4 ms·

It shouldn't cost anything to invest in the markets. The markets should be nearly frictionless, with no fixed costs for making an investment, making it possible

It shouldn't cost anything to invest in the markets. The markets should be nearly frictionless, with no fixed costs for making an investment, making it possible to invest $2.50 at your local convenience store in a company or product that you like, the same way the poor buy lottery tickets in mass (currently 9% of the income of the poorest households is spent on lottery tickets).

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> It shouldn't cost anything to invest in the markets. Hyperbole. It costs something to maintain the infrastructure (data centers in NY, NJ, and IL) to execute and settle trades. We're just arguing over how much.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  It should cost almost nothing. It's an information technology, as cryptocurrency is demonstrating. The cost per transaction should be extremely low. That it isn't is a result of regulatory overhead.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption > Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh) 53.47 > Bitcoin's current minimum annual electricity consumption (TWh) 40.67 > Annualized estimated global mining costs $2,673,731,206 Just for the power.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      That's a result of the mining subsidy, that is there to provide security until transaction fees are sufficiently large to secure the network. Actual energy consumption for a network of a few thousand computers to propagate and validate a transaction is minimal: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482 https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482 Without the mining subsidy, and without an artificial 1 MB per 10 minute throughput limit creating scarcity in block space, fees would be extraordinarily low. Also, Ethereum and other blockchains are-moving/have-already-moved to Proof of Stake, which eliminates all of the additional energy consumption that comes from generating proof of work.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- elamje 8y ago
  It costs something, yes. I think Vangaurd demonstrates how efficiently the whole system could run. Investors own the infrastructure, co-op style; Executives running the exchanges could be more like Jack Bogle than Ken Griffin. Both were effectively IT executives doing finance and connecting buyers and sellers. One took a tiny salary, one is worth 9 billion. Of course market making is slightly different but is a middle man just like an exchange. Now that crypto exists, there are many blockchains that are federated and require a fraction of energy as bitcoin and are working very securely. Bitcoin is an exception to energy required and therefor not indicative of the real cost.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I agree entirely with your Vanguard/Bogle example.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> It shouldn't cost anything to invest in the markets. Hyperbole. It costs something to maintain the infrastructure (data centers in NY, NJ, and IL) to execute and settle trades. We're just arguing over how much.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
It should cost almost nothing. It's an information technology, as cryptocurrency is demonstrating. The cost per transaction should be extremely low. That it isn't is a result of regulatory overhead.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption > Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh) 53.47 > Bitcoin's current minimum annual electricity consumption (TWh) 40.67 > Annualized estimated global mining costs $2,673,731,206 Just for the power.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    That's a result of the mining subsidy, that is there to provide security until transaction fees are sufficiently large to secure the network. Actual energy consumption for a network of a few thousand computers to propagate and validate a transaction is minimal: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482 https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482 Without the mining subsidy, and without an artificial 1 MB per 10 minute throughput limit creating scarcity in block space, fees would be extraordinarily low. Also, Ethereum and other blockchains are-moving/have-already-moved to Proof of Stake, which eliminates all of the additional energy consumption that comes from generating proof of work.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
elamje 8y ago
It costs something, yes. I think Vangaurd demonstrates how efficiently the whole system could run. Investors own the infrastructure, co-op style; Executives running the exchanges could be more like Jack Bogle than Ken Griffin. Both were effectively IT executives doing finance and connecting buyers and sellers. One took a tiny salary, one is worth 9 billion. Of course market making is slightly different but is a middle man just like an exchange. Now that crypto exists, there are many blockchains that are federated and require a fraction of energy as bitcoin and are working very securely. Bitcoin is an exception to energy required and therefor not indicative of the real cost.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I agree entirely with your Vanguard/Bogle example.