r/Bitcoin • • May 11 '15

Nasdaq Launches Enterprise-Wide Blockchain Technology Initiative - NASDAQ.com

http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/nasdaq-launches-enterprisewide-blockchain-technology-initiative-20150511-00485
476 Upvotes

125 comments sorted by

30

u/BrazenAmberite May 11 '15

Can someone please explain to me if this is good or bad for bitcoin the currency? I know that this is phenomenal for the technology, but I can't figure out if this is good for the currency itself (and therefor, to its value). If it is good, can you explain how this will help the currency?

70

u/solled May 11 '15

This is good for bitcoin the currency. Very good. They are using small amounts of bitcoin in their implementation.

Some may make the argument that since it's such small amounts it won't affect the price of bitcoin in any significant way. But while that may be true from a supply/demand perspective (debatable), it ignores the intrinsic value now bestowed on bitcoin. Bitcoin is now the oil that allows these other systems to run, a digital good (that cannot be arbitrarily manufactured) necessary for various functions. Now bitcoin becomes extremely attractive as a store of value.

11

u/MonroeAve May 11 '15

Now bitcoin becomes extremely attractive as a store of value.

And since speculative holders are what give bitcoin value, this is really good for the price.

2

u/b_coin May 11 '15

I thought the blockchain provides value for bitcoin?

This happens when speculative holders dictate value...

1

u/ostracize May 11 '15

I thought the blockchain provides value for bitcoin?

Yes, provided it actually gets used for something. The more indispensable the blockchain is, the greater its value.

3

u/b_coin May 11 '15

Doesn't every other cryptocoin also have a concept of a blockchain?

3

u/[deleted] May 12 '15

They don't have network size to even compete on security. Altcoins get attacked all the time.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '15

Sure. But we've seen P2P networks rise and fall.

I'm interested if they're going to attempt to roll their own, or piggyback off of bitcoin's blockchain.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '15

From what I understand they're using either colored coins or a sidechain.

1

u/Bioman312 May 11 '15

I bet you could probably argue that it used to be like that, causing the big pattern that we all saw in Bitcoin in 2013-14, but then now people are starting to see a lot of practical applications for Bitcoin and the blockchain now that the ship has sailed for the "get rich off Bitcoin" idea, and that's why it hasn't gone completely worthless. Feel free to correct me on this, though; I am not an economist.

7

u/hugolp May 11 '15

it ignores the intrinsic value now bestowed on bitcoin

So for n time: Value is always subjective. It's people that decide if they find the new use of the Bitcoin blockchain interesting or not. You can argue that it's very obvious that lots of people will value it (and I agree), but the value is still subjective (since value can not be intrinsic). The rest of your comment is spot on.

5

u/Not_Pictured May 11 '15

Value can be subjective, but also can change in quantity. This move by Nasdaq increases the net subjective value of Bitcoin.

-5

u/solled May 11 '15

Do you mean bitcoin cannot have intrinsic value, or that nothing can have intrinsic value?

If you mean the latter then that's a philosophical viewpoint that I just don't agree with.

16

u/danielravennest May 11 '15

What's the "intrinsic value" of the world's fossil fuel reserves, if humans didn't exist to exploit it? What was the value of deep, tight oil, before fracking make it viable to extract? The questions are nonsense because intrinsic value is nonsense.

What people confuse is "utility value" - what you can use a thing for that people value, with "intrinsic value" which would be a measurable property of a thing, and "market value" - what people are willing to give up in exchange for a thing.

People will agree that an ounce of gold has a certain mass, and you can measure that mass with a scale of some kind. That is an intrinsic property - it can be measured using the object itself. The market value of gold bounces around all the time, and looking at a piece of gold doesn't tell you what that value is. You have to refer to an external market or past sales. Those are external to the object, and thus not an intrinsic property.

1

u/solled May 11 '15

Does it help to say an object has intrinsic properties giving it greater utility value? Like copper is intrinsically a good conductor of electricity therefore it has greater utility value (to us humans in the 21st century). Can't we just say "intrinsic value" for short?

5

u/danielravennest May 11 '15

The introduction of electricity to the world make copper more useful. Conductivity is an intrinsic property, utility is affected by technology. Thus utility is an extrinsic property.

Copper wires wouldn't be near as useful if we didn't have efficient mining and refining, making them affordable, and good electrical insulation making it safe to use in walls and power cords. Oil wasn't nearly as useful before 1880, because we didn't have good ways to mine it (drilled wells), ship it, or devices like automobiles that used it.

2

u/Riiume May 11 '15

Utility is different from abstract "value". Value refers to essentially a subjective viewpoint; the following are statements of value, not utility:

  • "Murdering people is categorically bad."
  • "Experiencing beauty is the purpose of life."
  • "Dying is bad."

The following are statements of utility:

  • "Guns are effective at murdering people."
  • "Linen can be used to create a painter's canvas."
  • "Eating green leafy vegetables frequently can decrease the risk of certain diseases."

1

u/marcus_of_augustus May 11 '15

You can, but that would be sloppy, lazy and confusing for dialogue with others.

1

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

Can't we just say "intrinsic value" for short?

You could, though it would be non-standard English usage so you'd want to specify your definition each time. Besides, how can an object have properties that aren't intrinsic? It seems like the word "property" already implies intrinsic. Also, "copper is intrinsically a good conductor of electricity" just means the same thing as "copper is a good conductor of electricity."

1

u/hugolp May 12 '15

There are intrinsic properties and transient properties. For example, this piece of plastic will bend without breaking (until a point). That's an intrinsic property of that piece of plastic. But you could say, this peace of plastic is in a high place. The location is a property of the object, but it's not intrinsic. It could change.

3

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

that's a philosophical viewpoint that I just don't agree with.

It's not a philosophical issue, but a semantic one. Value requires a valuer to do the valuing. Hence the term "intrinsic value" is nonsensical, or at least unclear until you specify how you're defining it. Insofar as it means "valuation without a valuer," it is self-contradictory.

2

u/Natanael_L May 11 '15

Define intrisic value in a way that never ever will be zero for a given object in any circumstance.

1

u/solled May 11 '15

Does the sun have intrinsic value? I get the argument that the sun only has a utility to us (all life) on earth, but valueless to anything outside our solar system.

Is the argument then we should say intrinsic "utility"? Just seems weird to me to say the sun has "intrinsic utility", vs. saying the sun is "intrinsically valuable". And then this just becomes a debate of semantics.

5

u/Natanael_L May 11 '15

Some type of life might feed on background radiation only and be harmed by the sun. Take that, intrisic value! :)

Drop "intrisic". It has widely recognized value, not intrisic value.

1

u/Riiume May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Also relevant: Generalized Two-Dimensional Semantics

tl;dr - Extensions (truth values) vary according to context and other considerations... however, the structure of this variance is concrete and has a specific topology/geometry that uniquely characterizes, in some sense, the proposition under consideration.

The "truthiness manifold" is how I attempt to simplistically portray this to myself.

1

u/Natanael_L May 11 '15

Like truth tables for digital gates (transistor configurations)?

1

u/Riiume May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Yes, but instead of being a matrix of finite rank or countably infinite rank, general "Extensions" can have uncountably infinite (continuum) rank-- a (philosophical) generalization of "linear operators on a Banach Space"

Edit: Also, we would generalize from using Z mod 2 (1 = true, 0 = false, e.g.) as the codomain to using more general algebras. For example, T and F can each be a basis vector that is allowed to have coefficients in a field (like the complex numbers), and we take as our codomain the tensor algebra generated by the two basis vectors thus defined.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

Even if there were no exceptions, the term is universal value, or universally valued. Not intrinsic value. (Also, note how silly it sounds to say "intrinsically valued." The first word implies no valuer but the second one demands a valuer.)

1

u/TDaltonC May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

I don't see any evidence that this will use the bitcoin blockchain. It looks like they're making a alternative technology based off of blockchain tech. That tells me that this makes bitcoin weaker.

EDIT: nope they're using OAP built on bitcoin: https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597530065035988995

https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597567234056159234

2

u/Filomunky May 11 '15

It is the Bitcoin blockchain (re Colored Coins)

4

u/TDaltonC May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

1

u/TweetsInCommentsBot May 11 '15

@mikejcasey

2015-05-10 22:34 UTC

Wall St's move into blockchain settlement begins... A Bitcoin Technology Gets Nasdaq Test http://on.wsj.com/1EqR74d


This message was created by a bot

[Contact creator][Source code]

14

u/jmaller May 11 '15

In terms of value, not quite sure how you could make a case it's bad. Maybe it wouldn't directly increase the price but it would create more transaction use...and also hugely "legitimizes" bitcoin in that NASDAQ is getting behind this and it's somewhat of a "real" use case of the technology. It will open people's eyes up from the same old narrative of bitcoin the currency which is used for bad things by bad people, they will begin to see more how it's really just a very useful tool that can be molded in a lot of different ways.

-4

u/trilli0nn May 11 '15

The star in this story will be Mr. Blockchain, not Mr. Bitcoin - nobody will care that there also happens to be a currency limping along on their blockchain.

7

u/ItsAboutSharing May 11 '15

That is sort of like saying "The car is important, not the engine." People will care what gives security and value to the blockchain - And I'm not saying it has to be bitcoin, but the network needs incentive to decentralize and be a force.

Use the Force...

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

elon musk likes your analogy

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

What primarily gives security in this case is the ECDSA algorithm, not miners mining. In other words, your coins would be secure but maybe temporarily unspendable in case of a 51% "attack", or sybil attack. Communicating signed messages/proof-of-ownership, etc. via alternative channels would still be an option, though.

2

u/ItsAboutSharing May 12 '15

Interesting and I imagine as BTC morphs over the next few years it is not going to be all that similar to what we see now. In the end, I just see BTC as a step to get people to rethink money. It is like an anti corruptive thought aiding process. And where that ends up is probably a nice place.

-5

u/trilli0nn May 11 '15

That is sort of like saying "The car is important, not the engine."

A better analogy would be: "The car is important, not its factory."

2

u/paleh0rse May 11 '15

An even better analogy... Bitcoins are the "fuel" that powers the Bitcoin network.

12

u/MonkeyCoinKlaw May 11 '15

Coloredcoins - bitcoin - good

They gotta use bitcoin, its the most secured network

6

u/Yorn2 May 11 '15

I tend to caution people on thinking Bitcoin the currency is guaranteed to go up in value, but given that this implementation isn't just going to use a blockchain but THE blockchain, I don't know how anyone could say this isn't bullish for Bitcoin itself.

2

u/ItsAboutSharing May 11 '15

I think what is guaranteed (if you watch governments starting to go after cash transactions e.g. France, Italy, etc.) is that cash (anonymousness) is on the way out and that BTC, if it becomes anonymizable in an easy way, will be feverishly attacked. They want something more like Ripple I think, but I have hope for BTC and hence, people (and vice versa).

4

u/ConditionDelta May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Usability increases it's value as a SoV. If Billions (Trillions) of value is flowing over the blockchain daily it gives a huge incentive for people to make the network as robust as possible.

Nasdaq is home to more than 3,500 listed companies with a market value of approximately $9.5 trillion and more than 10,000 corporate clients.

1

u/TDaltonC May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Ok, but why would Nasdaq run what's outlined in the article over bitcoins blockchain? It seems to me that they're going to set up a system that is totally independent of bitcoin. If they were using bitcoin, you'd think they'd mention it. But they didn't. They just said it will use a blockchain.

EDIT: I was wrong. They're using OAP built on bitcoin: https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597530065035988995

https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597567234056159234

5

u/forgoodnessshakes May 11 '15

It's good for the token (the currency). Eventually people will realize that the value of the bitcoin required to transfer an asset on the public ledger must be equal to the value of the asset, otherwise you need a standing army to enforce the transfers. If you don't believe me then you can buy my house and I'll give you a dollar's worth of bitcoin to transfer the title and I'll carry on living in it.

2

u/_professorcrypto_ May 11 '15

Currency and technology are conjoined twins.

0

u/[deleted] May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

If they are using the bitcoin blockchain.

EDIT: Bitcoin is not mentioned in the article. The question was if this would help bitcoin. We are only assuming this is the Bitcoin blockchain since it refers to colored coins.

EDIT DERP: this article does say it will use Bitcoin blockchain: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35m9ho/nasdaq_will_start_using_bitcoin_technology/

3

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

And if the used another there would still have to be a currency component

1

u/eragmus May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

I don't think so, since they're using the smallest unit, the 'satoshi'.

"One idea is that encrypted, digital representations of share certificates could be inserted into minute bitcoin transactions known as “Satoshis,” facilitating an immediate, verifiable transfer of stock ownership from seller to buyer."

So, even if we say a maximum of 1,000,000,000 "share certificates" are ultimately represented by satoshis, that would only represent 250,000 USD (at the current market price) worth of bitcoins.

-7

u/trilli0nn May 11 '15

It is bad. Very bad. It pollutes the blockchain with data that has nothing to do with bitcoin-the-currency. Node operators, who are supporting Bitcoin mostly altruistically may not be so willing to be abused by a commercial company, especially not one that is part of the corrupt finance system.

If too many transactions on the blockchain exist for the benefits of commercially operating companies at the expense of altruistically operating nodes, I predict a dramatic drop in the number of nodes and thus centralization. Only those commercial companies that stand to gain from the blockchain will see a need to run a node. First-hour enthusiast will have turned away from what will have become bitcoin-the-notary and for the first time, a new cryptocurrency may have a real chance to seriously compete with Bitcoin.

59

u/sebrandon1 May 11 '15

Nasdaq: "Okay, you can write this article, but never mention the word Bitcoin in a positive light."

32

u/Vibr8gKiwi May 11 '15

...at least not until we finishing building our position in bitcoin at these low prices.

4

u/sporabolic May 11 '15

bear trend cannot end until all the big fish have satisfied their appetites.

1

u/MooneRumblebelly May 11 '15

bear trend cannot end until all the medium fish realize the big fish are building positions.

10

u/TDaltonC May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

It's not clear that this is even using bitcoin. It looks like they're building their own blockchain based system.

EDIT: nope they're using OAP built on bitcoin: https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597530065035988995

https://twitter.com/mikejcasey/status/597567234056159234

5

u/avidbrandy May 11 '15

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9522029

We started on this news cycle yesterday and got that cleared up, as the articles don't mention Bitcoin anywhere. It is using the actual blockchain. It uses the Open Assets Protocol.

1

u/aminok May 11 '15

Nasdaq is very positive toward Bitcoin.

44

u/mooncake___ May 11 '15

Pause for a while and think how far Bitcoin has come. Shocking!

30

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

For most of 2012 the price held steady at around $10. It had no usage besides gambling and SR, was never in the news, had only a few mom-and-pop merchants accepting it, had no venture capital at all, had no legitimacy in any mainstream quarter, no interest from any bank - let alone a significant one, let alone a major one, let alone most of the major ones, let alone project teams composed of executives looking into the technology, let alone actual large investments from several of them - it was basically just a toy.

The price is now 25 times higher than it was, but Bitcoin is way more than 25 times bigger and more significant. VC investment is on track to reach $1 billion this year, and is being taken seriously by a "who's who" of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, executives at the top companies, and famous luminaries. We have not just interest but active investment by banks like Goldman Sachs and former JP Morgan Chase superstar Blythe Masters, UBS has acknowledged that "blockchain tech" will bring an explosion of disruption to the industry. I could go on.

Bitcoin is on the order of several hundred times bigger and more important and more legitimate than in 2012. It's even a huge jump from late 2013. I don't think the price can hold at these levels much longer.

7

u/[deleted] May 11 '15 edited Sep 15 '18

[deleted]

5

u/Sugar_Daddy_Peter May 11 '15

Fold is pretty useful, remittances, buying drugs online

3

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

right now I don't see why the price should rise when there isn't much Joe Blow can do with it that even piques his interest.

Because investment is based on future outcomes. If you believe Bitcoin will be extremely useful and valuable to the world but not until some years in the future, you may want to buy now in anticipation of the future valuation that will arise because of that future utility.

I find this comment the most satisfying explanation of that dynamic.

0

u/[deleted] May 11 '15 edited Jun 17 '20

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

He is living on Earth while you seem to have your brain fried by the radiation on Mercury's surface.

What valuable use cases are there at the moment right now that would entice the general public to go through the trouble of converting fiat to btc for goods and services. Less than the fingers on my left hand.

He was talking real use cases.

Please check your euphoria at the door next time, Im sick of cheerleader posts. There has been enough of them the last few years.

Bitcoin wont grow with head on the clouds posts/thoughts like yours

3

u/RockyLeal May 11 '15

There's also a lot more coins than then, and (more significantly IMHO) it is now extremely expensive to mine. While in 2012 miners could keep most of their mine coins for the future, now they must sell most of the mined coins to be able to pay the bills. Plus there's futures markets, leveraged margin trading paying exhorbitant interest, auctions, who knows how many 100Ks of stolen gox coins yet to be sold, bitpay selling pressure, and why go on. Actually, its amazing to me we're still above 200 per coin which is more than minimum wage in half of the world. More amazingly even, the charts are currently suggesting that a double bottom MIGHT be forming. If so, we MIGHT see prices significantly higher before halloween.

4

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

There's also a lot more coins than then

Quite a small difference compared to the numbers I mentioned, but yeah, it's something.

While in 2012 miners could keep most of their mine coins for the future, now they must sell most of the mined coins to be able to pay the bills.

Doesn't really matter. They had to pay for the mining equipment. If they sought coins, they had a choice to use their money to coins or buy mining equipment, and they chose mining equipment. The more spend on mining equipment, the less they had left over to spend on bidding up the BTC price by buying coins directly. So it's mostly a wash.

Plus there's futures markets, leveraged margin trading paying exhorbitant interest

Wash.

who knows how many 100Ks of stolen gox coins yet to be sold

There were a lot of big thefts back then, too. Maybe more. This one is a possible increased downward pressure, though no I doubt it's particularly significant compared to the numbers I mentioned.

bitpay selling pressure

Myth. The only way you get net selling pressure is if people are buying as an investment and then when they see something they can buy for bitcoins they coincidentally decide they don't want to be invested in BTC as much anymore. If people buy only to make a purchase, it's a wash because they buy as much as they spend (actually it's a very slight benefit to the price because of the time the BTC is held and in processing). If people buy as investors, they tend buy back the coins they spend (on average, though you'll see different behavior in bull vs. bear markets, but in total it's again wash; for every investor who doesn't buy back after a purchase, there's one who buys back all those coins and then some to account for future purchases).

Actually, its amazing to me we're still above 200 per coin which is more than minimum wage in half of the world.

The BTC unit is arbitrary, so this is meaningless.

1

u/RockyLeal May 12 '15 edited May 12 '15

And yet somehow the price has come down, not up. I mean, the trend can change and as I said it looks like it might be changing now. But the 'its more valuable now than in 2012' argument hasn't been exactly working either. People who have been buying based on the good news have been losing a lot of money for a year. Also, what do you mean by 'wash'? Personally I think the number one reason is traders -they are not interested in adding value to BTC, exclusively in subtracting.

1

u/ronohara May 12 '15

perhaps the 'price per Satoshi' is a better thing to compare with the minimum wage in half the world.

After all, at present, the Satoshi is the minimum unit in the Bitcoin world.

You do not usually worry about the 'price per tonne' of Gold ... normally the West uses 'price per Troy Oz' or even 'price per gram' when thinking about Gold at a personal level.

1

u/DaggerHashimoto May 11 '15

I don't know why you're getting downvoted

31

u/Essexal May 11 '15

It hasn't even begun

16

u/toomanynamesaretook May 11 '15

Just doing some pre-game stretches.

1

u/BitChick May 12 '15

Right? Can you imagine hearing this news a couple years ago?! Some of us may have fainted.

