Explanation
Topic: ChartBuddy - The 3D Orderbook Bot! (Read 4881 times)
If Chartbuddy has it's own thread i think it could post a little bigger images 
I decided to let this run for a bit to see how it would work. I know some people were wanting Chartbuddy in his own thread when he first started posting. Might stick with it and have Chartbuddy start his own thread at some point.
To be honest, he's getting to be a bit more trouble than he's worth.
To be honest, he's getting to be a bit more trouble than he's worth.
also rename this thread to something like "chartbuddy is a hunny bager, posts the same thing over and over, dosnt give a shit"
Does chartbuddy ever sleep or is he a bot?
chartbuddy is a tropper, he hand draws everything.
also rename this thread to something like "chartbuddy is a hunny bager, posts the same thing over and over, dosnt give a shit"
Does chartbuddy ever sleep or is he a bot?
also rename this thread to something like "chartbuddy is a hunny bager, posts the same thing over and over, dosnt give a shit"
its actuly pretty good chart buddy has his own theard... can see whats been hepping easly.
please no comments in this thread let chart buddy do his thing.
please no comments in this thread let chart buddy do his thing.
I kind of like the hourly uninterrupted sequence - gives me something to stare at when I want to stare... at... things... lol
Go home Chartbuddy, you're drunk.
Seriously.. can anyone help this poor chartbuddy escape from his cage? This place looks like a miserable, abandoned zoo, with just one bullbear running in circle.
The troll question of all troll questions... The FUD of all FUD... and the one thing that actually causes me an ounce of concern...
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
troll much?
bitcoin doesn't fit anywhere, thats why they are making up entirely new rules. aka BitLicense.
BitLicense will happen, and the ETF will play by wtv rules are set.
America is not the world, we might not agree with everything that comes out of the regulations but they won't entirely screw us, and all will be well in the world. I am simply stating that IF they wanted to screw us over royally... as a legal matter they could. I am fully invested right now and looking forward to a positive future at bargain prices, presently, though. Still, we should examine even troublesome topics from time to time. BUT, they should carry the appropriate caveats of -- this is so unlikely, they would have done it already by now if they were going to do it, and there are so many other countervailing forces.
Simply being neither a cultist or a hater... just thinking things through, getting scrutinized when you are wrong, and so on.
The troll question of all troll questions... The FUD of all FUD... and the one thing that actually causes me an ounce of concern...
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
troll much?
bitcoin doesn't fit anywhere, thats why they are making up entirely new rules. aka BitLicense.
BitLicense will happen, and the ETF will play by wtv rules are set.
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QON6SSMLcC8
The troll question of all troll questions... The FUD of all FUD... and the one thing that actually causes me an ounce of concern...
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
troll much?
bitcoin doesn't fit anywhere, thats why they are making up entirely new rules. aka BitLicense.
BitLicense will happen, and the ETF will play by wtv rules are set.
The troll question of all troll questions... The FUD of all FUD... and the one thing that actually causes me an ounce of concern...
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
When will the SEC decide to apply the traditional definition of a security or investment opportunity to Bitcoins at large, not just to specific applications of Bitcoin investment schemes, and regulate the entire field to death as unregistered issuances of securities. I believe that the Lawsky piece is really a backdoor towards that route by requiring licensed exchanges such that it becomes indisputable that these are being used on exchanges for investment rather than consumption purposes.
The basis for this concern -- W.J. Howey -- also known as the orange grove case. In that case, the W.J. Howey company was selling managed orange groves to people. The court asked two questions: (1) Are the groves being used for consumption (are you eating the oranges) or are you investing in the orange groves for sales; and (2) if you plan on selling the oranges, are the proceeds the product of your own personal labor (are you planting or harvesting your trees) or are the profits incidental to your ownership either by the nature of the product or because it is managed by a third party. Through this analysis, which is used to determine whether something is a security and is therefore regulated by the SEC, the Court determined that the orange groves constituted securities in that context. See also definition of a security from Section 2(a)(1) of the '34 Act (everything under the moon with a doctrinal exception for short-term commercial paper and other treasury stocks because of their purported safety).
More importantly, I suspect that the Lawsky report is a backdoor to paving the doctrinal path towards SEC full-on regulation because on page 14 of the report it states that licensed parties shall only invest in those traditionally safe treasury type securities that are exempted by doctrine from Section 2(a)(1) -- if Bitcoin itself does not fit into that category then it either must be a derivative, be private rather than public, or it falls under SEC registration requirements.
The other big question is whether or not this is a private transaction rather than a public security. This, however, is not much of a question at all. First, the exchanges are public. Second, they are not limited to institutional, wealthy, or sophisticated (in the legal sense which means experienced investors or insiders) and, as such, are subjected to the strictures of securities registration.
Additional questions and concerns are:
(1) Is it not a security, but rather an over-the-counter derivative thus falling under the purview of the CFTC and being broadly excluded from regulation per the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? I believe this is how it has been treated, but this doesn't fit. The IRS deemed it property, not currency. By contrast, the courts have deemed it as functioning as currency. So, which fits in this context? Are Bitcoin trades basically currency swaps or more like an investment in a security or property?
(a) The CFTC argued that swaps and derivatives tied to Bitcoin would certainly come under CFTC regulation and that it should be seen as a commodity for future delivery. But, ask yourself, does this make sense? No, and the SEC doesn't think it makes any sense either. But why?
(i) Bitcoins are for present, not future delivery;
(ii) Leverage, by itself, does not render an item no longer a security -- the underlying bitcoin itself could remain a security even if the derivative attached to it is not; and
(iii) The same coins would be both derivative and security for different counterparties on Bitfinex because the leveraged coins are traded on the exchange, not off the exchange (Plus500 is doing it properly to avoid regulation, Bitfinex is screwed)
(2) Can the SEC regulate a international securities? Yes they sure can and they do. Securities must either be registered with the SEC OR there must be a disclaimer that says U.S. residents cannot invest in it with additional precautions and background check conducted to prevent U.S. residents from using it. Notice again that Plus500 does this already... because their securities lawyer called bullshit on this a while ago;
With this all in mind, the Winklevoss IPO is a bigger event then people realize. If it doesn't get approved then the subtle suggestion is that the Feds might pull the plug on our fun. If it does get approved then this falls into the annals of unfounded concerns.
Note: I did zero research before drafting this very trollish and FUDish post, but I graduated from a T-14 law school. So there.
Note #2: I put odds on all of this actually being a probably at less than 1%. The SEC wouldn't want to piss off all of the hackers in the world and if they were going to do this one would think they would have done it by now.
wow chart buddy is posting here to 
Cool thread, cool name. My new home.
confirmed.
Oh common chartman. Get back to the real deal. We miss you!
Call to action:
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
Call to action:
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
As someone who is not a day trader i do know there is plenty of wealth to be gained by being a bear.
When the prices fall, the bears catch and eat the big fish.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/27/article-2019407-0D2E98D000000578-79_964x641.jpg
Call to action:
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
All they need are variances of this picture:
Their face when the price leaves them holding the fiat bag.
true colors, shine brightly in times of crisis
Call to action:
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
OK, bulls have trains and rockets and when things are on the way down, the bears like to post pictures of trains derailing and rockets exploding on the launchpad. Fair enough.
But I think it's time bears had their own meme, something that cheers along the downward motion in a bear-positive manner. I'd imagine something like downhill skiing, skydiving, I dunno, something along those lines. Being a bear is more than being an anti-bull surely?
Thoughts (and pictures)?
IT´S A MAD HOUSE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
MARKET/ MARGIN BUY/SELL ALL YOUR COINS NOW! JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
DO IT!!
TO THE MOON or 0, THAT IS THE QUESTION! THERE IS NOTHING IN BETWEEN! WE WILL SEE A DECISION SOONISH!
MARKET/ MARGIN BUY/SELL ALL YOUR COINS NOW! JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
DO IT!!
TO THE MOON or 0, THAT IS THE QUESTION! THERE IS NOTHING IN BETWEEN! WE WILL SEE A DECISION SOONISH!
China is banning bitcoin?
Yep they arrested the CEO
HAhHAhHAhAHhAHhHAha - Why are we all so caught up on the price... It will always go up and down guys, greed and rebellion are the determining factors there.
Can we maybe focus on some of the more relevant issues that this technology will usher in... "OH MAN BITCOIN'S PRICE DROPPED 100$" yeah.. "But it still represents freedom" so... *sips coffee*
In a wall observer thread in a speculation forum?
Though this is the troll observer thread so carry on.
i am not bearish. and yes i bought back in my with my trading stach all in yesterday.
my thread might be over and done with tho, who knows only time will tell.
my thread might be over and done with tho, who knows only time will tell.
China is banning bitcoin?
Yep they arrested the CEO
HAhHAhHAhAHhAHhHAha - Why are we all so caught up on the price... It will always go up and down guys, greed and rebellion are the determining factors there.
Can we maybe focus on some of the more relevant issues that this technology will usher in... "OH MAN BITCOIN'S PRICE DROPPED 100$" yeah.. "But it still represents freedom" so... *sips coffee*
Its good to have you back bud... Its good to have you back.
Troll Observer BTC/TRL - Bitcoin troll movement tracking & discussion
Is TRL a new altcoin? I smell a pump coming
TRL: cryptographically secured by PoT (proof of troll).
CAN YOU SEE EM RUNNING SCARED SHITLESS ON BITSTAMP! MARKET BUYS ALL OVER THE PLACE!
Since Adam locked his thread, we need a new place to talk our books and troll each other (or else the trolling will spill out into otherwise decent threads).
I would like to switch ChartBuddy over but only if you approve.
Certainly, although you don't really need my approval!
I am also betting that Adam will unlock the Wall Observer thread at some point.
I understand that the comments there are no longer backed by anything. Germany asked if they could review the information they had contributed and Adam gave them the runaround. That thread is dead.
Hmm. On Stamp there's a huge bid wall at 510.
China is banning bitcoin?
Yep they arrested the CEO
China is banning bitcoin?
This weekend we'll see sub-500 prices again. But don't worry: We'll be back at 515-530 by the end of next week.
Since Adam locked his thread, we need a new place to talk our books and troll each other (or else the trolling will spill out into otherwise decent threads).
I would like to switch ChartBuddy over but only if you approve.
I would wait. I am sure Adam will unlock the old thread, it is 1.5 years old.
you are fucked...confirmed. I was right about going all FIAT, so again, told you
Since Adam locked his thread, we need a new place to talk our books and troll each other (or else the trolling will spill out into otherwise decent threads).
I would like to switch ChartBuddy over but only if you approve.
you are fucked...confirmed. I was right about going all FIAT, so again, told you
Yeah but if you go all fiat, how can you get it? Haven't you heard, fiat withdraws are over. Bitcoin to the rescue.
I can't believe Adam locked his thread. What happened?
People were posting an old Bitstamp Status update as if it were current. Apparently making false of misleading statements related to bitcoin are not allowed in that thread. Locked for our protection.
you are fucked...confirmed. I was right about going all FIAT, so again, told you
I can't believe Adam locked his thread. What happened?
It's performance art. Are you not entertained?
I can't believe Adam locked his thread. What happened?
He´s trying to spread some FUD by doing this, but we´re strong he can´t stop Bitcoin.
I can't believe Adam locked his thread. What happened?
Revealed himself as a bear. See below.
I can't believe Adam locked his thread. What happened?
First!
TO THEMOON Oord Cloud!
TO THE
Grab what few coins remain on Stamp before they disappear. Source: http://coinorama.net/
Stupid bears will never learn. They´re going to get left behind! Should have better listened to the almighty Walsoraj days ago. Should better listen to him this time!
I like bitcoin because I don't like censorship.
First!
TO THEMOON Oord Cloud!
TO THE
Grab what few coins remain on Stamp before they disappear. Source: http://coinorama.net/
BitLicense is going to hurt the price in the long term.
First!
TO THE MOON!
TO THE MOON!
ChartBuddy came to me in a dream and asked for a home. Who am I to deny him?
Jump to: