Nah, I meant that if I tried to make the esoteric legal explanation, which at least opens the door to a more negative possibility, this would like be characterized as a FUD attempt. So, I simply would say that I have some concerns.
It seems as if I misunderstood you, then.
It does seem that people use the term FUD in differing ways, and sometimes people purposefully misuse the term FUD in order to spread FUD.. or at least to create ambiguity for a discussion that should NOT be so ambiguous.
Personally, I am of the belief that the more you explain, then the less likely you should be accused of spreading FUD, unless of course you are merely just seeming to argue the one side and to mislead concerning mitigating facts or standards, or something like that. If you are merely pointing out some administrative law or some other case law that helps to bring you to the conclusion that the Winklevii are NOT going to be approved, then those kinds of factual details could help to establish that you are actually relying on meaningful sources to reach your conclusion(s) regarding such prediction of non-approval.
Accordingly, if you were to put out some of those sources of information on a public thread, then maybe some peeps would read those sources and come to similar conclusions as you or may come to different conclusions or may be inspired to engage in further research to clarify and/or to predict.
Except for the requirement to engage in extra work for the poster, I cannot really see any downside to sharing legal and/or administrative information - except to the extent that if you are relying on secondary sources that are misquoting the actual authoritative sources.
As far as the pessimism... I am normally biased in that direction so take that with at least a grain of salt -- I am naturally a critic. That said, there are some real challenges and we may very well meet them. But, it's not like they aren't there. The further out you go, failure is always more likely than success.
Nothing wrong with being pessimistic or critical b/c it takes all kinds in this world, but sometimes people will get worn out and NOT want to hang out with you, if they conclude that you are too much of a pessimist.
I believe the further you go out, the more difficult it is to predict what is going to happen - whether it is possitive or negative; however, in the short and medium term, we do NOT need that level of certainty about the long term future b/c it is either NOT relevant or only minimally relevant to the question in front of us today, and that is to buy, sell or hodl..
I heart the Black Market, non-regulated aspects of Bitcoin. F--- Wall Street. Bunch of bastards.
I am tending to agree with you about the need for continued development and evolution of these various black market characteristics and features.. yet, wallstreet and regulation seems to be a kind of double edged sword to bring validity and acceptance and maybe even to lessen some of the possibilities of hostility with the mainstream economy. Some people suggest that we do NOT need them at all (which seems to be where you are leaning and to me that seems extreme), but wallstreet and regulations do seem to lend some credibility and some potential for large scale expansion.. and in the short term such BTC markets will likely be manipulated by big financial holders until market cap exceeds gold... or some level in that $10 trillion dollar ball park..