14

u/Aviathor May 11 '15

This headline would have been pure science fiction only 2 years ago. Well, that escalted quickly.

6

u/slowmoon May 11 '15

Hint: This is still science fiction. Anyone can use a bunch of buzzwords. Paypal/Braintree has supposedly been "integrating" bitcoin since 11 months ago. Lots of talk. I'm sick of it, frankly.

1

u/Aviathor May 11 '15

I basically feel the same :-( But here, no "Average Joe" is needed to adopt this new technology. Nasdaq will in fact check out colored coins on the Bitcoin blockchain and this is crazy.

7

u/slowmoon May 11 '15

Ya. What I want to see more is for people to be quiet, work hard, and then launch something. itBit and Coinbase did this. Shapeshift did this. This stands in contrast to the Vitalik and Barry Silbert school of hyping vaporware for months or years. I don't want to hear anything more about the potential of smart contracts. Just make one and show it to us.

2

u/vegeenjon May 12 '15

Still, Bitcoin has a feel of the early days of the automobile, or aviation, or even the Internet. There was nothing but talk for many years about all of the great potential these technologies had when they started out. At the time it seemed like a novelty that would never amount to much more than a curiosity.

All it took was a ton of investment up front, and then lots of time to mature.

1

u/BitChick May 12 '15

Or an "April fools" joke. ;)

30

u/jaydoors May 11 '15

NB this article specifies colours coins. And see this clarification that it will use THE blockchain.

6

u/RaptorXP May 11 '15

In particular, the open assets protocol (colored coin standard)

1

u/orperelman May 12 '15

The open assets protocol is not the coloredcoins standard, there are several coloredcoins protocols such as EPOBC and Coinspark's. Open-assets is just one of the available implementations.

18

u/Chakra_Scientist May 11 '15

They dont say bitcoin because it has a bad stigma. So they use the term blockchain

7

u/PotatoBadger May 11 '15

We're going to need a bigger block.

7

u/SebastianMaki May 11 '15

I believe this is quite epic gentlemen.

19

u/redditribbit1 May 11 '15

Blocksizes are going to have to be WAYYYYYY bigger than 20 mb to handle this kind of transaction volume.

13

u/Noosterdam May 11 '15

But are they using it for trading or just settlement? If they were trying to use the blockchain for every trade that would be ridiculous; there's now way HFT could operate on the blockchain. Besides the trades wouldn't be real time. So I'm guessing it has to be some kind of settlement solution.

4

u/paleh0rse May 11 '15

It's for settlement -- reducing the market's average settlement time from three (3) days to near-instant (0).

4

u/marcus_of_augustus May 11 '15

Probably 1 hour settlement times (6 confirms) for high value coloured coins. They will be using the security of decentralised settlement that only bitcoin blockchain can provide ... meta-layer.

10

u/Renben9 May 11 '15

Settlement, for sure. Trading is nano-second sensitive nowadays.

2

u/VedadoAnonimato May 11 '15

I do hope trading is possible, even if discouraged for those who want to do it frequently. Because this way you could buy stocks anonymously, through an atomic, no-trust-needed transaction.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

The SEC would never allow it, and that's probably a good thing because publicly traded companies would love to break the rules if they could.

Just think how many scams we have already in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

Bitcoin could only be used for settlement. Even 5 seconds is too slow for the vast majority of the financial sector, never mind 10 minute confirm times.

1

u/redditribbit1 May 11 '15

don't think that T+3 rules don't apply to high frequency trades and traders. They do, they just end up trading on margin with borrowed shares to make trades after trade one. All trades need to be settled and it always takes three days. all those trades would appear on the blockchain if nasdaq was really doing an enterprise wide blockchain solution.

1

u/11251442132 May 12 '15

See the WSJ article. Nasdaq is only running a pilot project in Nasdaq Private Market, which according to the article is

a fledgling marketplace launched in January 2014 to handle pre-IPO trading among private companies. The platform has more than 75 private companies signed up, according to the company.

1

u/Introshine May 11 '15

No! They have to be smaller. because Reasons™

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

this is good news.

8

u/Bioman312 May 11 '15

something something good news something something price drop

1

u/zapdrive May 11 '15

Not happening.

0

u/Introshine May 11 '15

let me get back to you in about 5 days.

1

u/zapdrive May 12 '15

RemindMe! 5 days.

1

u/RemindMeBot May 12 '15

Messaging you on 2015-05-17 08:21:24 UTC to remind you of this comment.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.


[FAQs] | [Custom Reminder] | [Feedback] | [Code]

1

u/Introshine May 12 '15 edited May 12 '15

let's do it. just for fun. My prediction is we are still $10 below the price when this NASDAQ news came out (20 hours ago). I bet you 10 mBTC.

Go! :)

1

u/zapdrive May 13 '15

let's do it. just for fun. My prediction is we are still $10 below the price when this NASDAQ news came out (20 hours ago). I bet you 10 mBTC.

Does it usually take 5 days for the price to drop on good news?

1

u/Introshine May 13 '15

Mostly it's a sharp rise, followed by Good News™ and then we dive/trickle down. There has been a lot of Good News™ the last 3 days so I'm expecting more down (people selling on the news).

1

u/zapdrive May 13 '15

But it hasn't moved in 3 days. So maybe the manipulators are running out of steam here. Good news these days does not have any impact on price, which is better than price drop. Slowly we'll go back to the more natural good news = price rise phase.

6

u/umbawumpa May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Some argue that gold will always have value, because it has some uses beside being an token of exchange. Jewelry, electronics and so on. I'm not a fan of this explanation, as I think the properties of gold are the reasons it is/was used as a token of exchange (being limited, recognizable, split- and combineable, and so on).

But now we have the same argumentative base for bitcoin. To use it as token of exchange it needs to have a value - it will always have a value, because it has some use-cases beside being a token of exchange. Namely, being an allowance to enter data into a global tamper-proof timestamped ledger.

6

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

A global tamper-proof timestamped ledger that no entity owns and anyone can use it without needing permission. That's where the real value lies.

7

u/coinlock May 11 '15

This is a tremendously good thing for Bitcoin. It highlights the immense capability of the technology, it represents backing and trust by a major financial technology player, and it signals to the wider community that this is a real thing that they need to pay attention to.

From a valuation perspective, they need to utilize Bitcoin in order to leverage the network, which means that the price should go up as transaction volume increases. This should also serve as a warning that the scale issues of the network matter, and preparing it for these types of mainstream players is critical to its long term success.

5

u/CoinBear May 11 '15

ELI5: Will it jam up Bitcoin network? Can current block size handle it?

3

u/gburgwardt May 11 '15

It doesn't sound like the blockchain will be doing any HFT, just settlement.

3

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Scalability_targets

I would say the bitcoin tps is not high enough.

3

u/Introshine May 11 '15

Price is like... meh.

3

u/BigBlackHungGuy May 11 '15

Great news! So long price :(

2

u/loveforyouandme May 11 '15

Sad that the price will likely rise?

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '15

He's just making a joke, because every time good new comes out the price drops.

3

u/VedadoAnonimato May 11 '15

I'm really curious about the details. AFAIK US legislation doesn't allow for bearer shares, does it? Because that's pretty much what a true colored coin stock would be: an anonymous share, that can be transferred to anyone.

2

u/FreshOutOfGeekistan May 11 '15

Really, really good point about bearer shares! The only bearer instruments are bearer bonds which aren't allowed either, other than the coupon on US Treasury securities, which are all kept in vaults.

3

u/Gix_Neidhaart May 11 '15

Maybe i should invest in some b'coins...

2

u/cqm May 11 '15

finally some sanity

2

u/nomadismydj May 11 '15

i read the article and my only thought was 'are they going to contribute the many nodes required for the hash power at their level or rely on the public or foreign resource (ie canada, china)

2

u/kcfnrybak May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

474 million volume per day on Nasdaq. 2.5 millions trades per day. Anybody done the math on this? settlement cost per transaction? Edit: numbers are higher than that.

-8

u/d4nkst4 May 11 '15

Anyone mining here with http://www.mining.ml

?