Topic: PLEASE HELP: Campaign to get a bitcoin "niche ETF" (Read 5628 times)

I read through all your posts. Its pretty obvious you came on here just to promote the bitcoin etf concept.

Cryptoanarchist, you're too funny. 

I'm not sure whether you're deliberately setting out to try and turn total strangers into enemies, but my view is that all of us probably already have enough of those. If you'd like actually to read some of my previous posts that weren't about investments, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. However, I make no apologies for the fact that I have an interest in investing and have done for a long time; I also have an interest in Bitcoins and have done for a long time.

And of course, if you'd like to discuss Bitcoin investments, I'm fine with that. But co-opting an otherwise potentially interesting discussion to create an excuse for impugning my integrity -- twice now, on two different threads -- doesn't seem like it does either of us much good.

I like how you just came on the forum to push for bitcoin investment vehicles, with no previous interest in bitcoins as a currency.

I'm guessing that if you were to ask all the folks who would like to own Bitcoins, though -- some of whom already do and some of whom haven't been able to yet -- you'd probably find quite a few different reasons why they'd like to own them. Quite a few more might not care much whether they own any directly or not, but they might like exposure to Bitcoins as an asset. In any case, some of them would undoubtedly agree with you that it's all a stupid idea that negates their reason for wanting to own Bitcoins in the first place. Others, not so much.

In my personal view, it seems like it could be a big positive for the Bitcoin economy.

All my investments are already tax free. woo-hoo...

If an ETF actually materializes, I definitely want to invest some of my ROTH IRA in it. Any future gains from that investment would be tax free!

Stupid idea that completely negates the point of owning bitcoins in the first place.

There is a lengthy discussion underway in the Economics section on the proposed Winkelvoss Bitcoin Trust, which would provide a Bitcoin-backed ETF:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/winkelvoss-etp-could-become-the-pricing-mechanism-for-btc-252330

That particular discussion covers the potential impact of the Bitcoin ETF on Bitcoin price discovery, as well as touching on some of the ins and outs of how such products work, how creation and redemption is handled, fund expenses, and more.

If memory serves, there are at least a couple of other Bitcoin ETF threads which had been going gangbusters, although I haven't dipped into those in awhile.

How do you feel being exactly 1 year ahead of the curve on this one?

Re: Van Eck Proposal Above


see

Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF May Not be Redeemable in Bitcoins for Individual Investors



http://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/55120007013/winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-may-not-be-redeemable-in

Personally, I think Bitcoin has to have more market share and a much bigger market capitalisation before it makes sense to setup an ETF. Currently, it would not help the Bitcoin project much except maybe a price spike and more speculators which bring higher volatility.

From GlobalX:

Seriously, am I the only one willing to send a few emails to these companies to rouse their interest? What are internet forums for if not to organize harassment on people and companies?

I would definitely buy this ETF

Definitely the latter!

From ishares:

From ETF Securities:

From Guggenheim:


Please, bitcoin forum. Help me flood these companies with requests. If they see enough interest, someone with authority to make decisions will at least have to start thinking about bitcoin!

You "heard" a rumor? Or you attempted to "start" a rumor? 

I have zero interest in editing that message. Although I do wonder why you'd announce it like this. Feels very hostile. Are you trying to scare me into not replying to you anymore?


Your arrogance really has me wonder if you're actually more interested in demeaning those with differing viewpoints than in discussion. You didn't actually reply to any of my points in any way.

To comment a little on the post you linked to. The courts will most likely try something someday. I believe they'll be about as succesful as they have been in blocking the pirate bay. That is, their decision only really matters to those who want it to matter to them. It will be interesting to see how the first such a case will go. Because, in the end, the decision is in the hands of the users.

It will either end with total failure for the courts or we'll see the bitcoin network fork into two different networks. I find the latter option rather unlikely. A version of Bitcoin that's controlled by the court of some country would have very little appeal to anyone who cares at all about financial freedom.

I'm inserting a full quote just to assure against further edits from jojkaart.
OK, willful myopia. That reference to bike-shedding from FreeBSD settled it. Thanks.

This problem of what is Bitcoin vs. what is Satoshi Bitcoin client maintained by Gavin and friends) was discussed several times, both here and elsewhere. The good jumping poing for people interested in understanding is probably the following thread and post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.538561

Edit: Actually I just realized that jojkaart is probably a software developer (from the rather obscure FreeBSD reference). Therefore he will probably be also capable of understanding the idea of BIP 2112 (from my signature) where I talk about cryptographically signed digital prospectuses.

1) BIP Wars? There was a lot of noise, I can agree with that. But that's all it was. Blown completely out of proportion. The whole thing is comparable to first deciding to paint the bikeshed and then having a long and noisy argument about which color to paint it. Only, in this case the whole community needed to agree on the color for the painting to happen at all so it became quite a messy affair after another color was proposed. Almost everyone agreed that the new functionality should be added. The argument was about semantics of exactly how to accomplish it.

The checkpoints are very different. Choosing a checkpoint that isn't already a part of the current longest chain is something that will fork the chain. Even then, the fork will only happen if a significant portion of the mining power also chooses to adopt the checkpoint. The users have the choice of which fork to use. Gavin can prepare the fork but it'll only matter if enough users decide to use it. This is why I call him a rubber stamp here.

2) Everyone can verify that the network rules have been followed, the accounts are public afterall, even if not easily linkable to their owners. I take it you are saying that's not enough to qualify as an audit?

To sum up. Gavin is nothing even close to chief treasurer of Bitcoin. Such a person does not exist. That's what's so revolutionary about Bitcoin. It's a distributed consensus system. For something to happen in this system, a consensus is needed.

I don't expect this to remove the problem of not fitting in with the stock exchange rules though. I'd be really surprised if those are applicable at all to a system without someone responsible for accounting. So, in that respect, I do understand why you'd want someone to be the chief treasurer.

(I should probably disclose that I have no knowledge of the rules the stock exchanges use. So, unless you or someone else fill me in, I'll be completely clueless about them.)

I thought of this. You could basically start a company whose total assets were bitcoin. You keep the coins on paper in a vault and then sell shares. There is a gold silver company that does this out of Alberta whose assets are 90% bullion. http://www.centralfund.com/

Two non-sequiturs in one post? I'm not sure if you are naturally myopic or willfully myopic.

1) Recall the BIP wars from around April. If you call that rubber stamp then I'll call it rubber-stamp bazooka.

2) Blockchain works as a ledger only if the address ownership is published. I recall only one case where Mt.Gox published one of their addresses after the hack to prove the control of funds. Nothing like that happened ever since despite the added RPC call functionality that was designed for just that purpose.