4 ms·

> Nobody who knows anything about anything made any kinds of plans involving $20,000 Bitcoin. Except for Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays (see h

> Nobody who knows anything about anything made any kinds of plans involving $20,000 Bitcoin. Except for Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-street-quietly-shelves-its-bitcoin-dreams https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre...)...

pesmhey 8y ago
What stops GS from replacing their fee-based offerings with a blockchain solution? Could this really be as obvious in hindsight as looking at Sears in the 90s not developing an online catalog?
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  How does a blockchain solution solve Goldman Sachs' business problems better, or with less resources, than existing solutions?
- raverbashing 8y ago
  You mean a solution that has solved exactly 0% of the problems where it was applied to? https://bitcoinist.com/blockchain-study-zero-percent-success/ https://bitcoinist.com/blockchain-study-zero-percent-success...
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > What stops GS from replacing their fee-based offerings with a blockchain solution? What does that sentence even mean? To me this is right up there with "I'll create a GUI interface with Visual Basic and see if I can track an IP address."
  - pesmhey 8y ago
    It literally means what the words say. What stops Goldman Sachs from replacing whatever mechanism they use to process payments with some coin. I would gladly accept the answer ‘because it doesn’t make sense’. Didn’t realize I’d get so much heat for this though.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  What would block chain do for Goldman that a SQL database couldn't?
  - pesmhey 8y ago
    I’m literally not sure, hence the question. I don’t know much about blockchain other than its sort of an answer to the Byzantine generals problem? It was a legit question.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      My belief is: nothing. For one thing, there is no solution to the Byzantine generals problem, this has been proven mathematically. Cryptocurrencies sidestep it by saying "whoever is the luckiest (aka 'owns more GPUs') gets to decide the truth". Traditional banks handle the problem by not having Byzantine generals: there is one and only one trusted authority who is compelled by law to keep clean and clear books. If a bank has a Byzantine problem that needs solving, they've already done something illegal.
nck4222 8y ago
That article really does not support your point at all... >Squeamish from the start about pursuing profits in one of the darker corners of finance, established firms this year slowed their already halting efforts to make a business out of Bitcoin mania. So they were slow from the start, and are slowing their already slow efforts. >“The market had unrealistic expectations that Goldman or any of its peers could suddenly start a Bitcoin trading business,” said Daniel H. Gallancy, chief executive officer of New York-based SolidX Partners, which hopes to launch a Bitcoin ETF in the U.S. "That was top-of-the-market-hype thinking." So the market (not banks or other insiders) had unrealistic expectations of traditional institutions. >With regulators offering little clear guidance on how they will classify the broad universe of tokens—as commodities, securities or something else—banks and investment firms are treading cautiously. Banks continue to wait for regulations and guidance before committing fully.
Cobord 8y ago
I think OP is saying they don't know anything about anything. Which has a point, they claim to know what they are doing, but just have such large capital that there is no way for them to fail even if they did everything wrong. So you can't use success as a barometer for knowing anything.
wolco 8y ago
They are part of the getting in late group and the lower valuations are most probably signs they are leaving the market. I remember when the price started to increase I didn't think 4,000 would hold. 2500 seemed like the correct price. The fact that it hasn't fallen below that amount means there are more investors. Personally I was using it to purchase goods before the runup and the slowness and increased fees made me move to another form of payment. I'm considering going back now that the price[is dropping
- DenisM 8y ago
  > I didn't think 4,000 would hold. 2500 seemed like the correct price How did you arrive at the 2500 figure? Is there some sort of fundamental analysis that could be done, or was it all technical?
  - tim333 8y ago
    Not sure how he got 2500 but there's a long term log graph here and if history repeats you might expect the low to be about 2500 to 1500 and occur about 6 months to a year from now https://cryptoslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/chart.png https://cryptoslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/chart.png
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
aphextron 8y ago
>Except for Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre...)... See: bandwagon shirt-losers of 2017 Bitcoin was the largest, fastest, most successful transfer of institutional wealth into private hands we've ever seen.

pesmhey 8y ago

What stops GS from replacing their fee-based offerings with a blockchain solution? Could this really be as obvious in hindsight as looking at Sears in the 90s not developing an online catalog?

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
How does a blockchain solution solve Goldman Sachs' business problems better, or with less resources, than existing solutions?
raverbashing 8y ago
You mean a solution that has solved exactly 0% of the problems where it was applied to? https://bitcoinist.com/blockchain-study-zero-percent-success/ https://bitcoinist.com/blockchain-study-zero-percent-success...
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> What stops GS from replacing their fee-based offerings with a blockchain solution? What does that sentence even mean? To me this is right up there with "I'll create a GUI interface with Visual Basic and see if I can track an IP address."
- pesmhey 8y ago
  It literally means what the words say. What stops Goldman Sachs from replacing whatever mechanism they use to process payments with some coin. I would gladly accept the answer ‘because it doesn’t make sense’. Didn’t realize I’d get so much heat for this though.
hannasanarion 8y ago
What would block chain do for Goldman that a SQL database couldn't?
- pesmhey 8y ago
  I’m literally not sure, hence the question. I don’t know much about blockchain other than its sort of an answer to the Byzantine generals problem? It was a legit question.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    My belief is: nothing. For one thing, there is no solution to the Byzantine generals problem, this has been proven mathematically. Cryptocurrencies sidestep it by saying "whoever is the luckiest (aka 'owns more GPUs') gets to decide the truth". Traditional banks handle the problem by not having Byzantine generals: there is one and only one trusted authority who is compelled by law to keep clean and clear books. If a bank has a Byzantine problem that needs solving, they've already done something illegal.

nck4222 8y ago

That article really does not support your point at all... >Squeamish from the start about pursuing profits in one of the darker corners of finance, established firms this year slowed their already halting efforts to make a business out of Bitcoin mania. So they were slow from the start, and are slowing their already slow efforts. >“The market had unrealistic expectations that Goldman or any of its peers could suddenly start a Bitcoin trading business,” said Daniel H. Gallancy, chief executive officer of New York-based SolidX Partners, which hopes to launch a Bitcoin ETF in the U.S. "That was top-of-the-market-hype thinking." So the market (not banks or other insiders) had unrealistic expectations of traditional institutions. >With regulators offering little clear guidance on how they will classify the broad universe of tokens—as commodities, securities or something else—banks and investment firms are treading cautiously. Banks continue to wait for regulations and guidance before committing fully.

Cobord 8y ago

I think OP is saying they don't know anything about anything. Which has a point, they claim to know what they are doing, but just have such large capital that there is no way for them to fail even if they did everything wrong. So you can't use success as a barometer for knowing anything.

wolco 8y ago

They are part of the getting in late group and the lower valuations are most probably signs they are leaving the market. I remember when the price started to increase I didn't think 4,000 would hold. 2500 seemed like the correct price. The fact that it hasn't fallen below that amount means there are more investors. Personally I was using it to purchase goods before the runup and the slowness and increased fees made me move to another form of payment. I'm considering going back now that the price[is dropping

DenisM 8y ago
> I didn't think 4,000 would hold. 2500 seemed like the correct price How did you arrive at the 2500 figure? Is there some sort of fundamental analysis that could be done, or was it all technical?
- tim333 8y ago
  Not sure how he got 2500 but there's a long term log graph here and if history repeats you might expect the low to be about 2500 to 1500 and occur about 6 months to a year from now https://cryptoslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/chart.png https://cryptoslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/chart.png
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

aphextron 8y ago

>Except for Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Barclays (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/wall-stre...)... See: bandwagon shirt-losers of 2017 Bitcoin was the largest, fastest, most successful transfer of institutional wealth into private hands we've ever seen.