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

411–420 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#411

Post by SI_Rob »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #248
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.

> nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better Eh, Treasuries should probably be traded on a blockchain. Crypto currency is nonsense. But the tech has legs. It just needs to, ironically, clear its way of the crypto/web3 crowd first.

I tend to think highly of most of the comments I see from you man, but you are quite confused about how this stuff works if you believe that the pay-to-play aspect of a cryptocurrency can be divorced from the blockchain used to track it. They are no more separable from one another than front is from back or up is from down.

A blockchain without the economic carrot-stick power to protect its own integrity and internal rules, power that comes from aligning the behavior of otherwise unrelated and even mutually antagonistic custodial participants by incentivizing their common interest in getting rich (or at least not losing their existing wealth), is no more than a database with superfluous "decentralization theater" yak shaving bolted on.

If defecting from the game doesn't cost you a meaningful penalty (and such cost is defined by a fixed unit of measure, in order to distinguish in-game gains from losses) then you are not compelled to follow its rules except by your own conscience. This would be noble, but it would not be a blockchain.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#412

Post by eli »

inhumantsar wrote: post #386
colecut wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely the fastest way to send larger sums of money.

and cheapest, especially overseas. but I sincerely doubt the average western crypto hater has ever had to deal with western union or some remittance company taking 30%+ in fees.

I recently used Wise (formerly transferwise) to send money to someone in Pakistan. It was about $10 to send $1000USD. The exchange rates are competitive too. And the recipient is guaranteed to get the correct amount in their destination currency. It even has some degree of fraud protection and customer support baked in.

What’s the crypto solution that beats that?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#413

Post by ckbishop »

mecsred wrote: post #284
cempaka wrote: post #178

Matthew C. Klein pointed out on Twitter: "the owner/operator of this website has a longstanding grudge against America's securities regulator."

Are we seriously suggesting that the password was intentionally leaked? The crackback against twitter and Musk with even a shred of evidence would be devastating. The idea that anyone's creds would be intentionally leaked is unbelievable to me, much less the creds of a US govt institution.

Yeah, and in fact, it was my first thought. He's an emotional man-baby with a God complex. Leaked credentials? Probably not. Those are hashed because competent engineers created the platform before he got there.

Made the account easier to be hacked? Yes, probably. That would be my assumption. Changed password, changed MFA, changed owner e-mail, etc. They no longer have a real support team, but I'm sure the support mechanisms are still all in place.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#414

Post by pants2 »

wslh wrote: post #315
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.

The SEC didn't even have 2FA set up on their account. One can hardly expect them to sign their messages.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#415

Post by nashashmi »

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…

It is a good point. Better for SEC/agency to setup an sec.gov/x page that x.com/secgov would replicate.

That works well until sec.gov/x gets hacked.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#416

Post by l0ng1nu5 »

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.

Fiat currency is a scam (including the USD) anybody treating it otherwise is overly credulous or in on the scam. Maybe it started out with better intentions but it is irredeemable. reply

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#417

Post by Barrin92 »

dogman144 wrote: post #202
Barrin92 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course people holding BTC will like that. Given that the original Whitepaper is titled: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and a news article describing the 2009 bank bailout is literally baked into the very first block people celebrating slow morphing of Bitcoin into a traditional finance product is at least a little bit funny. Instead of a hedge crypto is now just effectively a correlate of the financial m…

Conversely, traditional finance making products based on an asset which some of the most radical anarchocapitalists hold market-moving amounts of, bodes well.

Does it? Traditional finance is no stranger to extremely speculative assets, the difference is just when those assets go to zero for the banks it's a tiny fraction of their portfolio, for all the anarcho online enthusiasts it's usually their savings. Reminds me of the Gamestop fiasco one or two years ago.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#419

Post by alchemist1e9 »

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.

Yes yes. I’m sure 15 years later you will be saying the same thing even when Bitcoin is showing up on reserve holdings of major central banks. I believe Bitcoin is around the 16th largest currency in the world today and it’s daily transaction volume indicates extensive real world use. But don’t worry you can keep ranting about how Bitcoin is a scam, you or others like you were 10 years ago, and will be in another 10 years. I have a hunch it’s a phenomenon somehow related to how socialists are still ranting about socialism 200 years now, the most failed ideas in human history, yet according to them never been done “correctly”, this is some collectivist mindset equivalent in reverse, ranting about how big a failure one of the most successful ideas in human history is.
Post reply on HN