SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] • Hacker News Board

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#311

Post by matthewrobertso » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:19 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #303

willcipriano wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a trucker in Canada is a edge case. Also being a human interacting with police in the US. Did you mean intellectual property? You draw Mickey a year ago and a FBI helicopter would soon be overhead to kill your dog and take any cash they find in your wallet.

They were violating the law, and using the funds in the accounts to further the law breaking. They call it civil disobedience. People seem to forget part of civil disobedience is going to jail and paying a fine. That’s always been the deal.

Unbanking someone isn't the same as charging them a fine.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#312

Post by _blz2 » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:19 PM UTC

Ajay-p wrote: post #229

Reminds me of when Eli Lilly's Twitter was hacked to falsely proclaim free insulin.

it wasn't hacked I think, more like another blue check account impersonating it tweeted that out. This is the official account @SECGov tweeting out fake news.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#313

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:20 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #134

addicted wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible”…

They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it. Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

[deleted]

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#314

Post by yieldcrv » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:20 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #52

I am glad to see the cyberpunk future of hackers impersonating government agencies in order to pump and dump digital currency has finally arrived.

you know those amateurs at the SEC were trying to schedule a post and accidentally pressed send

gensler freaked out and said it was compromised

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#315

Post by wslh » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:21 PM UTC

neilv wrote: 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…

My two cents: they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms. There is enough length in Twitter now. I think the SEC is really responsible for not protecting investors in this case.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#316

Post by John23832 » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:21 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #49

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#317

Post by sowbug » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:22 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #308

sowbug wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Futures ETFs own no Bitcoin. Spot ETFs would.

People buying into the ETFs don't own the Bitcoin either way, so doesn't really make a difference to them.

Your original question was about price. Institutional demand in an asset generally reduces its open supply. That should affect the price.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#318

Post by yieldcrv » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:22 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #80

Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?

and anyone could get a mutual fund

and anyone could get an annuity

and anyone can buy spot gold

and yet

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#319

Post by rpz » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:22 PM UTC

Has anybody else poked around in a bitcoin blockchain block explorer recently to look at the individual transactions of a block?

Honestly I find it kind of suspicious but I could easily be missing something. I see multiple transactions spend more on fees than the amount exchanged in the transaction. A number of transactions looked enormous but turned out to be some form of washing. E.g address X sends $100MM worth of bitcoin to two addresses, with ~$1k going to address Y and the rest going right back to address X.

What’s the point? Why not just send $1k to address Y.

I originally started looking around to get a sense for how much bitcoin is being transacted relative to the block reward. As the halvings continue I can’t imagine how miners can profit without exorbitant transaction fees. Many of the transaction fees in the block I looked at were comparable to wire transfer fees.

Why would anybody want to use bitcoin outside of speculation after nearly all 21mm bitcoin are mined? Why would anybody want to continue mining as well?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#320

Post by barnabee » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 11:22 PM UTC

moose_man wrote: post #211

appplication wrote: post #180

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.

It’s more important to have an unstoppable digital store of value than to stop people getting scammed.

Sure would be nice to have fewer scammers, and we should try. I, too, detest many of the actors in the space, the whole number-go-up get-rich-quick culture, and much more.

But it’s a sideshow. The reality is I’m not giving up digital assets I completely control (preferably private ones) any more than I’m giving up strong encryption, e2e encrypted comms, or the right to run whatever software I like on my computers. I’m not the only one.

It’s really irrelevant if you or anyone else considers it irredeemable. What does that even mean? There’s not even a single coherent “it” to be irredeemable.