241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will note that the ETFs are using Coinbase, Gemini, and Fidelity for custody. These companies have been providing Bitcoin custody for years without being hacked AFAIK.
[flagged]
if the law was iffy for freaking banks then, imagine how it is for btc
The only thing I am concerned about is "paper bitcoin" and rehypothecation. Is there anything published about how ETF entities might prove they have custody of the amount of bitcoin they claim (in other words, proof of reserves)?
This is a valid concern, the actual value of BTC and ETF might diverge wildly. Never a better time to actually own some
The strong anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN is still amusing. It goes way back - 13 years or more. Having read many of these negative comments, I think part of this sentiment boils down to the commenter seeing no point to Bitcoin. Just this thread has examples. It must be more than a little annoying to feel very strongly that Bitcoin is pointless, but to also notice that it's still here. Year after year. If that shoe wer…
Not really. Most people who are observant are well aware that there’s deep and enduring demand for ways to gamble and speculate. It’s really easy to recognize Bitcoin filling that role like the neighborhood numbers game, pachinko, online poker, and tulip investing all have at various times in history. We just don’t like it.
The strong anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN is still amusing. It goes way back - 13 years or more. Having read many of these negative comments, I think part of this sentiment boils down to the commenter seeing no point to Bitcoin. Just this thread has examples. It must be more than a little annoying to feel very strongly that Bitcoin is pointless, but to also notice that it's still here. Year after year. If that shoe wer…
Pointless challenge, those aren't good qualities. Also money is worthless, unless you like looking at pieces of paper depicting death national heroes, it's worthless, don't understand why are bitcoiners fixated giving money value.
It's just meant to be traded not hoarded. It had a value when it was pegged to gold. Rich people have companies, real estate, airplanes, art, jewellery, bonds, but relatively little money.
Anyway, literally any other cryptocurrency share these properties. Some even technologically better, yet completely ignored.
The strong anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN is still amusing. It goes way back - 13 years or more. Having read many of these negative comments, I think part of this sentiment boils down to the commenter seeing no point to Bitcoin. Just this thread has examples. It must be more than a little annoying to feel very strongly that Bitcoin is pointless, but to also notice that it's still here. Year after year. If that shoe wer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're missing is something can be criticized even if it fulfills some needs. Drugs, gambling, crimes all satisfy some people's needs but most people have negative view on them.
Drugs and gambling do not hurt others. Throwing “crimes” in makes your reasoning weak. Where are you getting your data on the first two? I’m not sure you’re correct.
They ruin families, neighborhoods, cities.
The strong anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN is still amusing. It goes way back - 13 years or more. Having read many of these negative comments, I think part of this sentiment boils down to the commenter seeing no point to Bitcoin. Just this thread has examples. It must be more than a little annoying to feel very strongly that Bitcoin is pointless, but to also notice that it's still here. Year after year. If that shoe wer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What needs and wants is it fulfilling for you?
Bitcoin is wealth in the cloud. There's immense utility in being able to digitalize your wealth, including higher mobility and, since it is a decentralized network, assurance that it won't be inflated, confiscated and that you will have the freedom to transact it with whoever you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're missing is something can be criticized even if it fulfills some needs. Drugs, gambling, crimes all satisfy some people's needs but most people have negative view on them.
Drugs and gambling do not hurt others. Throwing “crimes” in makes your reasoning weak. Where are you getting your data on the first two? I’m not sure you’re correct.
Please spend like 30 seconds of analytical thinking trying to poke holes in this. It's remarkably easy to disprove. The challenge is what if anything we choose to do about the harms that they can cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also pulled those grads away from more typical jobs they'd have building useful things and actually producing new real-world value.
What if the work these folks do to increase market efficiency does produce real-world value, as slower verifiable economic information would increase periods of uncertainty and price slippages? Or the HFT engineers producing research and products that speed up general compute, such as accelerating SHA and ED25519 signature verification, so that their trading shops get information faster? I wonder if there are actuall…
There's very good evidence that as the finance sector grows to be a larger portion of the economy (which it very much is compared to 50 years ago) that increasing inequality goes along with it, as the profits made in the finance sector are mostly rent seeking from the rest of the economy. You could also interpret it as a private tax on all other economic activity.