tx volume has increased about 2.5-3x.
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs of the number of tx excl pop add., for the same range of time, txs have increased about 4x. its not crazy different. a lot of usd tx volume centered around gox and huge prices.
there could also just be more micro tx being used in the economy (more xcp tx, colored coins, etc)
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs in log plots, and completely ignore the second gox bubble, usd tx volume has increased about 2.5-3x.
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs of the number of tx excl pop add., for the same range of time, txs have increased about 4x. its not crazy different. a lot of usd tx volume centered around gox and huge prices.
there could also just be more micro tx being used in the economy (more xcp tx, colored coins, etc)
Well, the USD has appreciated against many other currencies by 20% in the last 2 years. So that 2.5-3x can be increased by 10-15% to take account of that.
chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
just brainstorming...
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs in log plots, and completely ignore the second gox bubble, usd tx volume has increased about 2.5-3x.
if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs of the number of tx excl pop add., for the same range of time, txs have increased about 4x. its not crazy different. a lot of usd tx volume centered around gox and huge prices.
there could also just be more micro tx being used in the economy (more xcp tx, colored coins, etc)
Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?
Quite possibly, as new wallets come into use that operate in ways different than what Blockchain's heuristics expect.As transactions become more complex in general, the less accurate that estimate becomes.
I'd be interested in a specific hypothesis we could test. There seems to be a sustained trend over a period of years. I agree it is possible that wallets in use could be a factor. For example, Coinbase has gotten very large during this time period (though I'm not sure how much transaction activity is tied to them as opposed to number of registered users).
On the other hand I'm not sure that shifting wallet adoption overall has been such a continuous process and I think the simpler explanation is that transactions actually are getting smaller (or remaining constant in BTC terms). I threw out a couple of arguably plausible reasons why that might be, but that is certainly not a complete list, and it may not even be true. The Bitpay hypothesis (more retail-type transactions which are smaller than speculator transactions) is another one.
Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?
Quite possibly, as new wallets come into use that operate in ways different than what Blockchain's heuristics expect.As transactions become more complex in general, the less accurate that estimate becomes.
Something I don't think I've explained very well yet is that the payment code proposal provides the missing "from address" that everybody wants, in a way that doesn't compromise privacy.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/From_address
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.Any rationale for this?
There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.
Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.Any rationale for this?
There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.
One theory might be that many of the transactions are tied in some way (perhaps indirectly) to mining. Thus they are denominated in BTC and in economic magnitude, tied to the mining output (which is a fixed rate in BTC). This could include mined coins making their way to and through exchanges to investors.
Another would be that much of the activity is tied to altcoin speculation (essentially a form of gambling) or expicit BTC-denominated gambling. That would tend to rise and fall with overall BTC wealth.
Another would be that much of the activity is tied to altcoin speculation (essentially a form of gambling) or expicit BTC-denominated gambling. That would tend to rise and fall with overall BTC wealth.
chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
i think it was Bitpay that explained that Bitcoin is continuing to evolve as a payment network (routine everyday tx's). i would also add that it probably also means more everyday tx's happening overseas in developing countries.
It just corresponds to the fall in the USD price of BTC.
chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this?
Jump to: