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

501–510 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#501

Post by snapcaster »

kevingadd wrote: post #274
snapcaster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

Are you claiming that video games waste more electricity than crypto mining PoW? Do you have evidence to support that? It's a pretty strong claim, since most of the power being used to play a video game is doing something (rasterizing images/synthesizing audio/simulating physics in order to provide the game experience) while most of the power used to do PoW mining is Wasted On Purpose.

This is a complete double standard you're applying (which was kind of my point, policing electricity leads to everyone imposing their own private values on others). You could say that 100% of the power spent on videogames is wasted since they're a luxury/distraction/unnecessary. You could also say that none of the power is wasted on bitcoin since it's providing security for the network.

To be clear, I'm not saying either of these is "correct". My entire point here is that everyone talking about "waste" is just imposing their own private value system on everyone else and I've yet to see a single person apply some kind of consistent standard for what should and shouldn't be banned

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#502

Post by snapcaster »

cesarb wrote: post #426
snapcaster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

> People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? The difference is that, for videogames or mining physical rocks, the power use is an undesired side effect, so the incentive is to minimize it, while for POW cryptocurrencies, the power use is an essential component of the mechanism they use to prevent double spending, and the incentive is to use as much as possible.

Does the freedom to use electricity as you wish have any value to you personally?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#503

Post by stringfood »

audleman wrote: post #344
x86x87 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#504

Post by NavinF »

paxys wrote: post #171
NavinF wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be marginable in a normal brokerage account

Again, already possible. Go to your Fidelity account and check.

Source? First search result says otherwise:

"Currently, Fidelity Crypto does not support borrowing against assets, leverage, or margin trading. You can only transfer, and use collected and settled available cash, as well as processed EFT deposits, to trade within your Fidelity Crypto account"

https://www.reddit.com/r/FidelityCrypto/comments/17lr3ro/com...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#505

Post by smoldesu »

tossl568 wrote: post #87
wmf wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethereum is kind of too big to fail at this point.

No it isn't. It has two use cases, a stablecoin platform and a platform for token scams. It's losing market share all the time to other rubbish like Solana. Why would anyone in their right mind hold chuck-e-cheese arcade token Ethereum as actual money. Hint: they won't.

You're basically describing Bitcoin in the same words. I despise Vitalik Buterin like nobody's business, but pissing down on Ethereum as a Bitcoin holder is too funny to not call out. Both of them are monopoly-money investments, with the L2 joke altcoins trailing close behind.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#506

Post by rstuart4133 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #323

far more likely that those amateurs at the SEC were trying to schedule a post and accidentally pressed send Gensler freaked out and said it was compromised if you’ve ever worked in government this would be your first assumption

Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner.

An upvote to you sir, for being right.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#507

Post by barnabee »

moose_man wrote: post #326
barnabee wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more important to have an unstoppable digital store of value than to stop people getting scammed. Sure would be nice to have fewer scammers, and we should try. I, too, detest many of the actors in the space, the whole number-go-up get-rich-quick culture, and much more. But it’s a sideshow. The reality is I’m not giving up digital assets I completely control (preferably private ones) any more than I’m giving up s…

By "it" I mean the scam ridden shell of what was once cryptocurrency. The parasite has consumed the host.

Not really, you just have to look a bit harder.

Perhaps a greater percentage of the people, projects, and attention are part of the “parasite” as you put it, but that was my point: while it is bad, and something we should work to minimise, it’s may be a price we have to pay for something that at its core is very important.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#508

Post by barnabee »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #403
barnabee wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more important to have an unstoppable digital store of value than to stop people getting scammed. Sure would be nice to have fewer scammers, and we should try. I, too, detest many of the actors in the space, the whole number-go-up get-rich-quick culture, and much more. But it’s a sideshow. The reality is I’m not giving up digital assets I completely control (preferably private ones) any more than I’m giving up s…

What makes you think that the kids of tomorrow are going to give a damn about today's notions of what's valuable? Using an unstoppable ledger doesn't make the underlying values any more legitimate than they were before. I do think that creating a censorship resistant place for data is more important than preventing people from being scammed, but when I think about what ought to go there, I come up with nothing so sta…

> What makes you think that the kids of tomorrow are going to give a damn about today's notions of what's valuable?

Why would this change my assertions?

In any case there are a myriad socio-political views and values represented in blockchain/“crypto” projects. It’s not all hypercapitalist libertarians…

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#509

Post by ckbishop »

jadamson wrote: post #446
ckbishop wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

Really, that was your first thought? I hope he's paying you rent.

Yeah, out here in reality, when you keep doing unhinged things, people start to assume you are -- or are going to do -- unhinged things. That's why those of us living lives tethered by the rules of society try to preserve our benefit of doubt.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#510

Post by dang »

rpz wrote: post #449
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…

[flagged]

Yikes—you can't attack another user like that, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Post reply on HN