Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 23865. (Read 26711605 times)
December 31, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
December 31, 2014, 05:50:31 PM
Happy New Year to y'all too !! 
December 31, 2014, 05:44:47 PM
Happy New Year! May we rise above $2015 usd in 2015.
December 31, 2014, 05:38:05 PM
happy new year...stop being bearish.
December 31, 2014, 05:36:18 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
I'm glad that someone gets this
Happy New Year to all of you...bulls, bears and pigs!
December 31, 2014, 05:32:42 PM
Happy New Year Bitcoiners. May the math be with us! 
Oh I like that very much.
Et cum spirituo tuo.
December 31, 2014, 05:24:00 PM
Happy New Year Bitcoiners. May the math be with us!
December 31, 2014, 05:18:49 PM
Happy new year everyone. Price is strong today
December 31, 2014, 05:06:24 PM
Alright, I think it's safe to say now that the bears won in 2014.
Re-match begins tomorrow. The bulls are ready for some payback!
Re-match begins tomorrow. The bulls are ready for some payback!
Yep... 2014... a good year for BTC bears.
2015 is another year, and only time will tell regarding results.
I would be quite surprised if we get another bear year in 2015, but I would NOT be so surprised if 2015 has mixed results that tend towards bullish results.
It would be nice, however, if 2015 could generate another bubble year - preferably in the first half of the year... yet us BTC enthusiasts should be prepared to wait out the totality of the year, if necessary and HODL, HODL, HODL.... and BUYDL, BUYDL, BUYDL.
Depends how you look at it. Through 2014 we managed to stay above the pre-November-bubble high and stayed well above what the value was for most of 2013. If you look at the 2 year chart on Bitcoinity, if anything we've been too high through 2014 and taking our time to get back to the proper level. We appear to be there now though and 2015 will be the real fight.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been better and for many people, it was undoubtedly a bad year but for Bitcoin, it wasn't that bad.
December 31, 2014, 05:03:07 PM
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
I don't like the timing of the revision. Christmas is a good time to bury bad news. I'll wait to find out the reasons behind the revision before making up my mind about its implications.
There is no news whatsoever.
Typical ETF proposal fillings usually get no mention or attention. Only because this one is Bitcoin related does it make its rounds in the media.
It is my understanding that revisions after an original proposal is a very normal process and arguably a good sign.
December 31, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
December 31, 2014, 04:58:51 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
I don't like the timing of the revision. Christmas is a good time to bury bad news. I'll wait to find out the reasons behind the revision before making up my mind about its implications.
December 31, 2014, 04:57:25 PM
Happy New Year everyone.
December 31, 2014, 04:55:44 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
December 31, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
December 31, 2014, 04:39:34 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
Is the change likely to delay things considerably? The approval process seems to have moved at a glacial pace to date.
December 31, 2014, 04:39:00 PM
Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015
Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on
B-bull don´t need no helmet for space.
It´s just there for photographic effect.
December 31, 2014, 04:30:01 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
December 31, 2014, 04:18:54 PM
please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
December 31, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015
Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet onB-bull don´t need no helmet for space.
It´s just there for photographic effect.
Jump to: