Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#331

Post by dekz »

rpz wrote: post #319

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…

Perhaps a good starting point is spending a few minutes investigating how bitcoin works, perhaps with ChatGPT as a resource. You should attempt to understand it before forming an opinion and asking leading questions.

Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, a recipient address is specified for the remaining funds that are not intended to be spent. Similar to how you pay for a $20 item with a $50 note, you (recipient) receive $30 in change.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#332

Post by initplus »

initplus wrote: post #256
mrsilencedogood wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETF's are so pervasive because they're so easy. VIX futures can be held, but people still buy VIXY and similar products. You can buy literal physical gold, but people still buy GLD et al. And it hardly matters that wrapping it in an ETF makes it potentially really weird (like how GLD and other gold ETFs are only barely nominally like holding gold, and VIX ETFs often hold cash-settled futures based on the value of a f…

Bitcoin futures ETF's already exist - I'm not convinced that a spot price ETF is any huge breakthrough.

Trading in derivatives still affects the price of the underlying asset. Sellers of BTC futures contracts are hedged by holding BTC.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#333

Post by rellfy »

rpz wrote: post #319

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…

To some extent that's just how bitcoin works [1]

To your last question, bitcoin is just digital gold. Unlike ethereum which is inflationary.

[1]: https://river.com/learn/terms/c/change-output

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#334

Post by lozf »

yeahsure wrote: post #301
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.

They would have made more money by tweeting the ETF got rejected. My guess is this was a mistake by an intern or something like that.

They sure managed to regain control of the allegedly "hacked" account in short order.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#335

Post by nemild »

rpz wrote: post #319

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…

> 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.

Bitcoin is based on the UTXO model, and requires the full amount of an input to be sent. For example, I might need to transact 20 bitcoin even if I only need to pay 1 bitcoin, with 19 bitcoin being transacted to a "change" address.

More by googling Bitcoin change addresses: e.g., https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/44170823927...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#336

Post by paxys »

sowbug wrote: post #317
paxys wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone buying into the bitcoin ETF takes away the same transaction from Coinbase then the net result is the same.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#338

Post by mag00 »

rpz wrote: post #319

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…

> 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 you are likely looking at is not fraudulent and is a characteristic of bitcoin's UTXO design in almost every transaction that doesn't deplete a wallet. If it didn't send the remaining BTC to itself, it would be the "mining fee". So you see these transactions where you see the remaining change is sent back to the same wallet.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#339

Post by neilv »

lowercased wrote: post #282
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…

Should agencies never have published information to privately owned corporate newspapers? After all, you could just tell people they need to mosey down to city hall (or whatever govt agency) to look at the notice board for all the official topical information.

The government agency issues a press release, then the newspaper journalist writes an article based on that and other information.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#340

Post by spankalee »

niceice wrote: post #287
moose_man wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you say Bitcoin is a scam? It rather seems like the opposite; an altruistic gift to humanity. An anonymous programmer produced a decentralized currency that solved the double spend problem and didn't even sell his coins.

It's a Ponzi scheme, just distributed.
Post reply on HN