14 ms·

Coinbase to Suspend Trading in XRP

129 points by mamby 6y ago

kylebenzle 6y ago
They never should have allowed it in the first place. By testing the waters of trading custodial currencies they were really pushing the limits. BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back. The only interesting cryptocurrencies are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Monero. The rest are either obvious scams or dead ends at this point. A lot of people were holding out hope for decentalized storage projects like FileCoin but that project now seems to be dead in the water as well.
- 37ef_ced3 6y ago
  The above shouldn't be downvoted. It's an interesting statement What do you think of the Lightning Network? Lightning Network channels specify a blockchain hash, so Bitcoin is supported but other cryptocurrencies could be used (if the HTLC scripts, etc., were ported) The Lightning Network web of payment channels looks good to me. You can see how it can form an efficient "overlay" on any cryptocurrency that provides sufficient scripting power: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Lightning is not reliable the way Bitcoin is, and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead. but https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... and https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network
      - etrabroline 6y ago
        > In 2021 So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... > https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network Ok. What can I actually buy with it? There's tons of venture capital going into this project and no commerce happening. Bitcoin had more real commerce 5 years ago than BTC and Lightning combined do today.
        gruez 6y ago
        >So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. I don't get it. A major cryptocurrency exchange says they're planning to adopt it, and that doesn't count as "real-world adoption"? I guess that's true if your original statement read as "not seen any real-world adoption ...[today]" but it certainly doesn't follow that it's dead. >Ok. What can I actually buy with it? One of the merchants I've made multiple purchases on uses coingate for payments so that's something for me, at least. That said I'll admit that I haven't used lightning yet because I'm quite happy with the status quo of waiting for a lull in transaction volume so I can pay pennies per transaction (my payments aren't usually urgent). Going through the hassle setting up a lightning node isn't worth saving a few pennies each month in my opinion. >Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? To be fair, bitcoin was launched in 2009 and it took until 2016 for steam to accept it. How many years has lightning been around? Also, while looking up when steam first accepted bitcoin I also found https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289 https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289, which answers your second question.
        aeternum 6y ago
        You could buy Steam games years ago because Bitcoin volume was low. Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
  - splintercell 6y ago
    I find LN's UX really painful. Ethereum's layer 2 solutions are far ahead in terms of user experience. The other day I had to settle an election bet, and either I settle it in stablecoin on high tx fees of ETH/BTC or try explaining one of the layer-2 solutions. And no, I can't pay them in USDT on bch because that requires them to get a new wallet. Raiden network which is Ethereum's LN like solution, faces the same problem. Whatever bitcoin folks envision, they will never get LN bitcoins to have the same network effect as bitcoin itself.
    - nullc 6y ago
      > I find LN's UX really painful. What did you find painful, and which wallet(s)?
- logicslave 6y ago
  I thought filecoin had a successful launch?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc8-41cf-81cf-563f6cebb2c4.html https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc...
    - logicslave 6y ago
      Yeah but they successfully ICO'd since then and the market cap has held its value
- briefcomment 6y ago
  > “BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back” Could you spell out the implications of this?
  - est31 6y ago
    I don't think there are any major implications. The point of blockchain currencies is to be decentralized so hacking a random github repo shouldn't have major implications. It's not even the only bitcoin node implementation out there at this point.
    - etrabroline 6y ago
      Before wall street involvement there was a single fork of Bitcoin that was a viable currency with low transaction fees. After Wall Street involvement there are at least 3 forks, the biggest of which had fees spiking at 60 USD per transaction making it nonviable for anything but speculators, and the others having very low adoption. The protocol was decentralized but enough of the community that controlled it was bought out to bring it down. EDIT: calling something a lie does not make it so. also, what on earth is hateful here
      - nullc 6y ago
        This is a hateful lie.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        Not it isn't, it's just information you don't want people to see.
      - grubles 6y ago
        Unused blockchains have no / low transaction fees. >When people started using Bitcoin, fees went up! That's how it is supposed to work.
        6y ago
- gnrl 6y ago
  I don't see any additional value of bcash over bitcoin. Eth and Monero I agree though, each of them bring fundamental values additionally to btc.
  - spurgu 6y ago
    The argument as far as I'm aware is that it's like Bitcoin, except with transaction fees low enough to make it actually usable as a currency as opposed to being a pure store of value.
    - haolez 6y ago
      It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. This was hinted by Satoshi as well, but was made impossible by the current BTC.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. Can you elaborate on this? I did a quick search and the gist of it seems to be that BCH doesn't support replace by fee and bitcoin does, so therefore it's possible to "safely" accept 0 confirmation transactions on BCH because you can reasonably believe that it won't be double-spent before it gets its first confirmation. The only problem I can think of is that there's nothing preventing the attacker (the person making the purchase) from bribing a miner to mine his double spend transaction. Indeed, even without RPF there are "transaction accelerators"[1] that allow you make out of band payments to miners to increase your transaction's priority. It's not too hard to imagine a service where you can pay $$$ for a miner to mine your double-spend transaction. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator
        pstrateman 6y ago
        He's extremely confused. The bcash people argued that replace-by-fee (RBF) functionality made unconfirmed transactions unsafe to accept. Except as you can tell from the name, unconfirmed transactions are not safe to accept RBF or not.
- traceddd 6y ago
  It says more about bcash than bitcoin that it’s supporters feel the need to push a (false) narrative anywhere they can.
- seibelj 6y ago
  This is clearly FUD pushed by bitcoin cash supporters. I’m coin-agnostic and don’t get into these fights but bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    >bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do Bitcoin was designed to allow low-fee small amount internet commerce. From the first paragraph of Satoshi's white paper: >The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions [emphasis added] This is clearly no longer the case with the BTC fork of Bitcoin: https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ Therefore BTC is not doing what it was designed to do.
  - lhl 6y ago
    Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - “The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.” https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Average transaction fees are frequently $5-10 these days, which completely invalidates the original proposed use case for a system that would enable “small casual transactions.” https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Since transactions will only increase in price as demand grows (and the tx limit has been effectively capped for years), I don’t see Bitcoin ever improving in this regard. Bitcoin may be successful as a speculative asset and for other purposes, but as “peer-to-peer electronic cash” it’s a failure.
- grubles 6y ago
  Just to note: the "Bitcoin was hijacked by <corp>" is a running joke at this point and not to be taken seriously. Ask anyone to provide verifiable proof of this and they will respond with hyperbole or conspiracy theory.
  - FreeTrade 6y ago
    I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods. I dont think they can be dismissed with ad hominems.
    - nullc 6y ago
      > I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods I've carefully reviewed each post in the thread and cannot find that. Instead, I see a couple vague and clearly false allegations which are unambiguously debunked. What specifically are you referring to? For the avoidance of confusion, the anonymous maintainer of "Bitcoin Cash" (a deceptively named Bitcoin clone) is named "Freetrader". Are you they?
      - FreeTrade 6y ago
        No, different guy.
- kallewoof 6y ago
  The Blockstream hijack lie is getting really old. And it doesn't age well either. Both gmax and pieter are not even in it anymore. Blockstream's contributions (what you consider 'hijacking') to Bitcoin are pretty slim at this point. Which is a pity, honestly. Blockstream was a good force for bitcoin, despite the continuous stream of baseless lies coming from you people. Gmax made a much better summary of why your statements are all baseless babbling below...
gotem 6y ago
