Live data from Hacker News

SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

twitter.com

271–280 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fun site.

Crypto is a scam (including Bitcoin) anybody treating it otherwise is overly credulous or in on the scam. Maybe it started out with better intentions but it is irredeemable.

And so is economic growth by printing USDs. Let's see which one collapses first.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#272
post #186
post #138

Earlier 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?

Two click on the other site also doesn't get you to own any Bitcoin (as in, hold the keys).

Neither does an ETF, so I fail to see the line of argument here?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#274

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

Are you claiming that video games waste more electricity than crypto mining PoW? Do you have evidence to support that? It's a pretty strong claim, since most of the power being used to play a video game is doing something (rasterizing images/synthesizing audio/simulating physics in order to provide the game experience) while most of the power used to do PoW mining is Wasted On Purpose.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first What's the issue with it?

They used to have blue check marks which was this exclusive thing that meant that someone was important enough to have been verified. Then Elon decided to start selling blue check marks for money, so now there are apparently a bunch of different colored check marks that you need to keep track of and know the meaning of. Whereas it used to be just. Blue check mark = this is probably the real person I think it is. (But…

to be fair in the app you can click on the badge and it will tell you what it means

but really it'd be better if they didn't, since it opens them up to liability, "the website said this is a government account and they verified it, what do you mean someone was impersonating the SEC"

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#276
post #85

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

Then so should GPU powered generative AI. Just kidding. Just because you do not derive utility from something does not mean it a waste and should be banned.

Who derives utility from the PoW component of PoW crypto? Is the work doing something useful to you? Is the utility "I feel good about using electricity to do nothing"?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#277
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From this forum we shall organize the great retaking of “Web3” for the 3D paradigm it was always meant to be. It’s in the name!! It’s sad that blockchain went the way it did, because it’s probably a great technology when you don’t expect it to revolutionize the entire internet.

Blockchain is not a technology in the sense of being a better "how" for some existing problem. blockchain is before anything else, a social contract based on the premise that everything humans care about ('value') really does boil down to "voting with money," and thus requiries enforcement of such economic consensus through technology. It is sufficiently removed from expectations people normally have about how they r…

> a social contract requiring enforcement through technology

That's fundamentally a bad thing. I want my social contracts enforced socially. The rot is at the heart.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who in the world is still long on crypto? In the past few years we've seen ample evidence that crypto is largely a complete scam, and likewise strong evidence that none of crypto's hoped for value will come to fruition (we didn't see it useful for fighting inflation, it's not being used to avoid sanctions, it certainly isn't being used as a currency, etc). The fact that crypto still has any market value, and that com…

Takes like these are so moronic it hurts. I just paid an artist across the globe for some icons; the transaction took seconds to resolve and cost me cents to send via SOL. The closest I've come to that is Canada's eTransfer system, but it only works in Canada.

you are ignoring the onramp /offramp problem of converting crypto to fiat

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#279
post #226

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…

There is value in government agencies engaging with people where they are. Even the SEC gets some value out of promoting their activities, even if it's just awareness of their existence and function and corresponding public support. That said, now that the Fediverse exists, ideally all of those government agencies would self-host their accounts, either individually or via a server for many different agencies of the s…

SEC cannot run their own twitter account without being hacked, what makes you think they can securely run their own Mastodon instance?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web3 is the crypto nonsense. It was a rebrand attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3

Its sad to think web 2.0 so long ago was a move towards more human centric websites, UI's, AJAXy sites, etc and now web3 is just a marketing term for fraudsters, exit scammers, shady VC's, and criminals. The late-stage capitalism of the internet is obvious to see.

Web3 never had anything to do with the web. It was always a vain attempt to cash in on the aura associated with web 2.0 by sounding like a legitimate heir to the heritage of the WWW. It is however, as you said, just a convenient marketing term for crypto bros and blockchain scamware.

Web 3.0 as Tim Berners-Lee envisions it might have some legs, but web3 was a always an empty marketing vessel.

Post reply on HN