Slashdot Mirror


Ethereum Exchange Reimburses Customer Losses After 'Flash Crash' (gdax.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "The price of ethereum crashed as low as 10 cents from around $319 in about a second on the GDAX cryptocurrency exchange on Wednesday," reports CNBC, calling it "a move that is being blamed on a 'multimillion dollar market sell' order... As the price continued to fall, another 800 stop loss orders and margin funding liquidations caused ethereum to trade as low as 10 cents." An executive for the exchange said "Our matching engine operated as intended throughout this event and trading with advanced features like margin always carries inherent risk."

Though some users complained they lost money, the price rebounded to $325 -- and according to a report on one trading site, "one person had an order in for just over 3,800 ethereum if the price fell to 10 cents on the GDAX exchange," reports CNBC. "Theoretically this person would have spent $380 to buy these coins, and when the price shot up above $300 again, the trader would be sitting on over $1 million." Yet the currency exchange announced Friday that they're honoring everyone's gains, while also reimbursing customers who suffered losses. "We view this as an opportunity to demonstrate our long-term commitment to our customers and belief in the future of this industry."

74 comments

  1. THIS is the danger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Manipulation without oversight distributed among all the different e-curencies, what a target rich environment for exploitation. SEC isn't going to investigate. Let these unregulated currencies get a foot in our REAL economy, and then watch the fireworks when these flash-crashes tank a REAL bank.

    1. Re: THIS is the danger. by guruevi · · Score: 0

      The real problem is the company behind it once again (this isn't the first time) rolling back transactions and reimbursing customers that "lost" money on their equivalent of the stock market. This kind of goes against everything a currency and a block chain stands for. If they'll do it for "these poor chaps" how will you find it when they do it for big corporations that are "buying into" the market.

      These kinds of stunts is exactly why there are now multiple branches of the Ethereum network and why big companies and banks are buying into the "commercial" Ethereum and not into the "Ethereum Classic" or Bitcoin networks even though they're more promising and stable. Within a few years it will be BoA and Microsoft being reimbursed for an otherwise technically legitimate transaction.

      How will they reimburse people? Either insert fixes into the ledger or devaluing the currency by inserting zero-worth values.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re: THIS is the danger. by andyr · · Score: 1

      TFA says :- White also noted that these trades are final and will not be reversed. The exchange temporarily halted trading of ethereum on Wednesday before restoring the system shortly after.

      --
      Andy Rabagliati
    3. Re: THIS is the danger. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      First of all, this indicates they have the ability to which is a huge hole in any cryptocurrency system. Basically the company behind the currency has full power over the blockchain.

      On the other hand, even if they won't change the records, they have to refund this money somehow, this will require inserting millions of dollars worth of value in the system that isn't backed by the traditional method of obtaining cryptocurrency.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re: THIS is the danger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not understood what you are talking about. Both times. In case your are talking as if the currency and the exchange are the same thing. That's so wrong it's bordering on the ridiculous.

    5. Re: THIS is the danger. by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      ...sure, our REAL economy, powered by REAL fraud.

    6. Re: THIS is the danger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmao you have no idea what you are talking about

    7. Re: THIS is the danger. by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      If the New York Stock Exchange shut down trading of currencies that wouldn't indicate you could not use those currencies to buy goods and services - including other currencies! on other exchanges! - outside of the NYSE. This is why you are able to spend dollars outside of the NYSE trading hours (Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m).

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    8. Re: THIS is the danger. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You can easily avoid this by not automating it and set your own price.

  2. This is a solved problem by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why dont crypto currency exchanges learn from the history of stock markets? This is a known issue and is solved in stock markets using "Circuit breakers" : http://www.investopedia.com/te... Will exchanges go through all the teething problems that stock markets faced, or will they leverage what stock markets have learnt over the last few decades?

    1. Re:This is a solved problem by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Will exchanges go through all the teething problems that stock markets faced, or will they leverage what stock markets have learnt over the last few decades?

      Considering that the exchange is both "honoring everyone's gains while also reimbursing customers who suffered losses", I'd say the person who had a 10 cent order for 3800ETH is also an operator of the exchange. So no, they're not going to leverage what stock markets have learned over the last few decades. They're profiting from it.

    2. Re:This is a solved problem by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's old economy. This is like apps and all that shit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:This is a solved problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Awwww, but what's the fun in that!? lol

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:This is a solved problem by quonset · · Score: 0

      Because circuit breakers are the coward's way out. If you believe in free market economics and the markets being the purest form of buying and selling, then you can't have circuit breakers.

      Also, you will note these circuit breakers only go in one direction. You'll never see gains capped, only losses.

    5. Re:This is a solved problem by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 2

      Stock market circuit breakers cap both, gains and losses at individual stock levels.. only the marketwide breakers are restricted to capping losses. Click the link in OP and scroll down a bit

    6. Re:This is a solved problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, a free market libertarian talking out of their ass again. They don't only go in one direction, Sparky.

    7. Re:This is a solved problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      libertarian cars have no shock absorbers and no springs because all the roads are always perfect in the libertarian world

    8. Re:This is a solved problem by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      That's old economy. This is like apps and all that shit.

      The new economy is webscale. Mongodb wired into nodejs mining coins and buying star citizen spaceship gifs. Its the future man

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re: This is a solved problem by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Apps guy, sing your tune!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:This is a solved problem by Alsn · · Score: 1

      If they are reimbursing in full, how are they making a profit? The result is the same as if they had simply bought the coins at market value in the first place.

    11. Re: This is a solved problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're dumb enough to use a market order, or something that converts to a market order, you deserve to lose. You're right - it's a solved problem - the solution is that idiots lose their money.

    12. Re:This is a solved problem by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Guy A sells $1 million coins for pennies, Guy B buys coins for pennies. The money has been transferred and laundered. Great for covering up the origins of criminal gains or just embezzling.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    13. Re:This is a solved problem by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Why dont crypto currency exchanges learn from the history of stock markets? "

      Cryptocurrency exchanges are favored by anticapitalists that don't know the difference between a free market and an unregulated market.

    14. Re: This is a solved problem by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I assume they charge a fee for the transaction. How much I don't know but say at 5% and a year+ of time...

    15. Re:This is a solved problem by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They want to pretend these are somehow a type of hard currency (commodity) and not a security.

      This is similar to how people misrepresent the stock market as actual ownership of something or investment in a company. Many modern common stocks convey neither dividends nor voting rights(!), and so they're essentially worth nothing in their own right; buying stocks also doesn't give the company money, except at IPO. Stocks just represent trying to time it so that you buy something and then sell it to the next guy for more money, who in turn thinks he's going to do the same; somebody eventually winds up holding the bag when the price dips. Long-term stock market growth is pretty much just inflation.

      You may as well buy and sell stock in Facebook profiles based on how popular they are with their friends.

    16. Re:This is a solved problem by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      MongoDB would be great for building a PMIS; this is a financial exchange and will need synchronous, guaranteed, multi-step transactions with rollback capability. You want an RDBMS for that.

    17. Re:This is a solved problem by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Anticapitalists and anarchocapitalists are both insane. People want either rampant socialism (the government owns all means of production) or they want the evil socialism to go away and the government to stop doing anything. In that latter case--the anarchocapitalism case--you have no regulations, and end up with big businesses buying each other, buying all small competitors, and then leveraging their position to make it very expensive to switch to their competitors. Then the megacorporation effectively controls the law of the land--rampant socialism with a figurehead government.

      This is why many modern countries, including the United States, are social democracies with free enterprise markets. We have regulations to ensure that the free market keeps running as a free market by limiting the abuse possible under unconstrained free-market capitalism.

  3. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yet the currency exchange announced Friday that they're honoring everyone's gains, while also reimbursing customers who suffered losses.

    People laughed when I said I was going to have two separate accounts ... well who's laughing now?

  4. Honor gains but reimburse losses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't these guys know how capitalism works?

  5. Big, big sofa by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yet the currency exchange announced Friday that they're honoring everyone's gains, while also reimbursing customers who suffered losses.

    No idea what the volume's like, but if one guy made a million buying on the dip that means somebody lost it, so they're on the hook for at least that. One guy, remember.

    I wonder where an outfit that's basically a server and a domain name - and the former's probably rented - can find that kind of dosh.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Big, big sofa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who cares. it not even real.

    2. Re:Big, big sofa by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they own a zillion "coins", that THEY got for being in at the ground floor. They just have to sell a few now.

      If I invent a cryptocurrency at it goes to $300 a coin... I'd be "rich" too.

    3. Re:Big, big sofa by Calydor · · Score: 2

      They'll pay it in Bitcoin.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Big, big sofa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't be "rich", you'd be rich, as soon as you exchanged them for real money.

    5. Re:Big, big sofa by Solandri · · Score: 2

      but if one guy made a million buying on the dip that means somebody lost it

      They didn't lose it. They willingly sold it for 10 cents.

      If you buy something for $300+, then program a computer to sell it for 10 cents, and it does it, the problem isn't the computer. It's the fact that you programmed it to do something stupid. While it's nice that the exchange is reimbursing people for their losses, that's a bad thing in the long run. If stupid decisions don't come around to bite people in the butt, they fail to learn the lesson and will continue making stupid decisions.

      On a related note, this is why a country's currency is better (more stable) than a cryptocurrency that isn't backed by anything. With the country's currency, because the country is basing its economy on it, you can estimate a semi-accurate range of values for the currency. You avoid programming sell orders outside that range because "that's obviously stupid." With a cryptocurrency whose value is entirely based on what other people think it's worth, you can't set a range. Because everyone could simultaneously up and decide it's another tulip bubble and suddenly it's worth nothing. Unlike a currency which is based on the productivity of a country, or even gold, the value of a cryptocurrency is based entirely on how much faith its users have in its value. That's why those people thought they were doing a smart thing programming a sell order at 10 cents on a $300 investment - so they could recoup something if it crashed.

      Which gets us to the real reason why they're reimbursing customers for their losses. Because if those customers become discouraged, lose faith, and quit trading in that cryptocurrency, then its price will crash - for real this time.

    6. Re:Big, big sofa by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was wondering the same, but this is probably it. If they are sitting on 12M coins because from the premine or because they got in early, they can afford it. If it keeps the trust in the coin (that they have a zillion of) from tanking, this payment is worth it for them.

    7. Re:Big, big sofa by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Assuming that you don't get caught dumping them, sure. If you did, the value of the currency would probably plummet.

    8. Re: Big, big sofa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All value is arbitrary.

    9. Re:Big, big sofa by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They didn't lose it. [...] While it's nice that the exchange is reimbursing people for their losses

      What losses? You just said they didn't lose it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Big, big sofa by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      Obviously a multi-billion sell won't be honoured in one transaction. First of all, he needs to sell at market price, and not at a certain limit. So, the price will go down as fast as the spread gap is filled. In practice, say 100 buy orders have a 300$ limit, these are filled first. Next you have 100 people who had a buy order limit of 250$, they are filled next, etc... until the price drops to mere cents. This means the transaction volume is rather low if all limits could be filled with just one big sell. Because that's what happened on the exchange. If it dropped to cents, it means everyone who wanted to buy ethereum at any price got their fix.
      So, this multi-million sell owner certainly lost a lot of money, probably most of all. And there was some collateral for people selling ethereum at the same time at market price and not limit price.
      Unless, the goal was to crash the price, buy his own ethereum back on the other side and take the collateral as well. But this should be possible to trance in the blockchain, no?

    11. Re: Big, big sofa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some value is more arbitrary than others.

    12. Re:Big, big sofa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but if one guy made a million buying on the dip that means somebody lost it,"

      Nah, some lost a bit, some made a bit for the most part on the bell cruve. A tiny few lost biggly and a tiny few won biggly.
      The tiny few who won were lucky and savvy. The tiny few who lost were stupid, and Darwinism rolled onwards inevitably..

      I mised the "next big thing since the internet" - crypto currency - that's the cold facts. I know my problem in life - caution. Like from the movie, Interstallar. A little caution can get you killed just like reckless driving..

      E-commerce, Crypto currencies. The first 2 big booms missed where you really could have everything from nothing. I had my chance and Darwin has shown me the door. Hint: Morality and cautiousness are going to kill you. If you have wither of those two personality traits / defects and you're still young, then prepare to regret it. You'll smirk now and say it aint so, but you'll see. We developed world people never had to do without and when it does come around, it's a real eye opener in the form of a kick to the cranium that keeps coming every day.

      Adapt or die, no matter how whimsical and fad like it seems,. adapt to it or whine about it. It's that simple.

      The next stupid fad is one thing for sure - more volatility and opportuniy. Miss it and you miss it. Simple. And it really does cost you, your life!

    13. Re: Big, big sofa by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Both fiat currencies as real.

  6. because...greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1849.

  7. dodgy idiots now face millions of speculative buys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this should never have happened- but the big banks are massively into ethereum mining now so the biz is rock-solid for the immediate future. But the consequence of this inasnely gross incompetence- where childishly poor algorithms lowered the price to try to match immediate buyers to the sell order- means the excgange and others will be flooded with hundreds of millions of speculative 'buy' orders. Clearly this exchange and others will cover their incompetence with investsor cash convinced this crypto-currency is the next big thing- so rather than going bust investors will hold things up and trust the 'kinks' can be ironed out.

    Real stock exchanges have always have to have had mechanisms in place to protect the value of a valuable stock against sudden large sell orders. These mechanisms are rarely discussed- by are essential 'confidence' concepts that build trust in the system. Statistically anything can happen once in a blue moon- and the coping strategy is NOT a standard 'algorithm' but pro Humans trained to seek out and protect against such events. The best a computer algoritm could do is use a reserve of cash to issue an automatic balancing 'buy' but without Human oversight, this could easily be 'gamed'.

    Also speculative buys should be banned below a certain percentage of current selling price- if someone wants 319 dollars worth of value for 10 cents, they should be forced to watch the market and place the order in real-time.

    Anyhoo as a gamer I'm hoping confidence in Ethereum is fatally damaged so GPU prices can return to normal- but clearly this is a naive impossibility.

  8. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 100 years it's unlikely anyone who profits today will have anything left in their estate. The government will take it, or inflate the currency, or it will be lost in some other investment, or heirs will spend it all.

    It's all short term greed. But gullible humans keep falling for the same tired shell game.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a 100 years we're all going to be dead, so because of that, we shouldn't do anything? Using that logical, the human race will be dead in a million or less so why do anything at all?

  9. Valuable or stable by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    AFAIC all cryptocurrencies not backed by anything solid (something tangible, whatever that is) are either stable or valuable but they cannot be both. They are traded as long as they are valuable, which makes them (and requires them to be) unstable, it is their instability that is valuable. If they are stable, the value disappears. Nobody wants to be in a stable cryptocurrency that is backed by nothing, that's because a currency backed by nothing only leads to inflation and loss of value, it cannot keep value, that's because unbacked currencies have no intrinsic value.

    Intrinsic value is not a value assigned to something by decree, it is a value in itself. Any metal on this planet is valuable to some degree, some metals are more valuable than others (and this can change with time), but metals are valuable in themselves without being money.

    Something that is only an electronic file with some number in it that is not backed by anything that has intrinsic value is only valuable as long as there are people desiring it for its *only* property, which is specifically to be money (in case of unbacked cryptocurrencies).

    Nobody wants to be in a cryptocurrency that is not growing, people move to currencies that grow, these currencies cannot grow all the time, so there are wild swings in pricing, however if they stop growing they lose value and become stable. This stability may or may not last, but a currency like this must grow to be valuable, otherwise it is very stable and not valuable to anybody interested in growing cryptocurrencies.

    1. Re:Valuable or stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to stop calling them currencies and call them what they really are, digital commodities. The oversimplified main benefit of blockchain technologies is to implement artificial scarcity of exclusive tokens without centralising control/trust. I think it's a mistake to treat them as 'currencies'.

  10. How many tulips can I buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want get in on the ground floor before the craze returns.

  11. Why does the name sound familiar? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Oh that's right we only just discussed how Ethereum is the next big thing and everyone should be buying it or mining it or doing something awesome with it.

    https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
    https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

  12. Title wrong by andyr · · Score: 0

    Title of article is wrong. No reimbursements were made. Read TFA

    --
    Andy Rabagliati
    1. Re:Title wrong by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Title of article is wrong. No reimbursements were made. Read TFA

      Why don't you take your own advice? From the second link:

      "We will establish a process to credit customer accounts which experienced a margin call or stop loss order executed on the GDAX ETH-USD order book as a direct result of the rapid price movement at 12.30pm PT on June 21, 2017. This process will allow affected customers to restore the value of their ETH-USD account to the equivalent value of their ETH-USD account at the moment prior to the rapid price movement. To clarify:
      * For customers who had buy orders filledâSâ"âSwe are honoring all executed orders and no trades will be reversed.
      * For affected customers who had margin calls or stop loss orders executedâS -- âSwe are crediting you using company funds."

    2. Re:Title wrong by andyr · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I don't seem able to edit or delete my comment?

      --
      Andy Rabagliati
    3. Re:Title wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't seem able to edit or delete my comment[.]

      You must be new around here.

  13. No don't bail them anyone out by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Fuck them all, the people who lost everything on the margin call and the creditors that loaned the money. This is bullshit. Margin calls were done incorrectly based on the same flawed reasoning that happens in all the major stock exchanges. GDAX nothing wrong. The traders were stupid and for the good of everyone else we need to stop bailing them out.

  14. Market making by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    No market is too big to avoid being manipulated by market makers - groups with enough power and funding to control the direction of a market.
    These guys just sold all their stock, crashed the market, and then bought again at insanely cheap levels. Meanwhile everyone's market stops get triggered.

    This stuff has been going on since the dawn of trading. Someone might remember the Rothchilds date with destiny thanks to the battle of Waterloo.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Market making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not what a market maker is. What you are describing are institutional investors, they hold large positions, and they sometimes buy or sell very large blocks. In the real world however an investor is not allowed to make a trade large enough that it will move the price of the market; this is called market manipulation, even if the intension of the trade was not about market manipulation.

      An investor either needs to distribute his trade slowly over time, or he needs to trade with another investor over-the-counter, although these days OTC trades are reported to the exchange, these trades are marked as OTC, so they can be treated as a different sort of price indication for other traders.

      A market maker is a trader who has both a buy and sell orders (a quote) in the market (publishing prices), making it possible for other traders to directly execute trades against them. Without market makers there will be less or no orders in the market, which will make it more difficult for traders to directly execute. This is why market makers are valuable.

      A market maker on average will try to not have any position on an instrument (a tradable object), trying to immediately sell what they just bought, or buying what they just sold. Since they don't execute directly, they do this by adjusting their buy/sell price to be around the centre of what other traders want to pay/receive.

  15. Not too bright... by mhkohne · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna say - making these people whole is a BAD idea. People learn that they've done something stupid by having that stupid thing bite them in the ass, and playing stock market with this kind of currency and not thinking through all the edge conditions of your orders counts as doing something stupid.

    There is NO one regulating this kind of exchange. There's no one to impose the use of 'circuit breakers' like the stock exchanges use. Making these people whole will NOT lead them to thinking carefully about their orders - it will lead them to being even more careless in the future.

    There's a lot to be gained with virtual currencies, but if people running exchanges try to insulate their customers from the hard facts of the real world, we're going to end up with major problems.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
  16. Volatility by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Intrinsic value is a pretty difficult concept. If the moon were made of solid gold, it would almost certainly not be worth the trouble to mine it. What, then, can we say its intrinsic value is? Generally the concept of intrinsic value is a fallacious base for an argument. However (and it must be a cold day in Hell for me to say this) it's not that you're actually wrong about cryptocurrencies. It is a requirement of a currency that it be a stable store of value, and cryptocurrencies are still 3x-4x more volatile than national currencies. However, even if they do not qualify as money, they can still be used as a unit of exchange. Commodity money has been used for illicit trading for centuries, and it continues to be useful in that sense.

    The key point is that the more people use the currency, the lower the volatility will tend to be. This kind of flash crash will be a lesson to the algorithmic traders. Someone seemingly just made a cool million off of another's stupidity; they're probably going to fix their strategy so that doesn't happen again. It seems depressingly inevitable that the cryptocurrencies will eventually have lower volatility than national ones. Probably not this decade.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Volatility by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      If the moon had precious metals on it we would mine it today already, that much is certain. The moon is made of silicon and some metals, mostly of oxides (thus oxygen). Silicon is abundant on Earth, so no reason to mine that there.

      Intrinsic value is not actually that difficult, it is value that is not decreed and it is not tied to being money, it is value in itself as the property of whatever is under discussion. A human has intrinsic value outside of being productive, for example a human can serve as an organ donor, or a companion, or just as a member of the audience, as a representative of the species - DNA carrier, there you go, there is some value there not even specifically tied to the function of being a human. There are over 7 billion of us, so in reality intrinsic value of any particular human is quite low, but it exists.

      The value of a specific number in a file, taken out of a group of other numbers is valuable if somebody wants it for that unique property - being part of a group that represents an idea that a network of people find attractive. However taken all by itself, out of context of that group, desired by a subset of people this number has no value that is worth anything to anybody. It could be a random string of alphanumeric characters and what is the value of that? How many files of more intrinsic value are on your computer? You have some photographs, videos, bank account numbers, encryption keys, those all have stand alone value that is higher than a bitcoin or any coin of a cryptocurrency not backed by anything tangible that is no longer in demand. The only reason to demand a coin is to be able to use it as a coin, no other purpose exists, no intrinsic value higher than a random number generator would provide.

    2. Re:Volatility by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I don't get you. It's not 'intrinsic' if it depends on external factors.

    3. Re:Volatility by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      If the moon had precious metals on it we would mine it today already, that much is certain.

      There's at least a factor of 40 between the spot price of gold and the round-trip cost per kilo of materials on the moon. You're welcome to play around with numbers to see how you could make that profitable. However, whether the gold was in lunar orbit, at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or in the Oort Cloud the same principle would still apply: value is a social and subjective construct which cannot be said to be intrinsic or inherent to anything. If we aren't mining something, it is actually valueless.

      However taken all by itself, out of context of that group, desired by a subset of people this number has no value that is worth anything to anybody.

      You recognize that the coin has value when in the network, and none without the network. I wonder what the difference could be? Look, this is a clumsy rationalization. You don't like the idea of these currencies; neither do I. Your thought process is to highlight the differences between CCs and real currencies, and then look for reasons why that means that CCs are bad. You have an agenda, then you go looking for facts. In other words, you're a tool.

      Currencies actually work better when they have no intrinsic value. It's one of the reasons that commodity money is rarely found outside black markets: you don't really want your cash to be a consumable. Gold and silver were used as coinage because they were scarce and durable, and in spite of the fact that they could be worked.

      Your premise is flawed and your argument is invalid. That cryptocurrencies do not currently fulfill all the functions of money happens to be true, but BitCoin is becoming more stable and widely adopted all the time. There is no real difference between it and any other currency other than the issuer and the current volatility. Your homework is to read about the functions of money.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:Volatility by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      There's at least a factor of 40 between the spot price of gold and the round-trip cost per kilo of materials on the moon.

      - sure, that's because there is no gold on the Moon that the costs are what they are. With the gold there we would have worked on cost reductions for at least 50 years and would have been mining already, definitely with robots.

      You don't like the idea of these currencies; neither do I.

      - I don't? Where did I say that or how did you derive it from what I wrote? How did you come to the conclusion that 'I do not like these currencies'. I don't actively dislike them, I have a little bit of this and a little bit of that, I don't have any reasons to dislike them.

      and then look for reasons why that means that CCs are bad. You have an agenda, then you go looking for facts. In other words, you're a tool.

      - you are a tool since you cannot parse meanings of sentences.

      My position is though they are speculative vehicles and cannot store value because there is nothing in them that makes them valuable without the momentarily desire of the network to exchange them.

      My hypothesis is that cryptocurrencies without any backing can be either valuable or they can be stable but they cannot be both at the same time.

      Currencies actually work better when they have no intrinsic value.

      - nonsense.

      It's one of the reasons that commodity money is rarely found outside black markets

      - wrong. The reason is that governments do not want to have to be tied to something hard that cannot be printed, that's the reason, nothing else.

      BitCoin is becoming more stable

      - nonsense.

      There is no real difference between it and any other currency other than the issuer and the current volatility.

      - I don't dispute that fiat currencies of the day are just as intrinsically worthless as crypto-currencies.

    5. Re:Volatility by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Does a metal have intrinsic value in this Universe? It does, a metal is a very small part of the total composition of the Universe, by the very nature of it being rare it is intrinsically valuable because its properties (properties of a rare substance relative to the rest of the Universe) are so different from most of what exists (Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, Carbon, Silicon). The total content of heavy elements within the Universe is on the order of ~0.03% of total matter, so it is rare and as such a rarity it is valuable in itself.

      As to random (or non-random) numbers in files, what is their value if we can generate as many of them as we like and fill all our storage media with them? There is nothing at all that is valuable about any sequence of numbers and other characters in a file except if the message that is represented by this number is valued by somebody, but even there there is a difference.

      A digital photograph of your memories is more valuable to you than a file filled with random noise (I presume). So if a Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is no longer in demand because the network that used to exchange it doesn't exist anymore (it exchanges some other cryptocurrency) the number that represents a coin is no different from any other random number, thus intrinsically it is valueless.

    6. Re:Volatility by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      You are a compulsory liar.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  17. Frank Herbert called it by sheramil · · Score: 1

    "In the classical times of several species, it was the custom of the powerful to nudge the power-counters (money or other economic tabulators, status points, etc.) into occasional violent perturbations from which the knowledgeable few profited."

    - Comparative History, The BuSab Text, "The Dosadi Experiment" by Frank Herbert

  18. No reimbursements needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ethereum is a shitcoin already. There's no need to fund the reimbursements, because Ethereum has no credibility and transactions can always be reverted.

  19. So they tested their pump and dump scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And some people walked away with their ill-gotten gains, with the brokers in happy cahoots. It must be fun for them to do their criminal acts right out in the open.

    1. Re:So they tested their pump and dump scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems like it would have been much more profitable to move some coins onto other exchanges and get much more value while dumping.

  20. You completely miss the point here. by Interfacer · · Score: 3, Informative

    These are rollbacks on exchange accounts. Those transactions never entered the blockchain. An exchange account is like an IOU while the exchange backs those IOUs with real coin in an internal wallet until such time as you send a coin transfer from your account to an external address. Only then do the transaction get recorded in the blockchain.

    What GDAX is doing is simply restoring those IOUs for people whose IOUs got wiped out. At the same time, they allow the people who scooped up those IOUs for cheap to keep them, whether they are still there or not. Since part of their own assets are company owned coin (which is probably separate from the exchange hot wallet) all this means is that they suck up the financial hit for the sake of PR.

    The blockchain was not altered in any way. There are no holes, and it is only possible for GDAX to reimburse the GDAX customers that were affected by the flash crash.

    1. Re:You completely miss the point here. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That makes more sense, although it would be weird for true investors to invest in a market that has a weak transaction log, I can see where that may be useful. The problem is still, the company is inserting x amount of their own coin, either they are devaluing their company or more likely devaluing the money within the exchange.

      I see it more as a regular stock exchange, if the government were to limit losses and reimburse people by simply printing or inserting more money into the market, this would eventually destabilize the exchange as people will come to expect their losses are socialized while the profits remain individualized.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:You completely miss the point here. by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      They're not devaluing the coin as such. The total amount is still the same. Only instead of them owning X, they now own Y and use the difference to reimburse those people. The total in circulation is not affected.

      Personally, I think those who were stupid enough to configure stop loss orders at market price and margin calls, got exactly what they asked for. But there were rumblings of class action suit. Given that crypto exchange is currently unregulated (or at least not regulated in all aspects) the legal costs would be bigger than taking this hit. And PR would be bad so they would bleed customers to other echanges.

      Rationally, I think they chose the option that would be cheapest to them in the end.

  21. ground lug considered harmful by epine · · Score: 0

    If stupid decisions don't come around to bite people in the butt, they fail to learn the lesson and will continue making stupid decisions.

    The everyday overreliance on this pathetic relish squee concerning the overriding eminence of naked incentive in dictating human behaviour patterns being one of those stupid, stupid, stupid things that just won't come out in the wash.

    Welcome to Radiant City Third Rail, please watch your step.

    This from the Mad Max prequel which explains, Enterprise-like, how Mad Max perfected his death-defying cliff grab before garbing himself in fifteen guns.

    Now there's a man who truly knows his incentive systems.

    If at first you don't succeed, dire again.