Bitcoin sees wall street warm to trading virtual currency

Bitcoin Sees Wall Street Warm to Trading Virtual Currency crypmoney.de Following Goldman Sachs’s moves to begin trading Bitcoin, the New York Stock Exchange’s parent company is . Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. May 13,  · Bitcoin sees Wall Street warm to trading virtual currency in: Bitcoin, Business, Economy, Finance, Latest Trend SAN FRANCISCO — Some of the biggest names on Wall Street are warming up to Bitcoin, a virtual currency that for nearly a decade has been consigned to the unregulated fringes of the financial world.

Bitcoin sees wall street warm to trading virtual currency

Bitcoin sees Wall Street warm to trading virtual currency – Impact Lab

People buy Bitcoin in the hope that its value will go up, similar to the way they purchase gold or silver. Details of the platform that Intercontinental Exchange is working on have not been finalized and the project could still fall apart, given the hesitancy among big Wall Street institutions to be closely associated with the Wild West of virtual currencies.

A spokesman said that the company had no comment. Many corporations and governments have expressed interest in the technology that Bitcoin introduced, particularly a form of database known as the blockchain.

Some large financial exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, have already created financial products linked to the price of Bitcoin, known as futures. ICE has had conversations with other financial institutions about setting up a new operation through which banks can buy a contract, known as a swap, that will end with the customer owning Bitcoin the next day — with the backing and security of the exchange, according to the people familiar with the project.

The swap contract is more complicated than an immediate trade of dollars for Bitcoin, even if the end result is still ownership of a certain amount of Bitcoin. The chief executive of Nasdaq, Adena Friedman, recently said her company could also create a virtual-currency exchange if regulatory issues are ironed out. While several hedge funds have been buying and selling Bitcoin, most large institutional investors, such as mutual funds and pensions, have avoided it largely as a result of similar regulatory concerns.

Bitcoin still faces plenty of skepticism in the mainstream financial world. Over the weekend, Warren E. Some Bitcoin enthusiasts have said that its increasing integration into the existing financial system has pulled it away from its founding ideals. Paul Chou, a former trader at Goldman Sachs who set up LedgerX, a regulated Bitcoin exchange that would compete with Intercontinental Exchange, said his company has made a point of focusing on large Bitcoin holders, rather than financial institutions.

Well, the whole thing is computer data, stored on media. Already these days it's hard to find hardware to read the 5. Preserving digital data is a continuous effort. And yeah, you can encode your private keys in gold, and I kind of think that everyone should do that, to keep future archaeologists puzzled :-P. If your house burns down, there is a reasonable chance of recovering, eg, gold slag.

Not so much chance of recovering the markings that were on that gold before. It is difficult to compare the durability of gold and bitcoin. It does seem plausible, given the length of time we've been using it, that gold's value is completely related to its intrinsic properties and difficulty of mining.

There are products like Cryptosteel, which are designed specifically to be able to survive a typical house fire and a variety of other disasters. Combined with a passphrase, it also means your money can't be stolen if your house is burgled. Gold would be a sitting duck in this case. You're severely underestimating how much it takes to melt gold. I'd be surprised if you could do it with a burning house. Although it's an interesting thought-experiment to compare the risks!

I've always thought the Bitcoin use-case admittedly from a subset of Bitcoin users of "Complete collapse in the banking system" but somehow the internet still works without issue was It's not a collapse of all banking systems, but the fiat money system which is dictated by central banks which are mostly private entities, not government bodies.

It means when governments want to borrow more money, their lenders actually need to have the liquidity available and can't just magic it out of thin air. I happen to know an exec in gold mining we had a brief fling , and she mentioned they do see bitcoin as a clear competitor to gold. For what that's worth. I understand the claims of proof-of-work. What I'm asking for is evidence. Do you have any scientific research indicating that Bitcoin will ultimately be an efficiency?

Or is it a hunch? How much energy does Bitcoin need to consume before you demand evidence that it does as you claim? Gold as a value store is kind of better tested in all circumstances. Proof of work isn't a requirement for those things. Proof of Stake is virtually as secure, and in some cases more secure, than PoW. While also being much more environmentally friendly.

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, asserts that: If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all. In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A. Almost like people did the actual analysis but didnt like the results Don't you need to compare this with the energy usage of the industries bitcoin is supposed to replace banks, money transmitters, credit cards?

Also take into account the environmental benefits of a deflationary currency people saving instead of buying crap they dont need? Also blocking all that unwanted content. Did anyone set out before hand to calculate the energy usage of that? It just seems so disingenuous to be concerned about the energy usage of this one thing and its only possible because it happens to be particularly easy to estimate, an advantage!

But it is not happening, so why would we compare them? The link I included does actually compare Bitcoin energy consumption to Visa by the way, and the difference is staggering. I just said "supposed to replace". Here is an example. Someone came up with the number TWh per year for data centers, wifi, computers, phones, tvs, etc. I just want consistency so I don't feel like I'm being concern trolled.

