Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Find That One Person Likely Drove Bitcoin From $150 to $1,000 (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Researchers Neil Gandal, JT Hamrick, Tyler Moore, and Tali Oberman have written a fascinating paper on Bitcoin price manipulation. Entitled "Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem" and appearing in the recent issue of the Journal of Monetary Economics the paper describes to what degree the Bitcoin ecosystem is controlled by bad actors. To many it's been obvious that the Bitcoin markets are, at the very least, being manipulated by one or two big players. "This paper identifies and analyzes the impact of suspicious trading activity on the Mt. Gox Bitcoin currency exchange, in which approximately 600,000 bitcoins (BTC) valued at $188 million were fraudulently acquired," the researchers wrote.

"During both periods, the USD-BTC exchange rate rose by an average of four percent on days when suspicious trades took place, compared to a slight decline on days without suspicious activity. Based on rigorous analysis with extensive robustness checks, the paper demonstrates that the suspicious trading activity likely caused the unprecedented spike in the USD-BTC exchange rate in late 2013, when the rate jumped from around $150 to more than $1,000 in two months." The team found that many instances of price manipulation happened simply because the market was very thin for various cryptocurrencies including early Bitcoin.

8 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Poorly worded by JeffSh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is a disingenuous post. It doesn't mention the analysis is about the 2013 mt gox event until the second paragraph yet somehow infers during the first paragraph that bitcoin is a highly manipulated market subject to the whims of 1 or 2 individuals.

    i don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013 yet a naive reading of this post may infer conclusions are being drawn about 2017/18.

    1. Re:Poorly worded by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who are emotionally and financially invested don't want to know that.

    2. Re:Poorly worded by GlobalEcho · · Score: 4, Informative

      The daily volume is considerably more than you cite, at $600 million/day and that is just in USD terms. Overall volume is about triple that.

      I actually agree with you about it being vulnerable, but we should base our arguments on solid numbers.

    3. Re:Poorly worded by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Informative

      don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013

      Completely different in that yes there is wider distribution now than back 2k13. To say the market is completely different is a bit of streach. This page has some tables with data from September '17. You can clearly see that top 1-2% people have about half the BTC market.

      https://medium.com/@BambouClub...

      Oddly that is pretty close to the distribution of wealth in general across the world. Maybe this is simply a feature of some other driver in modern finance....Another topic.

      At any rate it cannot be said that BTC isn't thinly traded and their are not a handful of people with large enough holdings to manipulate the market. This isn't a BTC specific problem, Soros did it with the Pound in the 90s but... its clearly not a problem BTC has solved either.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. Wealth distribution by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do people get upset that 1% of the population owns 50% of the world's wealth. And in response they flock to something like bitcoin, where 1000 people or 0.007% owns 40% of the wealth?

    1. Re:Wealth distribution by ad454 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please, not this again.

      The minimum amount of money required to be successful at life varies per region, and must be sufficient to buy a modest 2-3 bedroom family home and car, while being able to raise a small family in modest comfort without incurring massive debt, while still having enough for retirement and unforeseen medical issues.

      In the San Francisco Bay or Vancouver BC area, not even $100k per year is enough for this, due to massive home prices.

  3. Re:It was me... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was selling a bridge and some beach front property in Arizona...

    If you have any left I'll buy it with some dogecoin.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  4. This is incorrect at a basic level by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they said "in which approximately 600,000 bitcoins (BTC) valued at $188 million were fraudulently acquired." and the article explains "The manipulation happened primarily via two bots, Markus and Willy, that seemed to be performing valid trades but did not actually own the bitcoin they were using." If you own BTC, all you can do is sell it. So someone who owns or controls a bunch of bitcoins can only drive down the price. Someone who owns a ton of USD can make the price go up. So at a fundamental level this article makes no sense. Now registering trades for currency they didn't actually own through some kind of security vulnerability makes sense because the exchange would register that the trade happened without verifying fund ownership change, which absolutely would drive up the price. So maybe they're saying that happened instead?