Bitcoin Forum

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1 (https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1)), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

I wonder if we have this whole the fork is around the corner debate just now after the decision has been made, because some of the players were holding it back to make an extra buck.

I'm thinking that the Hardfork Statement is literally (and I mean literally) an illustration of the lack of unity in the BTCitcoin community.

I say, do the hardfork and let BU die like ETC presumably has.

No.  The ETF would have allowed bitcoin to remain as it is, because then big money could gamble on PAPER bitcoin without ever touching the block chain.   That would have pumped bitcoin to the skies, even if no single block chain transaction would be able to pass, because bitcoin would be paper, and nobody would give a shit about the real block chain.  But now that the ETF is gone, bitcoins still have to be transacted on the chain, and because that's limited, the debate exploded.

But the debate is nothing else but bitcoin's own mechanism to remain immutable.

Lack of unity is exactly what bitcoin was designed for.  Lack of unity is what decentralisation means.  It means that there are too many different antagonists to agree over change, so by default, they can only agree (find consensus) over NO change, which is called immutability.

By "some of the players" I take it you mean the signatories to the Hardfork Statement. They would have had to short their own market -- doesn't seem likely.

Well if approved most expected a rise, so holders would benefit. Having this statement before the decision would have not helped, so they postponed it.

Our problem here is that Ethereum Classic did not die, and so will probably do Bitcoin Unlimited. I am really fearing the consequences of Unlimited... People really need to knwo what will happen if an hardfork will occur, and that would be very close to the death of Bitcoin...

It would be very close to the death of Bitcoin as a currency, which never made sense to me anyway. It will not be the death of Bitcoin as a method of data-registration. That and that alone will be Bitcoin's killer app and will drive its price higher and higher. There will be plenty of room for more hard forks. But bitcoin as a currency -- no. Tell me that Africans will use it in conjunction with M-Pesa, OK. Tell me that Dark Web merchants will use it, OK. Tell me that it will be a vehicle for hot money escaping currency controls, OK. But as a point-of-sale currency at Walmart? WTF for?

You know, you can always short Bitcoin too. It's not like you have to force yourself to go long on positions only. ETFs can (to my knowledge) do basically anything a normal trader on the market would do, and move it around in the same ways.

Had it been approved, and this happened, there's a chance they would have made far, far more money off of shorting Bitcoin than most of their long positions since then.

Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, to replace every transaction that is actually made by credit cards and bank wires. More and more people are worried by privacy : yeah, who would like that your bank can know that you spend that much money on sex toys ? Bitcoin as a currency has a great future, and this is its anonymity.

How the fuck do you want us to get out of our problems if you want to challenge Bitcoin usefulness ?! You know, you are all free to leave if you want to...

the sec made the right call.

they shouldn't care about potential greatness, more potential problems and there are no shortage of them with bitcoin. they were also correct to leave the door open for the future. right now it's far too immature and fragile for them to endorse it.

Yes, I believe so, even if this is not a pleasure for me to confess it.

With the recent Bitcoin Unlimited problems, I am realising we are still too immature as you said and that tere is plenty of people we need to get rid of before thinking of growing.

It indeed makes sense as I seriously can't believe that a different party can hop in and start causing serious issues with their poisonous ideology and amateurish bunch of drama queens as developer team. That's one aspect -- what's even more pathetic is that major pools are intentionally working against Bitcoin by signalling support for BU.

the only reason the twinkle-toes wanted SEC adoption was to fill their pockets. They are heavily invested.

their application must have cost many millions but don't forget they have over 100,000 coins with an average buy of about $10. their pockets are already filled pretty nice.

Perhaps on Winklevoss it turns the ETF into a fractional reserve since there would not be as many Bitcoins as there are interested buyers.
Even though it is a fund that just follows the Bitcoin price in theory the regulation of regulation is a bit odd but as a logic point but a wait and see is sometimes a better approach even now.

Some exchanges didn't sign that statement but they did support it example Poloniex.

Privacy is indeed a growing concern and I think it likely that banks and merchants will respond to an increased concern for customer privacy by offering blockchain-based transactions that hide a transaction's details to all but the customer. Why not?


I'm not challenging Bitcoin's usefulness and I have no intention of getting out. I'm just pointing out that crashes like the one we are experiencing as I write this clearly will affect bitcoins' use as some sort of world currency. Some will use it as such, but not Joe Dude when he buys a cup of espresso at Starbucks.

A fork doesn't have to end up with BU. There are other possibilities and updates with BU being only one of them.

SEC decided that ETF doesn't protect the investors which is true. Does it change anything for bitcoin? No!
What about the news of Japan accepting Bitcoin as a legal means of payment in April? I'd say that beats the ETF fail hard, especially that most people knew for months that it was going to get rejected.

They've had millions dollars. ETF is just about the bitcoin business and the winklevii will take the advantages from its decision. But the big problem in here is a hardfork for the bitcoin. Bucoin and every bitcoin hodler will get free bucoin. It's free money but will decrease the value of bitcoin.

The SEC is owned and run by bankers.

They're not an independent organization free from conflicts of interest.

The same can be said of credit rating agencies and any regulation of financial and banking sectors.

What the SEC says is merely a reflection of what bankers tell them to say.

If the SEC was a real regulatory agency, the 2008 bank crisis would never have happened.

If the SEC was a real regulatory agency, banks wouldn't have trillions in derivatives exposure.

There's a revolving door history of politicians and executives from the banking industry filling SEC posts and vice versa.

Interesting point: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030215/how-mortgage-backed-securities-mbs-etfs-work.asp

We cannot conclude how perfect SEC was, because we just go based on the information gathered from different sources. SEC committee themselves made committee's to work on different factors related to approval and rejection. As quoted the Etf too is not a big concern, the hard fork is getting into complication due to the existence of Bucoin.

What happened on Coinbase with the ETC/ETH fork? Did other exchanges handle it differently? I'm a little out of the loop on that coin, but I do have BTC so I would like to know what to expect.

The SEC didn't say the price wasn't stable or whatever stupid shit you're trying to say. It was declined because bitcoins aren't regulated by a government agency. A quick google would have gotten you that answer.

Yes I think so, because SEC usually they just approved something if there is benefits that they get. Now concerning about the etf winklevos, it is rght that sec rejected it. Actually, by refusing it, I saw their interest and there intention it wouldn't succeed because of the decentralization of bitcoin.

So did they pocket the rest for themselves?

SEC was right in a way that it could not give permission to Bitcoins Etf but is It right to assume that the prices will crash if it didn't was wrong. The fork statement has taken the steam outside the market of Bitcoin and now it's a matter of not when but if the prices of Bitcoins come crashing down. Once again the community has divided itself and we are going to be paying a huge price. The SEC would obviously not allow such kind of Etf to be passed away, they are bound by their regulators and rules do we all should just pray, that better sense prevails.

Yes, the main point for rejecting the ETF is because Bitcoin is unregulated. I have said Bitcoin is not ready for ETF, just look at the way the value lost $200 in a day. When the market matured enough we will get there but not now.

And to add to that, why on earth would the ETF accept Bitcoin with the current conflict with the dumbass miners who could potentially sink Bitcoin?

Yeah, considering the troubles we are in now, that would be the worst moment to accept it. For this reason, considering all can be worst by March 31st, the other ETF, SolidX will also be rejected I think.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States of America was right of disapproving the ETF. They have seen the current situation of bitcoin together with the very slow confirmation of transactions and higher miner fees which is not very friendly to the users. If this continues it will be clear that all ETF will be refused by the SEC. But maybe this time SOLIDX will be lucky since before its approval Bitcoin Unlimited core have been separated to bitcoin network. THe SolidX ETF may just be approved by the SEC if all problems in the bitcoin network will be settled before its evaluation.

There is no good or bad time for bitcoin to be approved by SEC. We are amidst scaling debate, so what?
Bitcoin cannot be regulated, it will be never ideal and totally valid asset to work as a fuel for ETFs.
Unless bitcoin will be castrated somehow it won't met regulatory laws created for FIAT based financial institutions.

The current dip in the price has nothing to do with the SEC.... You will see a big DASH and ETH pump now, and then it will crash again. People are

making money out of this whole situation. In the end, most of this will return to normal when these people dumped their Alt coins and bought

Bitcoin again. The SEC is being controlled by banks.... so most of us expected that it would not be approved.  ;)

A bitcoin branch of the junction, which gives a lot of bitcoin. And according to the information I know, BU is likely to work and grow similar to an alt coin whether it works or not. I do not know about ETF in countries, but in my opinion, Bitcoin is hard to accept ETF and it should not be accepted ETF, which will inhibit its development. Imagine, bitcoin is booming by its purity and freedom, if it's legal, every deal is managed, we have to pay a fee if we use it, it's good for us.

The SEC was right in disapproving the ETF, but not for the reasons that you mentioned.  I think they were a lot more concerned about Bitcoin's use in fraud than with any other aspect of it or its current state.

If the ETF had been approved and we witnessed such volatility, the SEC might look foolish with billions of dollars of investor wealth being wiped out. And they would have had to investigate allegations of market manipulation. So they just played safe and rejected the ETF.

Bitcoin should have nothing to do with the sec, we don't need them. I am glad they rejected, and I hope they will continue to do so.

I hope the SolidX will be approved by SEC, the only difference I saw is the insurance setup, I think SolidX has more coin are somewhat insured while the Winklevoss twins ones are not. It wil be interesting to see how SEC rejected the Winklevoss ETF then approving this SolidX. Reason why SEC rejected the Winklevoss twins is that bitcoin is unregulated. Not about how the price is unstable.