So Visa alone is about 0. Deflationary currency disincentives investing in the future. There's nothing good about it. This argument makes no sense since by abstaining from consuming resources you are saving them for the future.

Bitcoin is not an economic manipulation machine like the Federal Reserve. It's purpose is not to stimulate or incentivize anything. TimJRobinson on May 8, It gives less return on investments, however it also incentivizes those who don't invest mostly middle and lower class to hold onto their money instead of spending it immediately, because it's worth more in the future. Which could decrease consumption in the world and possibly create a more sustainable future.

Deflation seems bad from our current mindset of growth at all costs, and especially bad if you're one of the upper class who's investments return more than inflation, ensuring you'll keep your status.

But this could possibly bring a brighter future for humanity, where we tame the viral nature of capitalism and the rich getting richer at a far faster rate than the rest of society. I think you're arguing for the remittance use case but this has been shown to be inefficient compared to other methods [0][1][2]. Maybe lightning network will change that but again, it is just a wild guess from crypto-fans right now Why aren't we building this thing responsibly if we know it costs so much in electricity?

What do you mean? Bitcoin already solves problems; e. BenoitP on May 8, The vast majority of transaction have a low stake. Most amounts are fairly low, people respect the fact they have parted from some value. Using such a highly price consensus seems like overkill. What you want is to concentrate on the litigious ones, on the higher amounts; while still securing the rest. This is exactly what is happening in the lightning network smart contract.

Bitcoins are taken apart in a channel, and people can do their business as usual. The protocol concentrates the stakes in a single on-chain transaction; with a tremendous pressure in not settling on the last channel state. It sorts of changes the transaction representation space to its dual. From a white-list of all approved transactions -and nothing else- to a black-list of misbehaving business relations -all other consented transactions being allowed-.

Bitcoin's 7 transactions per second is demultiplied by some order of magnitude here. That represents about 3 channels per second. The lightning network is about rationalizing the use of this high-priced consensus. Bitcoin gained too much popularity too quickly if you ask me.

The growth of Bitcoin is capped exponentially, as it is based on human adoption. Only something super-exponential can regulate this properly. But IMHO, this is only a slight inconvenience. We'll waste electricity but only in the next few years. Proof of Stake is the answer. There is even -less- evidence this can actually work at large scale without becoming centralized.

Maybe social dynamics work out to avoid this, but humans have a long history of trending towards various forms of plutocracies.

One of the reasons Ethereum forked was to avoid a single party the DAO thief controlling far too large a portion of the total ether which has big consequences in a future with PoS. Are we going to continue fork networks every time one party gets too rich?

We could. Unless of course that party is pretending to be many individuals and we can't tell. Hard to stop this without deanonymization and a loss of censorship resistance.

To be fair PoW suffers similarly from mining power all clustering in cheap electricity areas and thus players like Bitmain have a scary amount of centralized control. I am skeptical of PoW long term without much better globally distributed use of renewalable energy.

PoS by dropping this anchor to the physical world seems even crazier. I am however somewhat optimistic about Bram Cohen's "Proof of space and time" in his "Chia" project which attempts to move the PoW problem from proof of expended electricity to proof of burned disk space, which feels inherently greener and easier to geographically distribute. Or neither of these PoW alternatives work and the lessons learned from them empower as of yet unknown innovations.

Exciting times to be sure. Nursie on May 8, It's not free to manufacture hard drives, in terms of materials, energy, CO2 etc. Proof of space and time merely shifts the pressure away from compute power to storage. It has the potential to do for the storage market what PoW as done for the graphics card market - pump up prices and move useful tech out of the reach of most consumers. Graphics cards and ASICs are high up front cost and ongoing electricity cost that forces them to geographical areas with cheap electricity.

Disk based systems are still up front cost, but substantially less cost to operate. Yes, but such a system would incentivise the mass acquisition of storage media, pumping up prices, increasong production and having huge environmental consequences. Proof of storage is just another ecological disaster in the making and I sincerely hope it never takes off. Excuse my ignorance but how are the PoS rich getting richer different than the PoW rich getting richer?

Aren't the payouts proportional to the investment for both schemes? The rich get richer either way, but PoW is more biased towards the rich because poor people will lose money mining due to electricity costs.

That might not be the case with a staking pool. In all fairness the Bitcoin, BTC, is currently close to unusable and scales very bad. It quickly gets oversaturated with transaction and transaction fees rise quick.

I think the conspiracy has come full circle. Those who slowly "threw sand in its engine" has done a great job. Why are transaction fees low today? Because no one, or a lot less, is using BTC. I know some will label me as a conspiracist. I've been following this project since early and it has derailed badly.

