Pages:

Author

Topic: Pro-crypto Mark Cuban to replace Gensler if Harris wins - page 2. (Read 577 times)

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

I wouldn't even know how to begin to answer that: federal agencies have saved investors billions, if not trillions of dollars since they were created by Congress ~100 years ago.

Give me an example of a law. You're the president. What does become compulsory as a process if I want to run a cryptocurrency exchange that would ensure the customers' funds are insured or more protected against a hack?

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

Meanwhile, if the core devs of Bitcoin collectively decided to increase the max block number, then they... could. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but in the case of Bitcoin it's up to the decisions of a group of unelected, unaccountable entities.

This is certainly not the case. The developers can write any code they want, just as we, the individuals, can run any software we want. If a group of people change the 21 million limit, we can simply refuse to run that. There have been many instances of Bitcoin developers trying to change fundamental parts of Bitcoin in the past, resulted in altcoins nobody even remembers anymore.

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

And lest this seem implausible, I'll create a simple scenario for you: in 2025, President Trump wants pay of the US national debt with Bitcoin as he promised to do so in the campaign, so he orders Satoshi's blocks to be released (through a change in core to specifically hack them). Core devs of Bitcoin do this or become international criminals, so they comply.

So, they agree to write the code for Trump. They do. The next challenge: convincing the entire network to run those binaries. This is a process that is orders of magnitude more difficult and fundamentally different. There must be consensus on the new fork, or it will be rejected. In other words, defining what Bitcoin is lies beyond the authority of just a few developers.

Edit:

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

(* Fun fact: I never use the word "fiat currency" to describe national sovereign currencies because it doesn't differentiate them from digital currencies: they all obtain their value purely by virtue of their subjective human demand, so all digital currencies are "fiat" currencies).

Not at all. Fiat currencies hold value because governments, with all their military power, declare them as legal tender. This goes far beyond the subjective human demand that applies to things like bread, houses, or Bitcoin.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 29, 2024, 02:31:18 AM

Quote from: legiteum on September 26, 2024, 06:46:46 PM

Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium.

Can you give an example? How would a politician pass a law that would protect consumers against fraud with cryptocurrency?

I wouldn't even know how to begin to answer that: federal agencies have saved investors billions, if not trillions of dollars since they were created by Congress ~100 years ago.

Can you imagine, for instance, if there was no FBI that would prosecute fraudsters? Would you imagine that would increase the propensity of fraud just a little bit?

Certainly there are lots of regulations that are probably bad and don't stop fraud, but anarchy is not the answer. The answer is to fight fraud in every form, and Congress should assist in that.

Quote from: legiteum on September 27, 2024, 02:52:22 PM

Bitcoin mostly stopped being used for what it was built for in about 2012...

Here's what it was built for:

Quote from: https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

Remains the same concept, after all these years. Being used more as a store of value or as an "investment through a broker" does not change that fact.

There's nothing in the Bitcoin whitepaper about creating a non-inflatable asset as a specific goal. The formula for Coke hasn't changed since it was a cough medicine either, but that's not how the product is used.

There are lots and lots of investments that cannot be inflated. Beachfront property in California for instance. Gold is pretty close (and highly predictable). There are thousands of other examples.

Meanwhile, if the core devs of Bitcoin collectively decided to increase the max block number, then they... could. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but in the case of Bitcoin it's up to the decisions of a group of unelected, unaccountable entities.

And besides these devs simply deciding this on their own, they could be compelled by a government to make their decision under threat of prosecution.

And lest this seem implausible, I'll create a simple scenario for you: in 2025, President Trump wants pay of the US national debt with Bitcoin as he promised to do so in the campaign, so he orders Satoshi's blocks to be released (through a change in core to specifically hack them). Core devs of Bitcoin do this or become international criminals, so they comply.

After that, they noticed they can do the same thing for more blocks. Bitcoin wallet holders go along with all of this because any fork not following US orders would be banned in the US and thus nearly worthless compared to the one in everybody's brokerage app and ETF. Trump will have essentially extorted changes in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not a magic force, it's a piece of software. It's a great piece of software, and a great community and infrastructure support it, but it's just a human invention just like sovereign currencies are*.

(* Fun fact: I never use the word "fiat currency" to describe national sovereign currencies because it doesn't differentiate them from digital currencies: they all obtain their value purely by virtue of their subjective human demand, so all digital currencies are "fiat" currencies).

Outhue

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 403

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Mark Cuban a pro-crypto sounds like a joke, this man promoted some shit and scam projects like Bit connect, if I can tell or ask him anything I would tell him to hunt for the bitconnect CEO first before he can become the SEC chairman, this man even got drained because of Malware.

Just because some popular figure is into crypto doesn't make them crypto experts, the person that fits the sit is someone who can create out of block chain, the levels of Vitalik Buterin, someone who can actually tell the difference.

Few comments are saying that gensler is a pro bitcoinist, I don't believe so because in the past he was into one or two altcoins and also support them, I can't remember the names again, Gensler lacks a lot about the Block chain, Mark might be better but there are better fits out there than these two.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Dump3er on September 29, 2024, 08:07:31 AM

However, the 10x money creation out of nowhere that banks operate with these days is probably not a good idea in regards to long-term market stability. But 1:1 insurance coverage could make markets more inefficient.

The modern monetary theory underpinning the current financial system is fundamentally flawed. From banks creating credit money out of thin air, which can be bailed out in the worst-case scenario, to central banks controlling the extent to which other banks can set interest rates, none of these practices are leading us toward long-term market stability.

Dump3er

hero member

Activity: 1526

Merit: 597

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 29, 2024, 05:15:25 AM

Quote from: Ambatman on September 29, 2024, 03:52:37 AM

Maybe implement a law that all exchange but have their Customers funds strictly insured on

It is unreasonable to expect a crypto company to maintain insurance coverage equal to the value of every cryptocurrency it holds, similar to how banks insure cash deposits. Think about it. For every amount of crypto someone deposits, it needs to keep the same reserve in cash. What if that crypto skyrockets in price? Where does it find the cash to insure that? The equation becomes incredibly complex, and it'd just result in exchanges running illegally or getting shut down.

Quote from: Ambatman on September 29, 2024, 03:52:37 AM

Or maybe educate the public or be stringent with new shitcoins created

Education requires no regulation, no bill, and no coercion. It's what we already have to an extent, but people appear to feel like there's more than personal responsibility.

And you can't properly value the cryptocurrency holdings as the larger the portfolio, the more likely the liquidation value or fair value moves away from the current book value. We have seen that with fire sales during the financial crisis in 2007/2008 when banks tried to get rid of MBS at the last price that was paid in the public market. It's nonsense as realizing book value during volatile times in particularly markets, which applies to cryptocurrencies, is essentially impossible.

As you said it would be unbelievably complex for all crypto companies to shuffle around cash all day long in order to match their book values for the sake of insurance coverage.

However, the 10x money creation out of nowhere that banks operate with these days is probably not a good idea in regards to long-term market stability. Wink

But 1:1 insurance coverage could make markets more inefficient.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Ambatman on September 29, 2024, 03:52:37 AM

Maybe implement a law that all exchange but have their Customers funds strictly insured on

Quote from: Ambatman on September 29, 2024, 03:52:37 AM

Or maybe educate the public or be stringent with new shitcoins created

Education requires no regulation, no bill, and no coercion. It's what we already have to an extent, but people appear to feel like there's more than personal responsibility.

Ambatman

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 315

Top Crypto Casino

I just want this election to just pass by, but I know not everybody would be satisfied and some would regret their decisions.
I know no politician is pure and all but non of the two major party has given me a reason to be a "Real" Supporter.
Well I'm not from the US, but unfortunately the result would still affect me indirectly.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 29, 2024, 02:31:18 AM

Quote from: legiteum on September 26, 2024, 06:46:46 PM

Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium.

Can you give an example? How would a politician pass a law that would protect consumers against fraud with cryptocurrency?

Maybe implement a law that all exchange but have their Customers funds strictly insured on
Or maybe educate the public or be stringent with new shitcoins created
But we have seen cases where data's are tempered with and Fraudsters would just get smarter.
And even if regulations Would be made, It would be hard to really implement.

But how would a line be drawn between Regulation and centralization? that would be a blurry question to answer.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: legiteum on September 26, 2024, 06:46:46 PM

Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium.

Can you give an example? How would a politician pass a law that would protect consumers against fraud with cryptocurrency?

Quote from: legiteum on September 27, 2024, 02:52:22 PM

Bitcoin mostly stopped being used for what it was built for in about 2012...

Here's what it was built for:

Quote from: https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

Remains the same concept, after all these years. Being used more as a store of value or as an "investment through a broker" does not change that fact.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: shield132 on September 28, 2024, 05:03:23 AM

Quote from: stompix on September 27, 2024, 01:53:20 PM

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

Now I realize that you are right about one thing, Satoshi wouldn't like ETFs. I am confused. I personally think that massive Bitcoin adoption is destroying Bitcoin but at the same time it's what people want. My conclusion is that the Bitcoin community wanted Bitcoin ETF approvals, so if Gary goes against it, he isn't pro-bitcoin but on the other hand, like you said, Bitcoin ETFs aren't pro-bitcoin in reality because we have read whitepaper and know Satoshi's vision. So I'm really confused with what I wrote above but nothing makes Gary pro-bitcoin, he is an SEC chairman and that's what he cares about.

Prepare to be amazed again
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s12-blockchain-and-money-fall-2018/

So this guy who people who praise shitcoins and meme coins and have never actually owned their coins at any moment was teaching about blockchain and decentralization 6 years ago at f**** MIT!!!! The so-called crypto lovers were pumping shitcoins on twitter meanwhile!
People here love to hate every official, hate the government hate everything, but the truth is Gensler is a true maxi, he hates everything that is a cheap copy of bitcoin, he has never criticized even while being the SEC Bitcoin as a coin or a crypto, he is pro regulating CEXs and shitcoins.

Now going back to Satoshi again, would Satoshid defend Coinbase against SEC? Do you think he would defend Ripple against the SEC? Look at what this forum has become, hating a guy who is against the exact same things Satoshi has been, in what world do you see Saotshi saying it's ok to have a company in charge of your coins and issuing unlimited coins? Grin

How many times has Gensler said that Bitcoin is not a security and the SEC has no business regulating it?
A hundred at least, last time yesterday how does this thing not make him pro bitcoin?
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/09/27/secs-gensler-wont-reveal-his-view-on-trumps-bitcoin-reserve-reiterates-bitcoin-isnt-a-security/

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: Smack That Ace on September 28, 2024, 05:38:05 AM

I also enjoy participating in discussions on election related topics as I believe this will more or less impact the future of bitcoin. But I'm also starting to get tired of seeing legiteum's posts because he doesn't care about anything but badmouthing Trump and telling people to vote for Harris.

There are certainly far more posts here praising Trump, defending Trump, and advocating Trump for president, but as a Trump supporter you probably don't notice them.

This is by far the most divisive presidential election in US history. You would have to find a pretty closed-off forum to find the pro-Trump echo chamber you seem to be seeking. Insofar as people are allowed to state both sides of the argument, there's going to be a lot of arguing until election day...

Smack That Ace

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1108

Free Free Palestine

Quote from: PrivacyG on September 27, 2024, 01:46:43 PM

legiteum is one person I can never take too serious considering their Posts are for the most part anti Trump messages. I get they do not like him and there is no thing wrong with that but it is very dubious to see an anti Trump statement in almost every single post of theirs. It exhausted me to the point where it is almost like reading bot replies on Reddit.

I remember when the election topics were getting more and more popular on the forum and most people were supporting Trump, he was just one of the few people supporting Harris and it seemed like he couldn't stand alone against the crowd. Then he had a thread telling people to stop associating bitcoin with politics because it's bad for bitcoin but ironically, he was the one who kept mentioning bitcoin, trump and Harris as what was going on. It doesn't stop there, as you said, he always finds opportunities to badmouth and insult Trump even when the topic has nothing to do with Trump.

I also enjoy participating in discussions on election related topics as I believe this will more or less impact the future of bitcoin. But I'm also starting to get tired of seeing legiteum's posts because he doesn't care about anything but badmouthing Trump and telling people to vote for Harris.

shield132

hero member

Activity: 2352

Merit: 905

Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever

Quote from: stompix on September 27, 2024, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: shield132 on September 27, 2024, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

You do realize that you can be against IOU's promises of owning Bitcoin and being pro Bitcoin, right?
I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

Quote from: stompix on September 27, 2024, 01:53:20 PM

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

In pro-Blackrock I mean that he didn't stand by his own words and instead did what Blackrock told him to do. He could stand strong and didn't approve ETFs. He shouldn't also have approved Futures ETFs because he think that Bitcoin is volatile and in that case, futures make Bitcoin, as an investment option, even more volatile.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: stompix on September 27, 2024, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: shield132 on September 27, 2024, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

You mean, did Satoshi design Bitcoin to be a meme investment instrument for millions of consumers investing their retirement funds? No, no he didn't

.

