201–210 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. The fact something is yours is irrelevant. If it's your gun, i still want the state to make it illegal to shoot your kids with it.
Did you just morally equate investing in a failed startups with shooting kids?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh what? If you're not directly hurting someone there shouldn't be a law against it. For instance, a law against DUIs make sense, it's so you don't kill people. A law requiring seat belt wearing - not so much.
Unless you have state run health care, in which case a law enforcing seat belt wearing (I assume that's what you meant?) could save everyone money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you have state run health care, in which case a law enforcing seat belt wearing (I assume that's what you meant?) could save everyone money.
Unless it decreases short-term fatalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only argued a portion of the point I was making. Simply making a cryptocurrency isn't enough. Differentiating in a way where I would be convinced to buy it, now that will obviously take genius since the mere creation of a cryptocurrency is commodity code. And it's not fair to say that just launching an ICO will mean an influx of money either, that is, token buyers are just shoving money into anything, because I c…
>> Differentiating in a way where I would be convinced to buy it, now that will obviously take genius Evidently it doesn't really though, because we're in a stage where these are magic, and people are investing based on a little bit of hype which becomes self-sustaining. There are lots of altcoins out there, most with not much value, but slowly trickling along. And there have been lots of ICOs of dubious value. I obv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is much welcome ruling and US should follow suit. Current modus operandi is of pump and dump to lure unsuspecting people. Some ICOs are borderline scams. Using Facebook ads to promise the riches. It's almost disgusting
Yeah well there's also shitty companies which are publicly traded, I'm supposed to make my own choice here aren't I? Isn't that the point of investing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is these are a huge haven for money laundering which is probably the best explanation for the amounts raised.
Money laundering is what you are doing when you move money from your savings to your checking to pay your visa bill. Literally, under the legal definition, that's "laundering". It's a thought crime.
uhm wat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban. Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs. >> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and reg…
People support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay.. >>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance. I think accepting…
I assume most of the HN readers are from USA and I can't believe my eyes what I'm reading here. People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. I worked for my money, I paid huge amounts of taxes on them. Why is it ok for somebody to come and tell me what I can and can't do with them, and then telling me it's in my best interest to not be allowed to invest them.
Why don't rich people need protection? Here's the answer: this is their protection. It reduces their competition. Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a large difference between banning ICOs and banning crypto currencies entirely that being said this does feel a lot like a throw back to 2014 and earlier with "China bans bitcoin"
With ICOs, there is a risk that people outside of the party circles actually making enough money to question and ask for some change.