The community is a toxic mess. On both sides to some extent. I'm interested in how they will do this trading. Off-chain or on-chain. Bitcoin Cash, BCH, though is very interesting. It conforms to the original idea whitepaper much better in my opnion.

No second layer nonsense "solutions". A simple block size limit increase again and enablement of Op-Codes again. All coming 15th of May.

Lots of merchants and people are beginning to use BCH. Because it is fast 0-conf works again and has close to zero transaction fees.

It's the project I began following early Bitcoin fees were cut in half on a technical level by those that chose to adopt segwit which made transactions roughly half as big. Schnoor signatures can further compress transactions to get even more in a block. If in spite of these innovations blocks end up full, a block size increase is still a tool kept in reserve. In reality BCH did not make any hard won technical innovations and simply reached for the bigger blocks knob.

If BCH did become the globally adopted winner its blocks would fill and create a fee market eventually too driving it to seek the same sorts of transaction size optimizations bitcoin has made. These roads might well converge in a similar place eventually. I strongly suspect Layer 2 solutions are going to be needed regardless of the knobs fiddled on an expensive but immutable Layer 1 so we might as well all buckle up for that.

Plus, atomic swaps in Lightning pave the way for decentralized exchanges which means even better anonymization and censorship resistance. Everyone wins with a stable Layer 2 most major coins are compatible with. That's my point. BCH did not include some technical innovations like you stated. It simply increased hardcoded block size limit. Simple as that. Even Satoshi himself mentions this in his whitepaper. Other stuff has also changed.

The difficulty adjustment DAA algorithm has changed to allow are more stable difficulty for miners. Segwit just changed what parts of a transaction counted as size in a block. In reality we're talking about KB or thereabouts extra space in blocks. Lightning network is based on a mesh-network. Furthermore it completely changes the bitcoins fundamental clockwork. Suddenly you can't receive payments if you don't hold any coins yourself. Even more detrimental; you can't receive payments if you are not online on the lightning network.

Scaling to VISA level of transactions is possible. I don't think it's really going to change too much in computing power with bigger blocks. The size of the merkle root won't change just because blocks are larger which means the block header size won't change.

Why do you suspect a second-layer is needed? You need a second layer and possibly more on-top of that for several reasons. To ensure the competition stays fair and evenly timed, the puzzle becomes harder when more computers join in. The Bitcoin protocol says mining will continue until there are 21 million Bitcoins in existence. The virtual currency was created after the global financial crisis by a still-anonymous programmer who used the name Satoshi Nakamoto.

But instead of being replaced, the old banks are beginning to assert their own role in the unorthodox financial world of virtual currency, sometimes called cryptocurrencies. While Bitcoin was originally intended to be used by consumers for all sorts of transactions — without any financial institutions getting involved — it has mostly become a virtual investment, stored in digital wallets and traded on mostly unregulated exchanges around the world.

People buy Bitcoin in the hope that its value will go up, similar to the way they purchase gold or silver. Details of the platform that Intercontinental Exchange is working on have not been finalized and the project could still fall apart, given the hesitancy among big Wall Street institutions to be closely associated with the Wild West of virtual currencies.

A spokesman said that the company had no comment. Many corporations and governments have expressed interest in the technology that Bitcoin introduced, particularly a form of database known as the blockchain. Some large financial exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, have already created financial products linked to the price of Bitcoin, known as futures. ICE has had conversations with other financial institutions about setting up a new operation through which banks can buy a contract, known as a swap, that will end with the customer owning Bitcoin the next day — with the backing and security of the exchange, according to the people familiar with the project.

The swap contract is more complicated than an immediate trade of dollars for Bitcoin, even if the end result is still ownership of a certain amount of Bitcoin.

The chief executive of Nasdaq, Adena Friedman, recently said her company could also create a virtual-currency exchange if regulatory issues are ironed out. While several hedge funds have been buying and selling Bitcoin, most large institutional investors, such as mutual funds and pensions, have avoided it largely as a result of similar regulatory concerns.

Bitcoin still faces plenty of skepticism in the mainstream financial world.

Bitcoin Sees Wall Street Warm to Trading Virtual Currency Non-stop updated cryptocurrency news about the world's most popular virtual coins!

Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Sees Wall Street Warm to Trading Virtual Currency crypmoney.de Following Goldman Sachs’s moves to begin trading Bitcoin, the New York Stock Exchange’s parent company is . May 13,  · Bitcoin sees Wall Street warm to trading virtual currency in: Bitcoin, Business, Economy, Finance, Latest Trend SAN FRANCISCO — Some of the biggest names on Wall Street are warming up to Bitcoin, a virtual currency that for nearly a decade has been consigned to the unregulated fringes of the financial world. Tags:Tips trading bitcoin, Aus bitcoin trade, Bitcoin trend following strategy, Is bitcoin a stock market, Trading bitcoin kaskus

Comments 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *