Was the SEC right after all? - page 2.

pixie85

hero member

Activity: 2184

Merit: 531

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:34:27 PM

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

A fork doesn't have to end up with BU. There are other possibilities and updates with BU being only one of them.

SEC decided that ETF doesn't protect the investors which is true. Does it change anything for bitcoin? No!
What about the news of Japan accepting Bitcoin as a legal means of payment in April? I'd say that beats the ETF fail hard, especially that most people knew for months that it was going to get rejected.

Uberse

member

Activity: 132

Merit: 12

Quote

Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, to replace every transaction that is actually made by credit cards and bank wires. More and more people are worried by privacy : yeah, who would like that your bank can know that you spend that much money on sex toys ? Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, and this is its anonymity.

Privacy is indeed a growing concern and I think it likely that banks and merchants will respond to an increased concern for customer privacy by offering blockchain-based transactions that hide a transaction's details to all but the customer. Why not?

Quote

How the fuck do you want us to get out of our problems if you want to challenge Bitcoin usefulness ?! You know, you are all free to leave if you want to...

I'm not challenging Bitcoin's usefulness and I have no intention of getting out. I'm just pointing out that crashes like the one we are experiencing as I write this clearly will affect bitcoins' use as some sort of world currency. Some will use it as such, but not Joe Dude when he buys a cup of espresso at Starbucks.

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1090

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

Perhaps on Winklevoss it turns the ETF into a fractional reserve since there would not be as many Bitcoins as there are interested buyers.
Even though it is a fund that just follows the Bitcoin price in theory the regulation of regulation is a bit odd but as a logic point but a wait and see is sometimes a better approach even now.

Some exchanges didn't sign that statement but they did support it example Poloniex.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: mr.mister on March 18, 2017, 05:53:16 PM

the only reason the twinkle-toes wanted SEC adoption was to fill their pockets. They are heavily invested.

their application must have cost many millions but don't forget they have over 100,000 coins with an average buy of about $10. their pockets are already filled pretty nice.

mr.mister

full member

Activity: 302

Merit: 100

the only reason the twinkle-toes wanted SEC adoption was to fill their pockets. They are heavily invested.

richardsNY

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1091

Quote from: European Central Bank on March 18, 2017, 04:28:43 PM

the sec made the right call.

they shouldn't care about potential greatness, more potential problems and there are no shortage of them with bitcoin. they were also correct to leave the door open for the future. right now it's far too immature and fragile for them to endorse it.

It indeed makes sense as I seriously can't believe that a different party can hop in and start causing serious issues with their poisonous ideology and amateurish bunch of drama queens as developer team. That's one aspect -- what's even more pathetic is that major pools are intentionally working against Bitcoin by signalling support for BU.

Cashew

sr. member

Activity: 391

Merit: 250

Quote from: European Central Bank on March 18, 2017, 04:28:43 PM

the sec made the right call.

they shouldn't care about potential greatness, more potential problems and there are no shortage of them with bitcoin. they were also correct to leave the door open for the future. right now it's far too immature and fragile for them to endorse it.

Yes, I believe so, even if this is not a pleasure for me to confess it.

With the recent Bitcoin Unlimited problems, I am realising we are still too immature as you said and that tere is plenty of people we need to get rid of before thinking of growing.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

the sec made the right call.

they shouldn't care about potential greatness, more potential problems and there are no shortage of them with bitcoin. they were also correct to leave the door open for the future. right now it's far too immature and fragile for them to endorse it.

Cashew

sr. member

Activity: 391

Merit: 250

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 03:59:19 PM

Quote from: Cashew on March 18, 2017, 03:27:33 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:34:27 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

Our problem here is that Ethereum Classic did not die, and so will probably do Bitcoin Unlimited. I am really fearing the consequences of Unlimited... People really need to knwo what will happen if an hardfork will occur, and that would be very close to the death of Bitcoin...

It would be very close to the death of Bitcoin as a currency, which never made sense to me anyway. It will not be the death of Bitcoin as a method of data-registration. That and that alone will be Bitcoin's killer app and will drive its price higher and higher. There will be plenty of room for more hard forks. But bitcoin as a currency -- no. Tell me that Africans will use it in conjunction with M-Pesa, OK. Tell me that Dark Web merchants will use it, OK. Tell me that it will be a vehicle for hot money escaping currency controls, OK. But as a point-of-sale currency at Walmart? WTF for?

Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, to replace every transaction that is actually made by credit cards and bank wires. More and more people are worried by privacy : yeah, who would like that your bank can know that you spend that much money on sex toys ? Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, and this is its anonymity.

How the fuck do you want us to get out of our problems if you want to challenge Bitcoin usefulness ?! You know, you are all free to leave if you want to...

Yakamoto

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

You know, you can always short Bitcoin too. It's not like you have to force yourself to go long on positions only. ETFs can (to my knowledge) do basically anything a normal trader on the market would do, and move it around in the same ways.

Had it been approved, and this happened, there's a chance they would have made far, far more money off of shorting Bitcoin than most of their long positions since then.

Uberse

member

Activity: 132

Merit: 12

Quote from: Cashew on March 18, 2017, 03:27:33 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:34:27 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

Our problem here is that Ethereum Classic did not die, and so will probably do Bitcoin Unlimited. I am really fearing the consequences of Unlimited... People really need to knwo what will happen if an hardfork will occur, and that would be very close to the death of Bitcoin...

It would be very close to the death of Bitcoin as a currency, which never made sense to me anyway. It will not be the death of Bitcoin as a method of data-registration. That and that alone will be Bitcoin's killer app and will drive its price higher and higher. There will be plenty of room for more hard forks. But bitcoin as a currency -- no. Tell me that Africans will use it in conjunction with M-Pesa, OK. Tell me that Dark Web merchants will use it, OK. Tell me that it will be a vehicle for hot money escaping currency controls, OK. But as a point-of-sale currency at Walmart? WTF for?

Cashew

sr. member

Activity: 391

Merit: 250

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:34:27 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

Our problem here is that Ethereum Classic did not die, and so will probably do Bitcoin Unlimited. I am really fearing the consequences of Unlimited... People really need to knwo what will happen if an hardfork will occur, and that would be very close to the death of Bitcoin...

Senor.Bla

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 253

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:40:44 PM

Quote from: Senor.Bla on March 18, 2017, 02:31:36 PM

I wonder if we have this whole the fork is around the corner debate just now after the decision has been made, because some of the players were holding it back to make an extra buck.

By "some of the players" I take it you mean the signatories to the Hardfork Statement. They would have had to short their own market -- doesn't seem likely.

Well if approved most expected a rise, so holders would benefit. Having this statement before the decision would have not helped, so they postponed it.

Uberse

member

Activity: 132

Merit: 12

Quote from: Senor.Bla on March 18, 2017, 02:31:36 PM

I wonder if we have this whole the fork is around the corner debate just now after the decision has been made, because some of the players were holding it back to make an extra buck.

By "some of the players" I take it you mean the signatories to the Hardfork Statement. They would have had to short their own market -- doesn't seem likely.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:34:27 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

Lack of unity is exactly what bitcoin was designed for. Lack of unity is what decentralisation means. It means that there are too many different antagonists to agree over change, so by default, they can only agree (find consensus) over NO change, which is called immutability.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Senor.Bla on March 18, 2017, 02:31:36 PM

I wonder if we have this whole the fork is around the corner debate just now after the decision has been made, because some of the players were holding it back to make an extra buck.

No. The ETF would have allowed bitcoin to remain as it is, because then big money could gamble on PAPER bitcoin without ever touching the block chain. That would have pumped bitcoin to the skies, even if no single block chain transaction would be able to pass, because bitcoin would be paper, and nobody would give a shit about the real block chain. But now that the ETF is gone, bitcoins still have to be transacted on the chain, and because that's limited, the debate exploded.

But the debate is nothing else but bitcoin's own mechanism to remain immutable.

Uberse

member

Activity: 132

Merit: 12

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

Senor.Bla

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 253

I wonder if we have this whole the fork is around the corner debate just now after the decision has been made, because some of the players were holding it back to make an extra buck.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Uberse on March 18, 2017, 02:14:24 PM

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

Uberse

member

Activity: 132

Merit: 12

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Topic: Was the SEC right after all? - page 2. (Read 1727 times)