4 ms·

> the data is in the paper I linked. 75% of bitcoin volume is speculation. > Sure. And there's plenty of non-speculative activity outside of those entities as w

> the data is in the paper I linked. 75% of bitcoin volume is speculation. > Sure. And there's plenty of non-speculative activity outside of those entities as well. The paper explicitly looks at on-chain activity only. You claimed that 75% of bitcoin volume was speculation. There is nothing in the paper to support this claim. I'm not arguing that there is 0 non-speculative activity, I'm saying that it is significantly less than 25%, and you're making up bogus statistics that aren't supported by your sources in the way that you say they are. > Say I'm subscribed to a Australian musician's patreon. I send her USD, then a middleman sells that USD and gives her AUD. I also support a French musician. I send him BTC. He (or a middleman) sells that BTC for EUR. How can you say either of those situations is more or less economically meaningful? Yes, these are both economically meaningful. This type of transaction is much more common in the fiat world than it is in the crypto world (where speculation and wash trading drive the majority of transactions). Currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy, while they make up the vast majority of the crypto economy.

EscapeFromNY 3y ago
> There is nothing in the paper to support this claim The paper literally says, "75% of the real bitcoin volume has been linked to exchanges or exchange-like entities" You may think the source isn't perfect, but at least I'm bringing some objective data to the conversation. If you disagree, please show me some data of your own instead of just repeating your preconceived bias (which I'm aware of already) I repeat: If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use? > This type of transaction is much more common in the fiat world than it is in the crypto world Source? > where speculation and wash trading drive the majority of transactions Source? > Currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy Source? > while they make up the vast majority of the crypto economy. Source? Those were some mighty bold claims.
- greatwave1 3y ago
  > The paper literally says, "75% of the real bitcoin volume has been linked to exchanges or exchange-like entities" Which is an entirely different metric than the % of bitcoin volume that's speculation. If I link a paper that says "1% of squirrels are albino", and I claim that it says that 1% of bitcoin trading is speculative, then I'm not "bringing objective data to the conversation"... I'm just lying My original comment was What do you think the ratio of speculation and illegal activity to legitimate use cases is? I'd be willing to be it's greater than 10:1, maybe even 100:1 You responded by lying and trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion > You don't have to bet, the data is in the paper I linked. 75% of bitcoin volume is speculation. And then you have the audacity to ask for a source on the claim that "currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy"? How many people do you know who are participants in the real world economy (should be literally everyone you've ever met), and how many of them are FX speculators? Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up. Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation, when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative?
  - EscapeFromNY 3y ago
    > Which is an entirely different metric Of course not. If you disagree, at least try to present a coherent argument instead of just talking about squirrels. What entities do you think are missing from the list: exchanges or exchange-like entities such as on-line wallets, OTC desks, and large institutional traders That might be overcounting even, since online wallets have nothing to do with speculation. So I'll correct myself: speculation is at most 75%, definitely a bit less. > trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion I responded with exactly the data you asked for, just read it again :) If you need me to do the math for you: 75% speculation (at most) + 3% crime = 78%. 100% - 78% = 22%. 0.78:0.22 = 3.55:1 (at most) > And then you have the audacity to ask for a source Yes I do, since all data presented so far disagrees with your unsourced (though very strongly held) opinion. Here's one example of how reality may be counterintuitive: High-frequency traders can make thousands of trades per second. How many people do you know who receive thousands of paychecks per second? From that alone it's plausible, obvious even, that forex speculation volume is substantially higher. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone else. That's why, in order to build a larger society, we need to set aside our biases and look at objective data in order to make informed decisions. > Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up. That doesn't sound too different from all modern investing. The stock market is also fueled by the illusion of the possibility infinite exponential growth. Bogleheads don't care about index funds' current value proposition. The grocery store won't accept your VTSAX as payment for a gallon of milk. You're just hoping that later you can sell your VTSAX to a greater fool. Maybe the problem is you take everything the "marketing apparatus" says at face value? If one day you saw a TV advert for a pill that didn't work, would you also decide the entire medical industry is a scam? > Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation Reality can be counterintuitive. It was once incredibly obvious that the earth was the center of the universe. Why should I spend my time digging up data when it's incredibly obvious from observation that the sun revolves around the earth? HN is a place to engage with our curiosity, rise above anecdata, get out of our limited personal bubbles, and maybe even learn a thing or two along the way! Your immediate personal experience is not the objective reality for everyone on the planet. If you're just here to think with your emotions, ignore data, and rant about how much you hate change, you might feel more at home on Facebook or Twitter. > when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative? Source?

EscapeFromNY 3y ago

> There is nothing in the paper to support this claim The paper literally says, "75% of the real bitcoin volume has been linked to exchanges or exchange-like entities" You may think the source isn't perfect, but at least I'm bringing some objective data to the conversation. If you disagree, please show me some data of your own instead of just repeating your preconceived bias (which I'm aware of already) I repeat: If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use? > This type of transaction is much more common in the fiat world than it is in the crypto world Source? > where speculation and wash trading drive the majority of transactions Source? > Currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy Source? > while they make up the vast majority of the crypto economy. Source? Those were some mighty bold claims.

greatwave1 3y ago
> The paper literally says, "75% of the real bitcoin volume has been linked to exchanges or exchange-like entities" Which is an entirely different metric than the % of bitcoin volume that's speculation. If I link a paper that says "1% of squirrels are albino", and I claim that it says that 1% of bitcoin trading is speculative, then I'm not "bringing objective data to the conversation"... I'm just lying My original comment was What do you think the ratio of speculation and illegal activity to legitimate use cases is? I'd be willing to be it's greater than 10:1, maybe even 100:1 You responded by lying and trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion > You don't have to bet, the data is in the paper I linked. 75% of bitcoin volume is speculation. And then you have the audacity to ask for a source on the claim that "currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy"? How many people do you know who are participants in the real world economy (should be literally everyone you've ever met), and how many of them are FX speculators? Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up. Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation, when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative?
- EscapeFromNY 3y ago
  > Which is an entirely different metric Of course not. If you disagree, at least try to present a coherent argument instead of just talking about squirrels. What entities do you think are missing from the list: exchanges or exchange-like entities such as on-line wallets, OTC desks, and large institutional traders That might be overcounting even, since online wallets have nothing to do with speculation. So I'll correct myself: speculation is at most 75%, definitely a bit less. > trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion I responded with exactly the data you asked for, just read it again :) If you need me to do the math for you: 75% speculation (at most) + 3% crime = 78%. 100% - 78% = 22%. 0.78:0.22 = 3.55:1 (at most) > And then you have the audacity to ask for a source Yes I do, since all data presented so far disagrees with your unsourced (though very strongly held) opinion. Here's one example of how reality may be counterintuitive: High-frequency traders can make thousands of trades per second. How many people do you know who receive thousands of paychecks per second? From that alone it's plausible, obvious even, that forex speculation volume is substantially higher. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone else. That's why, in order to build a larger society, we need to set aside our biases and look at objective data in order to make informed decisions. > Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up. That doesn't sound too different from all modern investing. The stock market is also fueled by the illusion of the possibility infinite exponential growth. Bogleheads don't care about index funds' current value proposition. The grocery store won't accept your VTSAX as payment for a gallon of milk. You're just hoping that later you can sell your VTSAX to a greater fool. Maybe the problem is you take everything the "marketing apparatus" says at face value? If one day you saw a TV advert for a pill that didn't work, would you also decide the entire medical industry is a scam? > Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation Reality can be counterintuitive. It was once incredibly obvious that the earth was the center of the universe. Why should I spend my time digging up data when it's incredibly obvious from observation that the sun revolves around the earth? HN is a place to engage with our curiosity, rise above anecdata, get out of our limited personal bubbles, and maybe even learn a thing or two along the way! Your immediate personal experience is not the objective reality for everyone on the planet. If you're just here to think with your emotions, ignore data, and rant about how much you hate change, you might feel more at home on Facebook or Twitter. > when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative? Source?