Wow. Does Coinbase plan to launch their coin and feel threatened? Seems like a anti-competitive move if so and weird timing with the IPO.
- mariocesar 6y ago
  > Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase Inc said on Monday it would suspend trading in cryptocurrency XRP after U.S. regulators last week charged associated blockchain firm Ripple with conducting a $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering. It reads to be a good reason to suspend XRP trading
  - gotem 6y ago
    Sorry, missed that somehow. Still seems oddly suspicious that it coincides with Coinbase's IPO.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      That they stopped trading a literal scam? The only suspicious part is they started trading it in the first place.
    - mariocesar 6y ago
      They are protecting themselves to Not being complicit, or better not to look complicit to the SEC.
      - gotem 6y ago
        Oh okay. That makes more sense. Still a bit weird that it's out of a sense of self preservation instead of caring that it was potentially immoral in the first place.
        Kalium 6y ago
        This is the kind of thing a company does when something becomes a financial and legal liability.
ars 6y ago
Price chart: https://www.coindesk.com/price/xrp https://www.coindesk.com/price/xrp down about 18%.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Down about 60% in a week.
revel 6y ago
Terrible news for XRP and Ripple but nobody can be surprised by this. Next up we may see the delisting of some stable coins given the SEC's advice about establishing a nexus in the US. I'm not sure how this will work for a decentralized coin like maker / dai, so perhaps this is the end for them. However, this seems consistent with other regulation since they operate like an autonomous fx swap fund.
- academi 6y ago
  I’m surprised, because I don’t see how it contributes to the market.
  - revel 6y ago
    This provides clarity on what constitutes a security. The SEC have been telegraphing this move for several years, ever since the crackdowns on ICOs and STOs. Bitstamp said they would delist XRP several days ago so coinbase are hardly unique in their response to the SEC's announcement.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Bitstamp isnt delisting XRP. Just halting XRP trading for US customers. https://www.bitstamp.net/news/ https://www.bitstamp.net/news/
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- jMyles 6y ago
  There can be no doubt that a mathematic - rather than collateralized - solution to stablecoins is the nonviolent solution.
  - pjkundert 6y ago
    How about both collateralized and mathematical? If the platform supports programmatic proportional issuance and withdrawal (vs. mint and burn), vs. market-priced collateral, then negative-feedback loop controlled inflation/deflation can be implemented...
SlipperySlope 6y ago
Back in 2015 FinCEN (US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) issued guidance that an administrator of a digital virtual currency had to be a Money Services Business and file Suspicious Activity Reports, perform Know Your Customer and comply with Anti-Money Laundering regulations. So Ripple filed and became an MSB in the 50 US States. So far so good. But Crypto is more than a payment method. Obviously it is purchased in hopes of capital appreciation and that makes it a Security. Accordingly, Ripple should have filed a S-1 security disclosure application with the SEC BEFORE issuing XRP. Failure to register XRP as a security should lead to big fines. So why does the US SEC leave Bitcoin and Ethereum alone? Because there is no central administrator that issues and redeems the tokens. Ideally, crypto tokens should file with the US SEC and their exchanges should be MSBs - like Coinbase. Meanwhile Coinbase is pursuing becoming a dealer in registered securities because crypto tokens are both payment tokens and securities. In addition to filing suspicious activity reports to FinCEN, Coinbase will file insider trading reports to the SEC. Fully regulated Crypto is not a bad thing - unless you are an anarchist or criminal. Fully regulated crypto plugs easily into the existing payment and security networks, bringing huge efficiencies and trust. Sad for Ripple but a good lesson on how not to launch and run a token.
dnpp123 6y ago
IMHO good move for the ecosystem overall. Beyond that, the formulation is really funny (bad?) though: > Trading will move into limit only starting December 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM PST, and will be fully suspended on Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time Assuming limit only == post only orders (which sounds like it in the sentence), how do you expect the trading to work?
- pontus 6y ago
  Assuming you could still have limit orders cross the spread maybe?
  - dnpp123 6y ago
    Yes I guess too haha Unless they limit the right of market orders to themselves^^
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Ahhh yes [terrible thing] is [actually good] for [coin I like]. A well worn template in cryptonomics.
