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

491–500 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#491

Post by solardev »

pmulard wrote: post #427
solardev wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because even video games have more worth than crypto?

Ask someone in Turkey or Venezuela, who's had their currency devalue 50%+ overnight, which one is more important.

I don't think anybody really has an issue with a stable coin that people use to send money back and forth or keep some savings, but most of crypto isn't that. It's full of disgusting pyramid schemes that completely overshadow the few legitimate uses.

And replacing unstable fiat money with even less stable, totally speculatory crypto like Bitcoin? Seems like it's better just to buy some USD and stash it somewhere. Hell, even buying and reselling Steam keys is probably less volatile.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#492

Post by solardev »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #275
codetrotter wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to have blue check marks which was this exclusive thing that meant that someone was important enough to have been verified. Then Elon decided to start selling blue check marks for money, so now there are apparently a bunch of different colored check marks that you need to keep track of and know the meaning of. Whereas it used to be just. Blue check mark = this is probably the real person I think it is. (But…

to be fair in the app you can click on the badge and it will tell you what it means but really it'd be better if they didn't, since it opens them up to liability, "the website said this is a government account and they verified it, what do you mean someone was impersonating the SEC"

Even if it wasn't a perfect system, it was a useful system.

Old blue check = ~90% confidence that this is the person/org I think it is. Yes, mistakes happened, but by and large the verification added trust.

New blue check = This person was insecure enough to pay for a symbol. Most of them are frauds.

New grey/yellow/green/whatever check = I already forgot. Some are real, some are frauds, some are hacked, the whole system is untrustworthy.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#493

Post by solardev »

93po wrote: post #322
parineum wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first What's the issue with it?

Space man bad

Space man good, lightning car man decent too. Unhinged speech emperor bad.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#494

Post by solardev »

qingcharles wrote: post #453
sp332 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why Tumblr gives you two checkmarks, and lets you pick the color. E.g. https://www.tumblr.com/amtrak-official

lol.. I didn't know if you were joking... you weren't!

Lol, if you hover over them, the label is "Important Rainbow Internet Checkmarks! Important just got colorful!"

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#495

Post by beepboopboop »

dekz wrote: post #331
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 i…

This is really weird. Why would a digital transfer do this? I could understand if it was dividing up a single bitcoin, but why would it require sending all the Bitcoin?

To fix your example, it’d be more like paying for a $20 item with $100MM worth of $50 notes, and receiving $100MM-20 in change.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#496

Post by mulmen »

photonthug wrote: post #380
riversflow wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud is the fault of the one being impersonated now?

For people who are victims of identity theft, of course not, but for organizations or governments? Yes, clearly yes. Let's make sure that the burden of securing operations generally stays with, you know, the folks that have staff and budgets.

Isn’t that Twitter in this case?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#497

Post by John23832 »

dcolkitt wrote: post #447
John23832 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?

Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card. Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secr…

Twitter offers password based security. What other methods of security were you expecting? The SEC can't make Twitter functionality. We don't even know how they got hacked.

The DOD doesn't use Twitter, a social media platform, as the mechanism for launching nukes... what are you talking about?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#498

Post by 0x457 »

hanniabu wrote: post #475
0x457 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless specifically indicated otherwise, social media content expresses the author's views only and not necessarily those of the Commission, other members of the Commission, or other staff. Content posted to social media is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission, and the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved of such content. Retweets, follows, or likes by SEC social media accounts should n…

> SEC's twitter isn't SEC. So whoever is using the account is committing fraud

Did you read the SEC's official disclaimer about their social media account that I've conveniently copied and pasted here? I guess not.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#499

Post by TimJRobinson »

beepboopboop wrote: post #495
dekz wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

This is really weird. Why would a digital transfer do this? I could understand if it was dividing up a single bitcoin, but why would it require sending all the Bitcoin ? To fix your example, it’d be more like paying for a $20 item with $100MM worth of $50 notes, and receiving $100MM-20 in change.

It's a database optimization. Whenever you send funds that entire UTXO is destroyed and redistributed to new ones. Because of this you can easily calculate the current state of Bitcoin by only looking at the current UTXO set, and ignore all the old destroyed ones, instead of having to go back in history and see who sent what where.

It also allows for easier parallel processing because you can check many UTXO's in parallel without having some shared state they interacted with.

Only a few chains use this system - Bitcoin, Litecoin, Cardano, Fuel, maybe some others. Almost everything else uses an account based model, where everyone has an account balance, like how you'd imagine a blockchain whould work.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#500

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

Update:

https://twitter.com/Safety/status/1744924042681897343

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942401

Post reply on HN