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

351–360 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#351

Post by eli »

mrb wrote: post #341
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.

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.

it’s also not a particularly good way to send money from one person to another

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#353

Post by drbacon »

FireBeyond wrote: post #295
tamimio wrote: post #227

I have never looked at BTC as a quick trading rather a long investment, I still have many BTC since 2010 and never sold it.

Considering BTC was at around 10c in 2010 and you have many of them... You must have some of the steeliest nerves and self control the world has ever seen. At what point does a 46.19 MILLION per cent gain become insufficient?

You should also add on the forked coins' values that tamimio owns.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#354

Post by bongodongobob »

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…

Agreed. I don't see why they need to do interviews on the new fandangled television and radio programs either. If you want to learn about what the government is doing, pick up a newspaper or speak to your senator on congressman over the telephone line.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#355

Post by ionwake »

drbacon wrote: post #353
FireBeyond wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering BTC was at around 10c in 2010 and you have many of them... You must have some of the steeliest nerves and self control the world has ever seen. At what point does a 46.19 MILLION per cent gain become insufficient?

You should also add on the forked coins' values that tamimio owns.

Good point, but arent there only like 2 forked coins with any value? BCH and bitcoin gold? I think thats it.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#356

Post by fulladder »

traeregan wrote: post #62

This is so wild. Assuming it was financially motivated, wouldn't the involved party stand to benefit more by shorting and posting that the ETF was denied?

It could be a trader who was already long and looking to exit the position. Figured this was a good way to goose returns. Who knows?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#357

Post by mrb »

yao420 wrote: post #350
mrb wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope. The closest Western Union/MoneyGram/similar services to me were hours away by car. Hence why we tried to do it online. We tried MoneyGram because my friend was banned from Western Union. But even MoneyGram wasn't possible quickly online.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#358

Post by tim333 »

altruios wrote: post #288
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.

digital voting is the use-case I hear get brought up all the time... seems like it would work...

A basic problem is blockchains are public. How you voted is usually private.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#359

Post by mrb »

AlexandrB wrote: post #346
mrb wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interac wouldn't have worked even if him and I had been Canadians. My friend was unbanked due to past financial issues (which is also the reason he was homeless at the time.)

This is one significant advantage of Bitcoin, that it works for the unbanked.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#360

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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.

> People seem to forget part of civil disobedience is going to jail and paying a fine.

That's not even vaguely what happened here and it's well beyond arguing in bad faith to attempt to trivialize it to such.

The goal of freezing the accounts was to make the truckers unable to buy food or pay rent to force a near immediate end. If the civil disobedience starts being evictions and starving protests are going to become a thing of the past.

Post reply on HN