1,415 karma · joined January 4, 2013
Founder of Folkvang: folkvang.io
https://mvr.com/ https://github.com/askmike
I'd say the spam tactics executed on such a large scale killed Hacktoberfest. This is just damage control.
this really depends on what kind of size you trade and how you execute. Binance futures (their btc/usdt perp) is most likely cheaper if you look at take fee + spread + slippage. Their default taker fee is 4bps (or 3.6 bps if you pay it in BNB). That means you can slip $4 (with BTC at 10k) and pay the same for your exec - but with most sizes you don't slip that much, if you trade small binance is most often better (spread + slippage wise) since the tick size (minimum spread) is 0.01bps instead of 0.5bps. And on top of that you get a massive fee discount.
> I pay a thousand a year in trading fees to my stockbroker in Australia and they don't even offer an API.
I wouldn't compare Bitmex to an Australian stock broker, I would compare it to other crypto exchanges
Also keep in mind that currently crypto is a lot bigger outside of the US, most of Asia don't want to deal touch things close to US regulators. Eg. it's why Tether is so much bigger than things like USDC (as they actively fight against US regulators in court to protect users).
This used to be lowest, it's pretty high nowadays for traders who do volume (huobi, binance, okex, ftx all have the same product for lower fees). A few other exchanges like Bybit and Deribit have the same fees.
no one is responsible, that's the whole point. The thing runs by itself and game theory keeps it afloat - not a group of people. Else it's just like a company.
That said, the protocol isn't finished and you have people involved in maintaining and upgrading the protocol. Which is in no way forced down upon everyone: once they have an update everyone is free to choose to run it or not.
These people have influence (you could argue too much) about the future of the protocol.
> if your arbitrage trade takes away too much money from an account belong the core devs
This is not why these decisions were made at all, because some core dev instested in the DAO.
The idea here is that your money is provided liquidity and you'll get paid a portion of the fees as well as some new token which can have a very high value (for a fleeting moment).
This is important to realize when looking at the crazy marketing around these projects, if it's based on uniswap you can reasonably sure your principal won't get stolen - regardless of the scammy and weird marketing.
> [citation needed]
So it was stated by a police officer in the video above (I'm assuming it was a real police encounter and not staged, and that the subtitles are correct as he didn't say it in English).
It might allow the government to combine data it has on citizens with this data. On top of the fact that in that situation one single entity (the government) would see everything from everyone.
> why is it better that that control be in private hands?
That argument is not being made. But right now you got Apple and Google competing, and new players might compete with those two at some point to. If you got a government no one can compete with that controls this data on everyone (as opposed to it currently being split between two big providers).
Google search doesn't work like this anymore. Search results for everyone are custom based on what they know about your. For example check out filter bubbles[1]. A blacklist would probably help their models. As for why it got removed we can only guess. I'm guessing it has to do with either bad UX (if you forgot you added domains they will never show up) or them wanting to be in full control of your search experience.
[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_b...
I propose we design a markup language so this can be parsed. How about DTML? And maybe some styling rules as well, we can call it DSS. And we can't forget a basic scripting language called DJS.
I'll start working on the parser, we can call it a drowser.
Let the whack-a-mole games begin.
Note that not all channels are public, so you won't find all in searches. I'm only saying that you shouldn't be worried about lightning liquidity if you can directly connect to your counterparty - as you can directly transact with that party without relying on any liquidity from anyone else.
This is a point not many seem to understand.
They studied the impact on a few big media inventions (printing press, TV and the internet) on (western) culture. It seems you don't believe I had this in University? You can find some information here: https://docplayer.nl/2209094-Studiegids-2013-2014-communicat...
The subject is called "Mediageschiedenis" and you can find it on page 37. This document is unfortunately in Dutch.
> But companies and organizations routinely transfer millions and billions between normal banks
Just like companies have direct lightning channels between each other, they can send billions of they please.
A company is an abstract concept around a group of people, framed inside a legal entity. But yes, if you own many stocks you can sit at the table with some big boys. Most companies come with less risk than Bitcoin. But I rather buy Bitcoin than WeWork shares (assuming they list).
> Government bonds are backed by the full force and trust of the government they represent, and repay the face value plus yield promised at the time they were bought. They represent the most reliable yield you can get.
Until a government defaults. This doesn't happy every week, but ruling out that it doesn't is not the best investment strategy.
---
I'm not denying Bitcoin is speculation, but so is everything else. Sure Bitcoin might be more speculative under your frame of reference. But it's not black and white.
Many people were saying this, Paul Krugman (one of the leading economists) went as far as comparing the internet to the fax machine:
"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
> You said it yourself - you're too young to actually know a lot about that, but you use it to bolster your arguments anyway.
I'm too young to live through it, but luckily I studied it in university :-) Many people claim to know many things about history prior to their birth. I guess I'm one of these people.
I'm too young to have experienced this. But I've seen countless of clips and interviews of people claiming they would never use the internet because they can send post and use a telephone instead. "Computers are for geeks", etc.
> New use cases manifested immediately all the time. Nobody ever said “we implemented this world wide network thing, now we are looking for use cases”, there were, and are, always more use cases to choose from than resources to implement them.
It took a dotcom bubble to find the use cases we actually use today. Would you have not said the exact same thing back then about the internet?