Anybody else not buying the fact that they got hacked? Seems more like they fat fingered the tweet, we'll see tomorrow.
SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
151–160 of 518 posts
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old crypto chants were that crypto would lead us away from the ills of traditional markets/finance. Glad to see that it's been watered down to "just as bad as" arguments.
Tomorrow your bank could cut you off from your own money because you protested the government[1], and what could you possibly do? Having the freedom to truly own your own money and investments is valuable in and of itself, no matter how much crypto "devolves" towards traditional finance in other regards. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Instead, you can lose access to your money just because you forgot your secret key.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.
We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.
The legislation could be "just don't" because:
1. The government owns it's own top level domain(s) to be a primary source
and
2. There is the general media who can turn that into stories, and use whatever private companies they need.
This delineates official statement from general news, which people will be slightly more skeptical of.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.
> We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. What kind of legislation? There's a whole lot of existing law that applies in that domain (both statute and Constitutional case law), but if you think we need different laws, it probably helps to at least present the general shape of the law you want rather than just that it should in some w…
An example might be that the government sets up its own very basic one-way tweet-like notification service, something as simple as or simpler than an RSS feed, with the official content accessible directly via a .gov hosted web page.
Whatever X is or becomes, as owned by private interests, is trusted with nothing more than scraping and rebroadcasting the original and authentic source.
A solution with less developer and user overhead ma ybe that government webs host a list of public keys by which any "gray or blue check mark" type of authenticatuon signal capability on any private service can be validated against, and the government can revoke keys at any time if for some reason there's a suspicion that a counterfeit message is being distributed via these private services. Maybe repurpose the creaky old atomic clock time sync radio signal that is deployed almost everywhere as a means to distribute a rotating secondary factor. just old PKI tactics proven to work for two plus decades.
But this approach is still open to exploiting human tendency to trust things that have been trustworthy for a long time, until they aren't. So I still think hosting official messaging feeds directly from a government run server, accessible by any barebones http client capable of displaying plain text with basic paragraph/item formatting at most, is the gold standard.
The current situation, where X or meta or google or even a mastodon instance is entrusted with the entire conduit from human input to broadcast output, is a terrible precedent to normalize.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#155Well this certainly makes them seem more legitimate.
[deleted]
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.
tell your congress critters to write laws requiring public infrastructure (public sector adoption of ActivityPub is an awesome use-case here)
All you need is HTTPs and HTML. Maybe RSS.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the "it makes it easier" part that I am debating. Yes buying into a gold ETF is obviously easier because going out and buying physical gold takes more effort. But for a bitcoin ETF you are trading two clicks on one site vs two clicks on another. And in the ETF case you don't actually get to own any Bitcoin. So where's the advantage?
I believe the argument is that it makes it easier for institutions like fund managers and businesses because they don't need to be concerned with custodianship.
That may have made sense 8 years ago, but the problem has long since been solved. Coinbase can act as a custodian for your Bitcoin. Fidelity has its own service for it, as does every other fund/brokerage/bank of its scale. You can buy it as part of your 401k.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#158I am glad to see the cyberpunk future of hackers impersonating government agencies in order to pump and dump digital currency has finally arrived.
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.
And getting 500 thousand followers. Easy peasy.
When the payout is say $100M from trading on the fake news, yes it is.