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

391–400 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#391

Post by Zaskoda »

nprateem wrote: post #51

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

This is a tired complaint built on a faulty analysis of Bitcoin's power usage. There are a lot of things that use more power than the Bitcoin network, such as all of the idle electronics in the USA. Or christmas lights during the season. In the case of Bitcoin, the power used to mine is often power that would otherwise be wasted. Excess power from hydroelectric damns as well as gas being burned off in the oilfield are both used to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't robbing anyone of power they need for anything else because the moment the cost of power goes up, Bitcoin mining leaves town. Because Bitcoin creates a market for power and can be mined anywhere with power and Internet, it creates unique opportunities to improve our power grid. We can now build power stations in areas where there are not yet enough residential customers to fund it by using the excess power for Bitcoin mining. Net result is that Bitcoin is a value add for our power infrastructure and the negative impact of Bitcoin mining is grossly exaggerated. The current banking system has a significantly worse impact on the environment.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#392

Post by MCUmaster »

addicted wrote: post #114
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.

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”…

It IS, look at who traded LOL.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#393

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

I've wondered that too, but government agencies have long bought ads in media, used the phone system, telegrams, etc. etc.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#394

Post by wolverine876 »

shp0ngle wrote: post #279
JoshTriplett wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe the security problem is at Twitter.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#395

Post by notahacker »

mrb wrote: post #357
yao420 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

pretty sure the only time I ever used Moneygram I managed to send funds from my UK bank account without any MoneyGram account. Was a really easy way to get cash in a city that definitely didn't have Bitcoin ATMs

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#396

Post by mrb »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #366
mrb wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The TAM on homeless friends who need fast cash internationally on Sundays is probably huge.

Nice little bubble you live in. 18% of US population is unbanked or underbanked.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#397

Post by [deleted] »

Freedom2 wrote: post #310
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.

I drew Mickey quite a few times without any helicopter appearing. Do you have a source for that claim?

[deleted]

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#398

Post by block_dagger »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #291
happytiger wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets. The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious. It’s a fact that No…

Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.

How much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#399

Post by trompetenaccoun »

yieldcrv wrote: post #314
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

It is a bit weird the tweet went out exactly a day before the approval is supposed to happen.

Let's assume it was the SEC's fault, either by accident or otherwise, could they be charged with market manipulation? Which agency would have authority to investigate? Quite a few people were tricked into buying right before the price dropped like a rock. Shorters have made a killing.

Post reply on HN