Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on February 10, 2014, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: alpha492 on February 10, 2014, 09:10:50 PM

I can understand halting trades when the margin calls have caused a significant difference b/w stamp and BFX, but a flat '10% per hour to decline is too much' centralized all exchange halt like a few people here are suggesting sounds ridiculous.

What would you call such a system? 'FinCEN BTC, the first centralized authority in crypto!'

For a number of reasons the idea is nauseating.

I really haven't thought that proposal through, but if it was a good idea, and all/most exchange owners would agree on it voluntarily, then whats so nauseating about it? So long as nobody gets forced to implement these things at gunpoint, and people with a different opinion have the opportunity to start up or use another exchange, what would be the big deal?
However, I doubt a uniform rule like that over multiple exchanges will ever be used in practice.

Well first, if Bitcoin needed a central regulatory authority to decide its 'fair value' why not just hand it over to the Federal Reserve? They have a hell of a lot more experience than the current exchanges.

The market may very well decline at a rate of 10% per hour, as long as its the free market causing the decline and not some flaw in the exchange your trading on this is the inherent risk of a truly free market. Which is why I agree to some extent a 'halt' may be reasonable in some instances.

'So long as nobody gets forced to implement these things at gunpoint, and people with a different opinion have the opportunity to start up or use another exchange, what would be the big deal?'

Maybe, but I'm not so sure starting a 'club' like that is a good idea, it reeks of potential exploitation/corruption to me.

The problem here was clearly the BFX system, they tried their best but the response was still lacking. I think this issue can be resolved w/o extensive inter-exchange regulation.