Bitcoin mostly stopped being used for what it was built for in about 2012...

Quote from: shield132 on September 27, 2024, 01:31:47 PM

Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

I think I've called out the same thing before: in some arguments, the Illuminati Conspiracy is the thing mysteriously holding Bitcoin back because it upsets the power structure of bla bla bla bla. But then, when it's convenient, the same Illuminati is pro-Bitcoin because they secretly control politicians and force them to do things that are pro-Bitcoin, which is the only reason that the politicians we hate (for unrelated reasons) could possibly do something that is so obviously pro-Bitcoin.

It's almost like there's a political agenda here and Bitcoin is just an excuse, and the conspiracy theories are just tools.

DeathAngel

legendary

Activity: 3304

Merit: 1617

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

The new SEC Chair is less important to us now. We got the Spot ETFs through, I don’t really care about shitcoins, so I don’t need the new Chair to be pro Altcoins or anything. Gensler was hostile towards Bitcoin for a long time, he got forced into approving the ETFs by court & also pressure from Blackrock, so I wish nothing but misery for any career he embarks on now.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: shield132 on September 27, 2024, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

Quote from: shield132 on September 27, 2024, 01:31:47 PM

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

PrivacyG

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1873

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: stompix on September 26, 2024, 06:22:23 PM

Are you serious?
The guy that started the ponzi scheme with Voyager and the guy that got tricked into buying Bitconnect and was stupid enough to download a maware wallet and got drained out of $800k in crypto?
This guy?

shield132

hero member

Activity: 2352

Merit: 905

Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs. He is also not a man of his word, a hypocritical person, who says one thing and does a different thing.

Quote from: stompix on September 26, 2024, 06:22:23 PM

Gensler is pro-bitcoin, he is anti-shitcoins, and every so-called crypto "investors" hate this because this is how they make money, with stupid schemes and pirting trillions of worthless coins, NFT, and pure vaporware.

Gary Gansler said that he didn't want to approve Bitcoin ETFs because Bitcoin is easily manipulated but he approved Bitcoin Futures ETFs without hesitation. He tried to postpone Bitcoin Spot ETF approval as long as possible and even after that, big guys like BlackRock forced him to approve ETFs. Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Here's another story about Mark Cuban and his taking over of the SEC:

https://www.newsweek.com/mark-cuban-sec-fox-cavuto-1959882

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: d5000 on September 26, 2024, 06:33:08 PM

I personally don't really mind Gensler, it will be indifferent for Bitcoin if he stays or not in my opinion. However if I was to vote I would replace him with somebody having more idea about a regulation that could make ICO crowdfunding easier, but with still strong investor protection (But I'm also not from the US.)

I don't mind him much either. Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium. The thing holding trillions of dollars back from consumer investors is people's perception that the crypto business is full of fraud and criminals--and Trump would reinforce that perception.

Gensler has been made into a boogieman by a few billionaire Bitcoin whales who have pumped $millions into Trump's campaign because they want revenge. Harris choosing a pro-crypto SEC Chairman like Cuban pops that balloon, and forces the Trump supporters here to admit they only want Trump because he's a criminal like themselves, or because he wants to make abortion illegal, or whatever their thing about Trump is--and that it actually never had anything to do with Bitcoin or the crypto business (which was just a convenient excuse).

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Pressures from the shitcoin industry, probably Grin

And Cuban would fit, see:

Quote from: Tradingview

Cuban is well known for his support of cryptocurrencies – not only Bitcoin but also altcoins, such as Dogecoin and Solana.

From the Tradingview article.

I don't know much about Cuban (apart from that he was mentioned recently at a rally by pro-crypto Democrats), but for me that looks like a quite obvious propaganda move. So at least the more naive parts of the "crypto industry" could support Democrats. (That doesn't mean I changed my mind supporting Trump though

) And if what @stompix wrote is true then it's not the right guy for that job.

I personally don't really mind Gensler, it will be indifferent for Bitcoin if he stays or not in my opinion. However if I was to vote I would replace him with somebody having more idea about a regulation that could make ICO crowdfunding easier, but with still strong investor protection (But I'm also not from the US.)