  - dnpp123 6y ago
    That's not what was implied at all.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      “IMHO good move for the ecosystem overall” is what I was referring to. I assumed you meant the crypto ecosystem is that not the case?
      - pixelpoet 6y ago
        One reason it's good for the cryptocurrency ecosystem is because Ripple was never a real cryptocoin, in the decentralised trustless blockchain sense like basically all the others. A bit of a loose analogy might be regulators stopping the sale of "cheese", which is not actually cheese, next to cheese products. All the other actual-cheeses were cheapened by this "cheese product" being sold alongside it.
ineedasername 6y ago
This is the paradox of wanting crypto to be both widespread and free of government influence. It cannot gain "market share" without interacting in some form or fashion with the regulatory structures already in place, putting it under de facto regulation of any jurisdiction of the people who want to use it.
- jeofken 6y ago
  The best case would be a parallel economy developing, where you can hide yourself from government. No burglar can cost you as much as government. I sadly have yet to find a client for coding who wants to pay in crypto and not report it to the state...
  - juancampa 6y ago
    Would you consider that be unethical?
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Probably illegal pretty much anywhere.
      - jeofken 6y ago
        Legal != ethical
        ineedasername 6y ago
        Ethics are subjective. Asking "Is it ethical?" to a large group of people is little better than asking "Is chocolate the best flavor of ice cream?" Legality is a more concrete and easier to give a firm answer to. If you want to have a reasonable conversation on the internet with random strangers of different belief systems, questions like "is it ethical" go right out the window.
        6y ago
sneak 6y ago
Color me surprised that it was XRP before USDT. When Tether stops creaking and finally falls, it is going to make a HUGE mess.
- 1f60c 6y ago
  For the record, Coinbase has never had support for Tether.
- ashconnor 6y ago
  Won’t they just flee to Gemnini’s stablecoin?
programmerslave 6y ago
As soon as Bitcoin market cap starts shooting up, the SEC starts banning coins and increasing regulation. It’s a correlation as clear as day. The US government is actively trying to suppress Bitcoin/crypto growth. This is no coincidence
- onethought 6y ago
  But they aren't banning bitcoin though :\ Wouldn't that be the way to suppress it?
  - unwoundmouse 6y ago
    They don't have great legal grounds to attack bitcoin imo, only threat to national security or treason or some bs
    - onethought 6y ago
      Well, rather than attacking alt-coins wouldn't lobbying for laws to allow them to block bitcoin exchanges (or tightly regulate them) as other countries have done be stronger evidence they were trying to undermine crypto? The GP has drawn a strange correlation in my opinion that doesn't follow logic. But I admit I could be missing the logic.
      - quickthrower2 6y ago
        Legit Bitcoin creates tax revenue so there is that too.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- pluc 6y ago
  Take your tinfoil hat off, the SEC might time their interventions but a scam is a scam.
- lhl 6y ago
aazaa 6y ago
The most surprising thing is how little this announcement has moved the USD exchange rate (~$0.25). That rate is about where it was last month. https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/XRPUSD/?exchange=BITFINEX https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/XRPUSD/?exchange=BITFINE... Yes, there was a big run-up, but that was largely drafting off the increase in the bitcoin exchange rate. The real test will be how much further XRP drops (or doesn't) from here.
- newman8r 6y ago
  It might have been mostly priced in already - I was reading some articles about possible delistings last week, and I consider myself a hobbyist, not a serious investor.
  - gruez 6y ago
    Yeah if you check the price history there was a massive drop from ~0.55 USD/XRP to ~0.25 USD/XRP shortly after SEC filed lawsuit against ripple.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > The real test will be how much further XRP drops (or doesn't) from here Do we know who holds most XRP? Naïvely, I would guess retail investors and the company. I am not convinced either will be convinced to abandon ship by anything short of a court order.
  - aazaa 6y ago
    Most sources put that at Ripple and/or its two top execs. They obtained these positions by virtue of the Ripple consensus protocol, which conjured the coins into being and granted the network creator (Ripple) sole ownership. AFAICT, that's the crux of what SEC will be going after.
- durpkingOP 6y ago
  could we track circulating supply over time? they could just add more and keep the marketcap up as the price dips
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

129 points by mamby 6y ago

They never should have allowed it in the first place. By testing the waters of trading custodial currencies they were really pushing the limits. BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back. The only interesting cryptocurrencies are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Monero. The rest are either obvious scams or dead ends at this point. A lot of people were holding out hope for decentalized storage projects like FileCoin but that project now seems to be dead in the water as well.

37ef_ced3 6y ago
The above shouldn't be downvoted. It's an interesting statement What do you think of the Lightning Network? Lightning Network channels specify a blockchain hash, so Bitcoin is supported but other cryptocurrencies could be used (if the HTLC scripts, etc., were ported) The Lightning Network web of payment channels looks good to me. You can see how it can form an efficient "overlay" on any cryptocurrency that provides sufficient scripting power: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Lightning is not reliable the way Bitcoin is, and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >and correspondingly has not seen any real-world adoption. It is effectively dead. but https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... and https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network
    - etrabroline 6y ago
      > In 2021 So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to-launch-bitcoin-lightning-%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F-integration-in-2021/ https://blog.kraken.com/post/7225/a-need-for-speed-kraken-to... > https://coingate.com/lightning-network https://coingate.com/lightning-network Ok. What can I actually buy with it? There's tons of venture capital going into this project and no commerce happening. Bitcoin had more real commerce 5 years ago than BTC and Lightning combined do today.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >So they are still putting money into the project and promising things in the future. I don't get it. A major cryptocurrency exchange says they're planning to adopt it, and that doesn't count as "real-world adoption"? I guess that's true if your original statement read as "not seen any real-world adoption ...[today]" but it certainly doesn't follow that it's dead. >Ok. What can I actually buy with it? One of the merchants I've made multiple purchases on uses coingate for payments so that's something for me, at least. That said I'll admit that I haven't used lightning yet because I'm quite happy with the status quo of waiting for a lull in transaction volume so I can pay pennies per transaction (my payments aren't usually urgent). Going through the hassle setting up a lightning node isn't worth saving a few pennies each month in my opinion. >Years ago, before venture capital took over BTC, I could buy games on Steam with Bitcoin. Can I buy video games with Lightning? To be fair, bitcoin was launched in 2009 and it took until 2016 for steam to accept it. How many years has lightning been around? Also, while looking up when steam first accepted bitcoin I also found https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289 https://twitter.com/udiWertheimer/status/952206482715660289, which answers your second question.
      - aeternum 6y ago
        You could buy Steam games years ago because Bitcoin volume was low. Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
- splintercell 6y ago
  I find LN's UX really painful. Ethereum's layer 2 solutions are far ahead in terms of user experience. The other day I had to settle an election bet, and either I settle it in stablecoin on high tx fees of ETH/BTC or try explaining one of the layer-2 solutions. And no, I can't pay them in USDT on bch because that requires them to get a new wallet. Raiden network which is Ethereum's LN like solution, faces the same problem. Whatever bitcoin folks envision, they will never get LN bitcoins to have the same network effect as bitcoin itself.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > I find LN's UX really painful. What did you find painful, and which wallet(s)?
logicslave 6y ago
I thought filecoin had a successful launch?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc8-41cf-81cf-563f6cebb2c4.html https://www.axios.com/filecoin-blockchain-delay-3b5e6b9a-bcc...
  - logicslave 6y ago
    Yeah but they successfully ICO'd since then and the market cap has held its value
briefcomment 6y ago
> “BTC has been a joke ever since the GitHub repo was hijacked by Blockstream and Adam Back” Could you spell out the implications of this?
- est31 6y ago
  I don't think there are any major implications. The point of blockchain currencies is to be decentralized so hacking a random github repo shouldn't have major implications. It's not even the only bitcoin node implementation out there at this point.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Before wall street involvement there was a single fork of Bitcoin that was a viable currency with low transaction fees. After Wall Street involvement there are at least 3 forks, the biggest of which had fees spiking at 60 USD per transaction making it nonviable for anything but speculators, and the others having very low adoption. The protocol was decentralized but enough of the community that controlled it was bought out to bring it down. EDIT: calling something a lie does not make it so. also, what on earth is hateful here
    - nullc 6y ago
      This is a hateful lie.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        Not it isn't, it's just information you don't want people to see.
    - grubles 6y ago
      Unused blockchains have no / low transaction fees. >When people started using Bitcoin, fees went up! That's how it is supposed to work.
      - 6y ago
gnrl 6y ago
I don't see any additional value of bcash over bitcoin. Eth and Monero I agree though, each of them bring fundamental values additionally to btc.
- spurgu 6y ago
  The argument as far as I'm aware is that it's like Bitcoin, except with transaction fees low enough to make it actually usable as a currency as opposed to being a pure store of value.
  - haolez 6y ago
    It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. This was hinted by Satoshi as well, but was made impossible by the current BTC.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >It's not only that. There is also the "replace by fee" stuff that allows BCH to make instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values. Can you elaborate on this? I did a quick search and the gist of it seems to be that BCH doesn't support replace by fee and bitcoin does, so therefore it's possible to "safely" accept 0 confirmation transactions on BCH because you can reasonably believe that it won't be double-spent before it gets its first confirmation. The only problem I can think of is that there's nothing preventing the attacker (the person making the purchase) from bribing a miner to mine his double spend transaction. Indeed, even without RPF there are "transaction accelerators"[1] that allow you make out of band payments to miners to increase your transaction's priority. It's not too hard to imagine a service where you can pay $$$ for a miner to mine your double-spend transaction. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator
      - pstrateman 6y ago
        He's extremely confused. The bcash people argued that replace-by-fee (RBF) functionality made unconfirmed transactions unsafe to accept. Except as you can tell from the name, unconfirmed transactions are not safe to accept RBF or not.
traceddd 6y ago
It says more about bcash than bitcoin that it’s supporters feel the need to push a (false) narrative anywhere they can.
seibelj 6y ago
This is clearly FUD pushed by bitcoin cash supporters. I’m coin-agnostic and don’t get into these fights but bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  >bitcoin is 100% doing exactly what it was designed to do Bitcoin was designed to allow low-fee small amount internet commerce. From the first paragraph of Satoshi's white paper: >The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions [emphasis added] This is clearly no longer the case with the BTC fork of Bitcoin: https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/ Therefore BTC is not doing what it was designed to do.
- lhl 6y ago
  Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - “The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.” https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Average transaction fees are frequently $5-10 these days, which completely invalidates the original proposed use case for a system that would enable “small casual transactions.” https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Since transactions will only increase in price as demand grows (and the tx limit has been effectively capped for years), I don’t see Bitcoin ever improving in this regard. Bitcoin may be successful as a speculative asset and for other purposes, but as “peer-to-peer electronic cash” it’s a failure.
grubles 6y ago
Just to note: the "Bitcoin was hijacked by <corp>" is a running joke at this point and not to be taken seriously. Ask anyone to provide verifiable proof of this and they will respond with hyperbole or conspiracy theory.
- FreeTrade 6y ago
  I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods. I dont think they can be dismissed with ad hominems.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > I'm seeing a lot of valid concerns and criticisms of Blockstream's actions and methods I've carefully reviewed each post in the thread and cannot find that. Instead, I see a couple vague and clearly false allegations which are unambiguously debunked. What specifically are you referring to? For the avoidance of confusion, the anonymous maintainer of "Bitcoin Cash" (a deceptively named Bitcoin clone) is named "Freetrader". Are you they?
    - FreeTrade 6y ago
      No, different guy.
kallewoof 6y ago
The Blockstream hijack lie is getting really old. And it doesn't age well either. Both gmax and pieter are not even in it anymore. Blockstream's contributions (what you consider 'hijacking') to Bitcoin are pretty slim at this point. Which is a pity, honestly. Blockstream was a good force for bitcoin, despite the continuous stream of baseless lies coming from you people. Gmax made a much better summary of why your statements are all baseless babbling below...

gotem 6y ago

Wow. Does Coinbase plan to launch their coin and feel threatened? Seems like a anti-competitive move if so and weird timing with the IPO.

mariocesar 6y ago
> Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase Inc said on Monday it would suspend trading in cryptocurrency XRP after U.S. regulators last week charged associated blockchain firm Ripple with conducting a $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering. It reads to be a good reason to suspend XRP trading
- gotem 6y ago
  Sorry, missed that somehow. Still seems oddly suspicious that it coincides with Coinbase's IPO.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    That they stopped trading a literal scam? The only suspicious part is they started trading it in the first place.
  - mariocesar 6y ago
    They are protecting themselves to Not being complicit, or better not to look complicit to the SEC.
    - gotem 6y ago
      Oh okay. That makes more sense. Still a bit weird that it's out of a sense of self preservation instead of caring that it was potentially immoral in the first place.
      - Kalium 6y ago
        This is the kind of thing a company does when something becomes a financial and legal liability.

ars 6y ago

Price chart: https://www.coindesk.com/price/xrp https://www.coindesk.com/price/xrp down about 18%.

arcticbull 6y ago
Down about 60% in a week.

revel 6y ago

Terrible news for XRP and Ripple but nobody can be surprised by this. Next up we may see the delisting of some stable coins given the SEC's advice about establishing a nexus in the US. I'm not sure how this will work for a decentralized coin like maker / dai, so perhaps this is the end for them. However, this seems consistent with other regulation since they operate like an autonomous fx swap fund.

academi 6y ago
I’m surprised, because I don’t see how it contributes to the market.
- revel 6y ago
  This provides clarity on what constitutes a security. The SEC have been telegraphing this move for several years, ever since the crackdowns on ICOs and STOs. Bitstamp said they would delist XRP several days ago so coinbase are hardly unique in their response to the SEC's announcement.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Bitstamp isnt delisting XRP. Just halting XRP trading for US customers. https://www.bitstamp.net/news/ https://www.bitstamp.net/news/
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jMyles 6y ago
There can be no doubt that a mathematic - rather than collateralized - solution to stablecoins is the nonviolent solution.
- pjkundert 6y ago
  How about both collateralized and mathematical? If the platform supports programmatic proportional issuance and withdrawal (vs. mint and burn), vs. market-priced collateral, then negative-feedback loop controlled inflation/deflation can be implemented...

SlipperySlope 6y ago

Back in 2015 FinCEN (US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) issued guidance that an administrator of a digital virtual currency had to be a Money Services Business and file Suspicious Activity Reports, perform Know Your Customer and comply with Anti-Money Laundering regulations. So Ripple filed and became an MSB in the 50 US States. So far so good. But Crypto is more than a payment method. Obviously it is purchased in hopes of capital appreciation and that makes it a Security. Accordingly, Ripple should have filed a S-1 security disclosure application with the SEC BEFORE issuing XRP. Failure to register XRP as a security should lead to big fines. So why does the US SEC leave Bitcoin and Ethereum alone? Because there is no central administrator that issues and redeems the tokens. Ideally, crypto tokens should file with the US SEC and their exchanges should be MSBs - like Coinbase. Meanwhile Coinbase is pursuing becoming a dealer in registered securities because crypto tokens are both payment tokens and securities. In addition to filing suspicious activity reports to FinCEN, Coinbase will file insider trading reports to the SEC. Fully regulated Crypto is not a bad thing - unless you are an anarchist or criminal. Fully regulated crypto plugs easily into the existing payment and security networks, bringing huge efficiencies and trust. Sad for Ripple but a good lesson on how not to launch and run a token.

dnpp123 6y ago

IMHO good move for the ecosystem overall. Beyond that, the formulation is really funny (bad?) though: > Trading will move into limit only starting December 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM PST, and will be fully suspended on Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time Assuming limit only == post only orders (which sounds like it in the sentence), how do you expect the trading to work?

pontus 6y ago
Assuming you could still have limit orders cross the spread maybe?
- dnpp123 6y ago
  Yes I guess too haha Unless they limit the right of market orders to themselves^^
arcticbull 6y ago
Ahhh yes [terrible thing] is [actually good] for [coin I like]. A well worn template in cryptonomics.
- dnpp123 6y ago
  That's not what was implied at all.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    “IMHO good move for the ecosystem overall” is what I was referring to. I assumed you meant the crypto ecosystem is that not the case?
    - pixelpoet 6y ago
      One reason it's good for the cryptocurrency ecosystem is because Ripple was never a real cryptocoin, in the decentralised trustless blockchain sense like basically all the others. A bit of a loose analogy might be regulators stopping the sale of "cheese", which is not actually cheese, next to cheese products. All the other actual-cheeses were cheapened by this "cheese product" being sold alongside it.

ineedasername 6y ago

This is the paradox of wanting crypto to be both widespread and free of government influence. It cannot gain "market share" without interacting in some form or fashion with the regulatory structures already in place, putting it under de facto regulation of any jurisdiction of the people who want to use it.

jeofken 6y ago
The best case would be a parallel economy developing, where you can hide yourself from government. No burglar can cost you as much as government. I sadly have yet to find a client for coding who wants to pay in crypto and not report it to the state...
- juancampa 6y ago
  Would you consider that be unethical?
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Probably illegal pretty much anywhere.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      Legal != ethical
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        Ethics are subjective. Asking "Is it ethical?" to a large group of people is little better than asking "Is chocolate the best flavor of ice cream?" Legality is a more concrete and easier to give a firm answer to. If you want to have a reasonable conversation on the internet with random strangers of different belief systems, questions like "is it ethical" go right out the window.
        6y ago

sneak 6y ago

Color me surprised that it was XRP before USDT. When Tether stops creaking and finally falls, it is going to make a HUGE mess.

1f60c 6y ago
For the record, Coinbase has never had support for Tether.
ashconnor 6y ago
Won’t they just flee to Gemnini’s stablecoin?

programmerslave 6y ago

As soon as Bitcoin market cap starts shooting up, the SEC starts banning coins and increasing regulation. It’s a correlation as clear as day. The US government is actively trying to suppress Bitcoin/crypto growth. This is no coincidence

onethought 6y ago
But they aren't banning bitcoin though :\ Wouldn't that be the way to suppress it?
- unwoundmouse 6y ago
  They don't have great legal grounds to attack bitcoin imo, only threat to national security or treason or some bs
  - onethought 6y ago
    Well, rather than attacking alt-coins wouldn't lobbying for laws to allow them to block bitcoin exchanges (or tightly regulate them) as other countries have done be stronger evidence they were trying to undermine crypto? The GP has drawn a strange correlation in my opinion that doesn't follow logic. But I admit I could be missing the logic.
    - quickthrower2 6y ago
      Legit Bitcoin creates tax revenue so there is that too.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
pluc 6y ago
Take your tinfoil hat off, the SEC might time their interventions but a scam is a scam.
lhl 6y ago

aazaa 6y ago

The most surprising thing is how little this announcement has moved the USD exchange rate (~$0.25). That rate is about where it was last month. https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/XRPUSD/?exchange=BITFINEX https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/XRPUSD/?exchange=BITFINE... Yes, there was a big run-up, but that was largely drafting off the increase in the bitcoin exchange rate. The real test will be how much further XRP drops (or doesn't) from here.

newman8r 6y ago
It might have been mostly priced in already - I was reading some articles about possible delistings last week, and I consider myself a hobbyist, not a serious investor.
- gruez 6y ago
  Yeah if you check the price history there was a massive drop from ~0.55 USD/XRP to ~0.25 USD/XRP shortly after SEC filed lawsuit against ripple.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> The real test will be how much further XRP drops (or doesn't) from here Do we know who holds most XRP? Naïvely, I would guess retail investors and the company. I am not convinced either will be convinced to abandon ship by anything short of a court order.
- aazaa 6y ago
  Most sources put that at Ripple and/or its two top execs. They obtained these positions by virtue of the Ripple consensus protocol, which conjured the coins into being and granted the network creator (Ripple) sole ownership. AFAICT, that's the crux of what SEC will be going after.
durpkingOP 6y ago
could we track circulating supply over time? they could just add more and keep the marketcap up as the price dips

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]