Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:HFT = a cost to society (Score 1) 342

by zoefff (#46686753) Attached to: Australia May 'Pause' Trades To Tackle High-Frequency Trading

To be the devils advocate:
The beneficiars are the manufacturers of said equipment and warehouses, which pay their employees and their suppliers for the work done, who in turn will pay their employees as well. And by the way these employees will buy houses, cars and food from other companies, which .... Need to go on? And every part will pay some tax as well.

The investments are probably paying themselves off. One can debate if the service delivered is a usefull one, but in the end it translates to 'real' economic value in terms of production of other goods. Because economy is about pumping money around. The faster, the better. And if the investment pays off really good, then there is money for investing in improved banking services as well. A win-win situation here.... Ok, I'm a bit sarcastic here.

So, my conclusion, yes, there is a cost, but yes, there is also a benefit to society in terms of economic activity (real). And I think it is better to focus on the unfairness part of it, which is on the part of the big, fast, but not so fast traders. But it is a rat race and I'm confident it will be sorted out. The end result is no one will make money this way and that again there will be a fee asked for trading. Problem solved.

Comment: Re:Limited money supply is a problem? (Score 1) 691

by zoefff (#45735727) Attached to: Why Charles Stross Wants Bitcoin To Die In a Fire

Money: that store of value needs to be stable in terms of real world items. That is what the central banks take care off (indeed at will, look at QE, look at the promised bond bailout in Europe to ease the minds in the financial world). Inflation and deflation should not be high.

Limited or not is not the issue. It is a bigger problem that you don't know what you can buy today or tomorrow with a fixed amount of bit coins.
But because it is limited, you can buy more and more ->deflation.
And the various crack downs lately -> inflation.

So bitcoin, as has been mentioned before, is not suitable as money, but is more like a commodity

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke