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

341–350 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#341

Post by mrb »

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.

Cryptocurrency, when used as intended, is pretty boring. Send funds from A to B. Done. yawn. You won't see headlines about it. The news that make it to your eyeballs are always sensational: fraud, crime, scams, etc. So if your exposure to crypto is only through the media, as opposed to actually using it yourself, it is logical for you to associate crypto with fraud.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#342

Post by dragonwriter »

Eji1700 wrote: post #215
dragonwriter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well we had this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter... (full opinion here): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-s... which while resolved, really opens more questions than it solves (which is fine because legislating from the bench shouldn't be the norm...) There need to be very clear laws about how social media and modern tech is used to present information. Hell for…

> There need to be very clear laws about how social media and modern tech is used to present information.

What laws? “There should be laws about X” is a bunch of words with no substance unless you can say what the laws should, at least in general terms, require and/or prohibit.

> Hell for the first time the government should have the ability to directly release information and not be reliant on normal privately owned distribution

The government is able to do so, and has done for... quite a long time, though until recently wide distribution was a problem. Now, you can get information directly from the websites of most government agencies.

They also release information via private conventional media (via several mechanisms) and social media (via government run accounts), but they aren't exclusively reliant on such media.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#343

Post by toomuchtodo »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #269
toomuchtodo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label... "The grey checkmark indicates that an account represents a government/multilateral organization or a government/multilateral official. Eligibility criteria to receive a complimentary grey checkmark are listed below. Additional government and multilateral accounts can receive grey checkmarks through Verified Organizations. Eligible government organization…

didn't see anything about "required hardware security key to post" huh Twitter paywalls 2FA to premium users, and even then it's SMS only not a serious company, anyone who trusts a tweet for official information should think twice before trading on it

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2023/an-update...

"We continue to be committed to keeping people safe and secure on Twitter, and a primary security tool we offer to keep your account secure is two-factor authentication (2FA). Instead of only entering a password to log in, 2FA requires you to also enter a code or use a security key. This additional step helps make sure that you, and only you, can access your account. To date, we have offered three methods of 2FA: text message, authentication app, and security key.

While historically a popular form of 2FA, unfortunately we have seen phone-number based 2FA be used - and abused - by bad actors. So starting today, we will no longer allow accounts to enroll in the text message/SMS method of 2FA unless they are Twitter Blue subscribers. The availability of text message 2FA for Twitter Blue may vary by country and carrier.

Non-Twitter Blue subscribers that are already enrolled will have 30 days to disable this method and enroll in another. After 20 March 2023, we will no longer permit non-Twitter Blue subscribers to use text messages as a 2FA method. At that time, accounts with text message 2FA still enabled will have it disabled. Disabling text message 2FA does not automatically disassociate your phone number from your Twitter account. If you would like to do so, instructions to update your account phone number are available on our Help Center.

We encourage non-Twitter Blue subscribers to consider using an authentication app or security key method instead. These methods require you to have physical possession of the authentication method and are a great way to ensure your account is secure."

(I don't have an account, cannot confirm current state of MFA auth story)

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#344

Post by audleman »

x86x87 wrote: post #245
Legion wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two kinds of people who declare a crypto is going "to the moon": - The ones who don't believe it, and sell off their inflated coins after the price jumps - The ones who do believe it, and are the rubes the first group is counting on

I should save this and come back to it in 10 years.

Why wait? It's been 15 years of Bitcoin outperforming every other asset. Nobody has found an exploit making the tech worthless, nor have competitors stolen its market share. Bitcoin is here to stay and the only ones shouting at it are too stubborn to ever admit it has value.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#346

Post by AlexandrB »

mrb wrote: post #290
Tao3300 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s probably a great technology It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.

An irreversible permissionless way to send funds near-instantaneously to anyone anywhere in the world is pretty darn good at a lot of perfectly legal use cases. My personal favorite example is that I once used Bitcoin for an emergency so my (then-homeless) friend could receive cash in hands from a Bitcoin ATM, in a matter of less than 1 hour, on a Sunday, while I was vacationing remote. Nothing, and I truly mean it b…

Can do this for free in Canada with Interac as long as both parties have Canadian bank accounts. But for international transfer theres not a good solution AFAIK.

Bitcoin ATMs are an interesting example because they involve at least one trusted third party - the Bitcoin ATM operator.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#347

Post by rrdharan »

rellfy wrote: post #333
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

Meanwhile in the real world we often find new deposits of gold, and if we ever make it to space presumably we’ll find a whole lot more of it (perhaps infinite amounts).

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#348

Post by okwubodu »

initplus wrote: post #247
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?

Bitcoin futures ETF's are already allowed - several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately. I'm not sure that a spot price ETF is really a huge breakthrough in terms of actual mechanics. But approval is an opportunity to create hype and buzz around cryptocurrency.

> several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately

They are terrible assets with severe discount/premium swings reaching the high 40%s [0]. The ratio's only tightening now that a potential arbitrage opportunity is on the table.

[0] https://ycharts.com/companies/GBTC/discount_or_premium_to_na...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#349

Post by disruptalot »

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…

Recently there has been a trend of inscribing data on the bitcoin chain representing issuance of new assets and in some cases media (images etc.). Keywords here are "inscriptions" "ordinals" "brc-20"

The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.

There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#350

Post by yao420 »

mrb wrote: post #290
Tao3300 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s probably a great technology It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.

An irreversible permissionless way to send funds near-instantaneously to anyone anywhere in the world is pretty darn good at a lot of perfectly legal use cases. My personal favorite example is that I once used Bitcoin for an emergency so my (then-homeless) friend could receive cash in hands from a Bitcoin ATM, in a matter of less than 1 hour, on a Sunday, while I was vacationing remote. Nothing, and I truly mean it b…

I have not used the online version but you could have just as easily walked into a western union and done the exact same thing for substantially less fees.
Post reply on HN