A hack of an exchange holding NEM has no real impact. It’s like a bunch of Ripple was stolen.
The very nature of NEMs is to be eaten by some chinese people.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 14915. (Read 26717065 times)
January 28, 2018, 01:01:13 PM
A hack of an exchange holding NEM has no real impact. It’s like a bunch of Ripple was stolen.
The very nature of NEMs is to be eaten by some chinese people.
January 28, 2018, 12:42:05 PM
They are watching. They are always watching. I see you.
January 28, 2018, 12:40:22 PM
...
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be
dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone
else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be
dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone
else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
I was completely agreeing with you until your last sentence. Why do you think that they can´t control it?
They can easily shut down Tether using the same tactic that the US authorities used against
E-Gold (of course the central banks won´t do it themselves, they will let the usual authorities do their
bidding).
Take a look at my earlier post where I described how the Department of Justice and the
Treasury Department simply changed their definition of a money transmitter to a vague definition
that fits literally every business that is somehow related to money transfers.
Quote
However, in its actions from 2006-2008, the U.S. Treasury Department in conjunction with the
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash
i dont remember e-gold much, but i know about how they took down liberty reserve. Suddenly "domain seized" landing website appeared and it was gone. People were able to file claims for their money though.
January 28, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
The difference between Mt.Gox and Bitfinex is that, at that time, bitcoin had few use cases, and few exchanges, whereas now, is much more widespread, with lots of use cases and exchanges (there are even people using it to buy cars and houses).
So a Bitfinex scandal would not affect the price as much as Mt.Gox did.
So a Bitfinex scandal would not affect the price as much as Mt.Gox did.
Furthermore, a 500 million theft from a Japanese exchange last week curiously isn't even a talking point now. Are we just being ethno- and bitcoincentric or is this kind of shit just not so important anymore because of the larger ecosystem?
A hack of an exchange holding NEM has no real impact. It’s like a bunch of Ripple was stolen.
January 28, 2018, 12:36:22 PM
Doesn't seem to tie up with the number of new signups on various exchanges.
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
Well if demand was really so high from the retail side, then shouldn't we be seeing the price skyrocket right now? Or at least continue to rise? Hell, 20M+ retail accounts worldwide just trying to buy $50-100 each in this one month would send the price to the moon right now.
But we aren't even seeing that level of buying pressure. That's why I think it mostly came from the institutional side.
I'm sure we'll continue to see 500K - 1M sign ups a month this year, but not sure that will immediately translate to more buying. It really makes me wonder how much bitcoin is being bought by all these new accounts.
Most exchanges still have a giant backlog of newly registered users waiting to get verified. Some of them had to upgrade their servers to handle the numbers of users that were already verified, but they still haven't dealt with the unverified backlog. There are still people who have been waiting for months for verification.
After they all get verified the price might skyrocket again.
January 28, 2018, 12:27:04 PM
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
My conspiracy tinfoil hat tells me that Tether was sort of endorsed by the CB establishment. They need Bitcoin and the whole crypto market to have a weakness, an Achilles heel, when the next financial crisis comes. Otherwise they know that Bitcoin will go to the moon and they won't have a way to crash and short it.
Tether could be like their Trojan Horse.
when Tether dies bitcoin will skyrocket because then the real market makers will fill the void?
hmmm 
January 28, 2018, 12:06:55 PM
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
My conspiracy tinfoil hat tells me that Tether was sort of endorsed by the CB establishment. They need Bitcoin and the whole crypto market to have a weakness, an Achilles heel, when the next financial crisis comes. Otherwise they know that Bitcoin will go to the moon and they won't have a way to crash and short it.
Tether could be like their Trojan Horse.
January 28, 2018, 12:03:43 PM
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
My conspiracy tinfoil hat tells me that Tether was sort of endorsed by the CB establishment. They need Bitcoin and the whole crypto market to have a weakness, an Achilles heel, when the next financial crisis comes. Otherwise they know that Bitcoin will go to the moon and they won't have a way to crash and short it.
Tether could be like their Trojan Horse.
January 28, 2018, 12:00:17 PM
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
That's why I've been wishing the audit to produce an "all clean" report.If there's no fractional reserve going on, and tether is really backed up 1:1 by real USD, this means no actual printing privilege has been taken away from the central banks. In turn, this should imply the central banks can't take legitimate action against tether creation and, more importantly, have no need or little motivation to do so.
However, my whole point is moot. Apparently, the audit's been canned and it's likely there is overprinting (fractional reserve) going on, so the games are still quite open.
January 28, 2018, 11:59:33 AM
...
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be
dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone
else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be
dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone
else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
I was completely agreeing with you until your last sentence. Why do you think that they can´t control it?
They can easily shut down Tether using the same tactic that the US authorities used against
E-Gold (of course the central banks won´t do it themselves, they will let the usual authorities do their
bidding).
Take a look at my earlier post where I described how the Department of Justice and the
Treasury Department simply changed their definition of a money transmitter to a vague definition
that fits literally every business that is somehow related to money transfers.
Quote
However, in its actions from 2006-2008, the U.S. Treasury Department in conjunction with the
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash
January 28, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
People also have to remember that with Mt. Gox, near the end they weren't selling Bitcoin anymore. They were selling fake Goxcoins, and they blocked withdrawals.
At least with Bitfinex, we are assured that they're Bitcoin is the real thing and can be transferred out. Now whether or not they are wholly solvent, that's another story. They're probably running fractional reserve coinage like many of the other exchanges.
At least with Bitfinex, we are assured that they're Bitcoin is the real thing and can be transferred out. Now whether or not they are wholly solvent, that's another story. They're probably running fractional reserve coinage like many of the other exchanges.
January 28, 2018, 11:47:37 AM
Yes, that's the hilarious part. The last time there was a Bitfinex scare and everyone KNEW they were a fraud, Bitfinex DOUBLED DOWN on fraud. They knew everyone would convert everything to BTC to try and withdraw, so what do they do? They pumped BTC on their own exchange right beforehand to make sure everyone is forced to buy the bitcoins at TOP DOLLAR HAHA. That's how big of crooks everyone affiliated with that exchange is.
by this logic, they would have to significantly pump every coin on their exchange now. Thats not easy when most of these coins are traded on other large exchanges too.,Personally I don't see much of a difference between tethers and "real" dollars displayed on an exchange after you sell btc or a shitcoin. I mean they are both virtual until you get the money on your hand. Many insolvent exchanges showed dollar balances that weren't reflecting the reality of the USD holdings of the exchange, whether it was MtGox or more recent ones.
So no matter if it says "USD balance" / "EUR balance" / "CNY balance", "USDT balance" or even "BTC balance", it always has a risk when you are dealing with an exchange.
Good point. Actually its the same with whole real world banking industry. When we log in to our internet banking apps, all we can see is just a number. But can we all withdraw or spend that today? No. Not a chance if too many people do it at the same time.So no matter if it says "USD balance" / "EUR balance" / "CNY balance", "USDT balance" or even "BTC balance", it always has a risk when you are dealing with an exchange.
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
January 28, 2018, 11:37:51 AM
Doesn't seem to tie up with the number of new signups on various exchanges.
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
Well if demand was really so high from the retail side, then shouldn't we be seeing the price skyrocket right now? Or at least continue to rise? Hell, 20M+ retail accounts worldwide just trying to buy $50-100 each in this one month would send the price to the moon right now.
But we aren't even seeing that level of buying pressure.
I'm sure we'll continue to see 500K - 1M sign ups a month this year, but not sure that will immediately translate to more buying. It really makes me wonder how much bitcoin is being bought by all these new accounts.
True. It does seem very odd doesn't it?
Are people just signing up but not buying?
I guess it can take a while to get the wheels in motion from beginning to sign up, through verification to eventually sending funds to exchanges.
During that time if the price started tanking it might well have put alot of people off buying at all.
Maybe if we see a sustained increase and less FUD then these new users may just start buying up?
This is all completely hypothetical of course.
In the meantime I am still Hodling. :-)
January 28, 2018, 11:32:00 AM
Doesn't seem to tie up with the number of new signups on various exchanges.
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
Well if demand was really so high from the retail side, then shouldn't we be seeing the price skyrocket right now? Or at least continue to rise? Hell, 20M+ retail accounts worldwide just trying to buy $50-100 each in this one month would send the price to the moon right now.
But we aren't even seeing that level of buying pressure. That's why I think it mostly came from the institutional side.
I'm sure we'll continue to see 500K - 1M sign ups a month this year, but not sure that will immediately translate to more buying. It really makes me wonder how much bitcoin is being bought by all these new accounts.
January 28, 2018, 11:22:13 AM
I predict that so much of late 2017's run up was by deep pocket institutional investors (and not retail), that we may see a long period of boring market action sideways for 6-8 months. Maybe longer.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady. Make no mistake though, institutional investors will continue to accumulate OTC. Someone has to buy all those newly minted coins each day/month.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady. Make no mistake though, institutional investors will continue to accumulate OTC. Someone has to buy all those newly minted coins each day/month.
