I don't think I've seen anyone claim that gold is easier to hide or bury than bitcoin. Maybe some people do but that's not the issue most people are talking about when they compare bitcoin to gold. The main distinction that they're pointing out is that gold has historically held value beyond its use as money (electronics, jewelry, etc.)
"One of Ivanov’s losses was in a long game in a closed position (the kind where computers perform poorly)..."
The top computer engines have been strong in closed positions for many years now. If this person did cheat, he most likely was selectively using the engine in this game, or not at all.
There's a reason we don't see computer vs. human matches these days. The computers are too good. You can beat today's elite grandmasters with a free engine running on your laptop.
I agree that companies need to take a look at how their industry is regulated and what purpose those regulations serve. But the fact that companies can come into these types of industries, openly skirt the regulations, and still be massively successful shows that the existing laws aren't meeting the needs of the people who use these services.
And how exactly has government solved "the problems inherent in the peer-to-peer model"? I'm not sure what problems you're talking about in the first place.
I'm not sure what problems you're talking about in the first place.
That's the point. :-) A number of them have been enumerated above: protecting banking customers from loss in the event of theft; regulating the location and safety of hotels; providing some means of recourse against a dishonest cabbie.
They are inherent in peer-to-peer because peer-to-peer transactions are based on trust, and trust ultimately has to be based on accountability. If I'm in a small town, I can trust a local resident because I know their history and where they live. If they injure or steal from me in some way, I have some recourse, if nothing else with the social shame that can be brought to bear in a small society. But in a large-scale business, in a society of strangers, that accountability has to be enforced by some kind of regulatory body. And that kind of regulation implies at least some kind of comparatively centralized authority, which is at odds with a true peer-to-peer ideal.
No, I'm saying someone will have to be the regulatory body for AirBnb, because their business is infringing on other people's rights, for example neighboring homeowners who are disturbed or damaged by AirBnb renters, or customers who are exposed to dangerous conditions on an AirBnb property.
Are you saying that AirBnb, for example, can't be the regulatory body for its customers? Or is there a reason why it's necessary for the government to step in?
1) What actors and activities are you referring to exactly when you say "Wall St"? There are lots of players, and they have different roles. The performance of a given stock/fund is irrelevant to many players (exchanges, market makers, etc.) But yes, there are players that hold positions. You can call that gambling if you want, they definitely have risk, but all investments carry risk (even "risk-free" investments like government bonds). What exactly do you have a problem with? Vegas-style gambling is typically a zero sum game, with most of the money going to the house. Long term stock market investing generally yields a positive return.
2) The financial industry is also heavily regulated. I'm not sure why you're comparing Vegas and Wall St in this respect. You say that in Vegas "odds are clearly known", but this is not true in some common cases and it’s not clear what you’re getting at. What do you propose for Wall St in that respect? Odds can be published for games whose probabilities are known in advance (slots, roulette, etc.) But this is not true for things like sports betting and games of skill (poker, blackjack, etc.) No one knows what the “true” probability is that the Yankees will beat the Giants. What the casino will tell you is how much you need to wager to win a certain amount of money. You can infer an implied probability from that, but the same is true for prices in financial markets. If you look at prices of stocks, options, bonds, interest rates, etc. you can infer all sorts of information such as expected default rates, expected volatility of the price of a commodity, expected profitability of a company, etc.
When you say "casinos don't even need to cheat to be profitable" you seem to be implying that Wall St does. Exchanges charge transaction fees. Market makers earn a spread on their buys/sells. Brokers earn commissions. Banks earn the difference between the interest rates they charge vs. pay out. Can you explain why you think Wall St needs to cheat to be profitable?
Mindscape has a Visual Studio extension called "Web Workbench" that makes installing and using SASS really easy (as well as LESS and CoffeeScript). I installed via NuGet and I don't remember ever having to leave Visual Studio. The installer took care of all the dependencies and I was up and running right away.
It's sad to see a comment like this on top of HN in the same way it would be to see a misinformed post about "hacking" rise to the top of a trading forum.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you, and those who upvoted you, have little or no experience in financial markets. Comparing flash orders to front running a trojan is a terrible analogy. For one, the mechanics are not as you described (other commenters have touched on this). But most importantly, where this is still practiced, the market participants have voluntarily decided to do so and the order flow is openly published, unlike a hacked computer where the user is oblivious.
And even if we assume flash orders are evil, I think it's disingenuos to mention all of the SEC drama surrounding them without mentioning that several leading exchanges have voluntarily stopped the practice, and that flash orders make up a tiny percentage of total trading volume.
No, it's not voluntary on the part of everyone involved.
Hint: the people doing the trades are not brokers.
>And even if we assume flash orders are evil, I think it's disingenuos to mention all of the SEC drama surrounding them without mentioning that several leading exchanges have voluntarily stopped the practice, and that flash orders make up a tiny percentage of total trading volume.
So you're going to argue, in the same post, both that flash orders are not front-running and that several exchanges, to avoid liability, have stopped doing them? Intriguing.
No claim was made that exchanges discontinued flash order types because of concerns about front running, nor that any kind of liability was the reason behind the retraction.
The practice was stopped because it became unpopular due to the dramatization of HFT in the media. In the presence of a large number of fragmented equity exchanges, flash orders facilitate lower transaction costs and lower latency.
If you're a consumer trading equities, NBBO rules protect you from being sniped at a detriment to you. In fact, flashing over ETNs is sometimes used to fulfill NBBO rules. These rules might be bad for higher-order reasons concerning liquidity and efficiency, but to a first approximation the consumer has nothing to fear from his order being fulfilled via flash.
It honestly isn't clear to me at all what you're griping about. It's like you read an article on the Internet and suddenly you're an expert on flash orders. I am not an expert on flash orders (and someone correct me if I am wrong), but it's pretty clear to me you're very confused.
The article doesn't mention an important fact: All of the defendants named in the suit are based in California, a state that does not enforce non-compete agreements (with some minor exceptions).
Assuming that these companies agreed not to hire each other's employees, we have a make-shift non-compete agreement, in effect (though not as efficient or encompassing).
The biggest issue I have with this case is that these types of antitrust laws exist in the first place. In the absence of fraud, this is a victimless crime. To pay damages implies that the offender took something away from the victim, that they need to be "made whole" again.
These employees freely agreed to their compensation packages and received those. They weren't hired elsewhere because those employers freely chose not to after balancing the benefits of recruiting them against the risk of losing current employees.
If these companies are really screwing over their employees it seems like a great opportunity for other companies to tell them no thanks to their no-hire agreement and start poaching.
Even a very strict libertarian should agree to the obvious harm here: the compensation package with Google that the employee negotiated in good faith has a covenant which was not disclosed to them and is materially against their interests, namely, that signing on the dotted line forecloses future avenues which you might want to pursue. Not only were employees unaware of that, they would have active reasons to believe it would be impossible, because the laws under which that contract was negotiated say in big bold letters that provisions like that are repugnant to the state's sense of justice and will be voided even if spelled out.
There's a credible case for allowing people to sign away future opportunities in return for compensation in the present day, even if their counterparty has excessive leverage in that negotiation. I don't believe it, but I wouldn't think less of you if you do. There's no credible case for the moral righteousness of secret conspiracy against one's own employees' interests which acts to implement a term that you cannot ask for and expressly deny having sought.
It's structurally similar to abuse of overtime. I happen to think you should be allowed to trade more than 40 hours a week in return of an amount of money you find motivational, if that floats your boat. In some jurisdictions, that is illegal. Even if you disagree with that policy, if you're negotiating a contract in those jurisdictions, you're going to assume as part of your offer that you're only agreeing to 40 hours a week for the same reason you assume that negotiating a contract will not secretly obligate you to give them your kidney. If they then stick you with more than 40 hours a week, that's an abuse, even if you don't agree with the law: if you had been aware of the work routinely requiring more than 40 hours, you would have priced that in, but instead you priced it on the assumption of 40 hours in the mistaken belief that that was an externally imposed maximum.
Those are fair points, although I did qualify my statement with "In the absence of fraud". If the employment agreements forbid the behavior then that would be a clear case of fraud. When it comes to implied expectations, I'm not sure it's so clear. My understanding is that bilateral agreements with no-hire stipulations are not explicitly illegal, although the court may rule a specific agreement is depending on how it affects competition in a market. So how many employees actually assumed no non-hire agreements when they signed on and was that a reasonable assumption? I think that's a difficult question to answer.
Either way, I hate that the focus is on the "letter of the law". If this were a patent troll case, or Hollywood copyright, or if SOPA had passed, how many people here would be demanding damages or jail time from the defendants? They would be guilty of breaking the law just the same, and the plaintiffs could also claim that they need to be compensated for their losses (cost of filing for patent, "lost revenues" from pirated material, etc.)
I have to say, though, that my initial post was poorly worded. As I was writing it, in my mind, I thought I was railing against antitrust laws in general and describing how non-hire agreements in the abstract were victimless crimes. Reading those statements again, it seems more like I'm just talking about this particular case. That's totally my fault, I apologize for that. I tend to get worked up about issues like this and have to do a better job of choosing my words, or even stop myself from ranting in the first place.
Assuming that these companies agreed not to hire each other's employees, we have a make-shift non-compete agreement, in effect (though not as efficient or encompassing).
Contracts never trump state law. If they say it's illegal a handshake between a few companies doesn't make it not illegal.
In the absence of fraud, this is a victimless crime. To pay damages implies that the offender took something away from the victim, that they need to be "made whole" again.
You're company doesn't value your work and you'd like to leave to work somewhere else, preferably in the same area with the same or greater pay, only you can't because your employer has conspired against you. See who the victim is now?
These employees freely agreed to their compensation packages and received those.
Well, they agreed to everything except that non-compete that is completely illegal and not in their contract.
If these companies are really screwing over their employees it seems like a great opportunity for other companies to tell them no thanks to their no-hire agreement and start poaching.
Apple and Google have a market cap bigger than most developing countries. They can keep raising the salary offer and shut you out. You can convince some of their employees to leave as long as it's not about the money, but for most people it's about the money.
