Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 357 posts

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#271

Post by petre »

andy_ppp wrote: post #42
chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

I don't look at bitcoin as a currency I look at it as a fungible reserve like Gold or a Rolex. Both of those things usually appreciate in value, especially in uncertain times; I'll be using this price decrease to buy more I think.

In highly uncertain times, for example when civilization would be reverted back to the Middle Ages or a Fukushima/911 event, bitcoin would be of lesser use due to lack of an Internet connection. People need food and water in those circumstances, not bitcoin or Rolexes.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#272

Post by petre »

nfbush wrote: post #250
timothycrosley wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh, I call BS. If for some reason all of a cities property records were lost, they would rebuild them via community testimony and consensus at worst case. Which clearly demonstrates it works in the opposite direction of what you are implying. Also property ownership tends to have inherit utility, something bit coin does not.

Bitcoin has inherit utility in allowing immutable and globally accessible data storage, people assign the rest of the value to it. Just like property, except if people with bigger guns come it doesn't matter as it will become theirs if they want

It's also highly mobile, unlike property. You can easily move more than 10k euros in BTC on a storage medium across borders without declaring anything.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#273

Post by petre »

joering2 wrote: post #107
kgwgk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are regulated markets for gold.

Even worse than that. You are not allowed to re-melt your piece of gold if that item has a serial number on it. Basically most smiths run an official registry. Even though a gold bullion is yours, most countries will forbid you from melting it into something else and destroying serial number in process, just like even if you own your house you cannot set it on fire. There are penalties including jail time. Its irrele…

You would probably lose value by melting minted gold bullion anyway. It would effectively convert a standardised unit of value into black market gold.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#274

Post by conanbatt »

koolba wrote: post #262
mrb wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" That is a loss of 25% of its value " Update as of 11 March 01:44 UTC (4h43m after the SEC decision): BTC fully recovered! It now stands at $1140, which is the level it was trading at just 2 days ago. From 09 March 00:00 UTC to the SEC decision on 10 March 21:01 UTC it gained +12% due purely to speculation ($1140 to $1280) and basically retraced these 12%: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg10zig30-minzcz…

Alternatively: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

Within 2 hours? thats a bit too much

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#275

Post by conanbatt »

alexeldeib wrote: post #233
dmoy wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah wait when did the pound lose 25% of its value due to a SEC ruling?

Could be a reference to Brexit? The pound suffered pretty severely after the referendum.

To be fair, sec ruling is a much smaller measure than country-wide referendum on economicy policy

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#279

Post by saryant »

kolinko wrote: post #116
stOneskull wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gold is a precious metal. bitcoin is a text file.

a property ownership is also a text file

A text file with the force of law behind it.

Power changes with men with gens are empowered to enforce it.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#280

Post by delieum »

This seems to be a victory for bitcoin. Why would a government entity know what to do with a purposely designed non governmental decentralized currency? Especially a profit seeing ETP loaded on top with 0.xx% commission? It's ludicrous to imagine the SEC jumping on this train, BTC will outlive them. As for the Wrinkles twins, they are profit seekers, nothing more. The purpose of a decentralized currency is to be a decentralized currency, enabling peer to peer outside of sovereign intervention economics. This is a non sovereign movement regulated by supply, demand, peers sprinkled with occasional robbery here and there. This digital currency which will outlive many sovereign states that currently exist.
Post reply on HN