That is the best new years wish ever... . I hope it will happen like that. (small swings may be welcome on a regular base to help increase our stash a bit).
January 28, 2018, 11:19:24 AM
I predict that so much of late 2017's run up was by deep pocket institutional investors (and not retail), that we may see a long period of boring market action sideways for 6-8 months. Maybe longer.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady.
Doesn't seem to tie up with the number of new signups on various exchanges.
If it was just a relative few deep pocketed investors then surely there wouldn't have been such a demand for new registrations?
January 28, 2018, 11:16:52 AM
I predict that so much of late 2017's run up was by deep pocket institutional investors (and not retail), that we may see a long period of boring market action sideways for 6-8 months. Maybe longer.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady. Make no mistake though, institutional investors will continue to accumulate OTC. Someone has to buy all those newly minted coins each day/month.
Only boring relative to last year's craziness though. I'm thinking 2018 could be very much like 2016, slow and steady. Make no mistake though, institutional investors will continue to accumulate OTC. Someone has to buy all those newly minted coins each day/month.
January 28, 2018, 10:29:56 AM
...
Same for those selling at 3000, 4000, 5000, 7000, 9000, etc - always giving bitfinex serious profits, while people were exchanging their btcs for vapor-tokens, and these BTC now can cover multiple times the USDT balance. Right?
Same for those selling at 3000, 4000, 5000, 7000, 9000, etc - always giving bitfinex serious profits, while people were exchanging their btcs for vapor-tokens, and these BTC now can cover multiple times the USDT balance. Right?
If I understand your post correctly, you are making a mistake.
1. Total Tether issuance (USDT on OMNI + USDT on ETH) = ~2.3 billion $
2. Total BTC in Bitfinex cold-wallet = 140,443 BTC = ~1.63 billion $
Even if all these Bitcoin would belong to Bitfinex, which they do not, they would
not be enough to cover all the outstanding Tether at the current Bitcoin price.
Yes because we have excluded normal fiat operations and money held in the bank. It could be another billion and a half or two. It's very unlikely that Bitfinex bank deposits are zero.
January 28, 2018, 10:25:20 AM
The G20 then labels whoever they want "terrorists" and instructs the centralized pools to not process any transactions for them so your money is essentially deleted and you no longer exist ...
Except they aren't doing that, and can't do that, and can't enforce that. Not to mention the decentralized pools.
Then a single transaction goes through, and it jumps 20 hops ... enters zcash or monero or some exchange / dice site ... good luck with that.
January 28, 2018, 10:22:33 AM
...
It does not need to go off with a big bang of course. Probably more and more users are smelling the danger and will effectively change their Tethers for other coins. This way in the end it is the exchanges that will knock on theter 's door... .
It does not need to go off with a big bang of course. Probably more and more users are smelling the danger and will effectively change their Tethers for other coins. This way in the end it is the exchanges that will knock on theter 's door... .
Various outcomes are possible. It is even possible that Tether is completely legit and will continue
to thrive for a lot of years.
Personally, I think it is more likely that authorities of some state will put an end to this business.
There are enough precedents.
E.g. take a look at the history of E-Gold:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
Especially this quote:
Quote
However, in its actions from 2006-2008, the U.S. Treasury Department in conjunction with the
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash. Using this new interpretation they then proceeded to prosecute the USA-based gold systems,
e-gold (and later e-Bullion) under the USA Patriot Act for not having money transmitter licenses,
even though these companies had previously been cooperating with regulatory authorities and told
they did not fall under the definition of money transmitter.
United States Department of Justice stretched the definition of money transmitter in the USA Patriot Act
to include any system that allows transfer of any kind of value from one person to another, not merely national
currency or cash. Using this new interpretation they then proceeded to prosecute the USA-based gold systems,
e-gold (and later e-Bullion) under the USA Patriot Act for not having money transmitter licenses,
even though these companies had previously been cooperating with regulatory authorities and told
they did not fall under the definition of money transmitter.
The bold part from the quote could also be applied to Tether.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that these companies had previously cooperated successfully
with regulatory authorities and even that couldn´t save them in the end. Tether
has not really cooperated with any regulatory authorities as far as I know.
I could be wrong on all of this, but in my opinion Tether will eventually
end up as a successor to E-Gold and LibertyReserve.
Jump to: