I think it could be quicker.  Based on the prior tweet "UPDATE: @BitcoinTrust's DTC process is now complete" I think it means DTC now has the shares registered on their system, in "Direct Registration" format.  Meaning it is tied to the individual investors. 

Now, the investors just need to instruct DTC to transfer their shares to a broker where it is then held in Street Name (i.e. the broker controls the shares for the benefit of the investor.)  Brokers can then trade the shares.

All of that is done electronically. 

Here is a general description of the DTC service:  http://www.dtcc.com/asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system.aspx

And here are generic instructions to investors who have had their shares transferred to DRS / DTC, probably similar to what Grayscale has provided to its investors:  http://www-us.computershare.com/Content/download.asp?docId=%7BE034FEA2-973D-44FB-900E-0CABA3AB9B72%7D&cc=US&lang=es&bhjs=0&fla=0&theme=cpu

Taxes due are based on 2014 income (mining, recipients of bitcoin as payments) and capital gains (traders / other spenders of bitcoin).

If there are taxes due for 2014, the payment deadline is April 15, 2015.  So this deadline could have caused some liquidation pressure.

Now, technically, you aren't supposed to just pay all of 2014 taxes in a lump sum on April 15, 2015, you should have been making estimated tax payments quarterly during the year.  So there shouldn't be a huge last minute need for cash.

Then again, miners / early adopters with big capital gains for whatever they sold during 2014 may not be well versed in US tax regulations, so could have come to last minute awareness of the need to pay their taxes.

Will current version of simplewallet continue to also support restore from the 24 words, or would you have to use an older version?

I.e. if one has a paper wallet using the 24 word seed, do we need to move those funds?

I think the $199.5 bid at 1 just proved my point, or its someone who doesn't realize the fund is 1/10 of bitcoin!

And note the only broker without the "u" after their name is Merriman, which is the advisor for the fund.

All the bids have the qualifier "u" after the market maker name, which means "unsolicited" customer indication of interest.  I think this means it is not the market maker who is bidding as part of market maker activities, but it is one of their customers making the bid.

The asks are marked "u" which apparantly means an "unpriced indication of interest."

So there are retail customers playing around with high prices to see if someone bites, but it could also be there are brokers who do have shares to sell they are seeking quotes on.  Its not clear to me if they have to have the shares available in order to list the as as "unpriced indication of interest."

http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=4514&print=1

I had the same thought that it could reflect indirect holdings via a swap of the raw BTC for fund shares, but I don't think that could be the case, as Pantera doesn't just hold bitcoin, it also invests in bitcoin companies:  https://panteracapital.com/portfolio/  So there couldn't be a one for one match.  And regardless, the Pantera website describes Fortress as a shareholder, so its investment in that entity would be treated just the same as any other shareholding.

So I think it must have fallen through, or just have been speculation.  Quite frankly, it never really made much sense.  By May 2014 when the deal was happening, Fortress' bitcoin were already underwater from a tax perspective, so if they wanted to get out of them, it would have made more sense to sell them and take the tax loss, and put new money into Pantera, than to try and roll them over.  Also, it would have complicated all the deal documents, as others investors would be paying dollars.

While I see articles noting that Fortress rolled their $20m bitcoin stake into Pantera, their latest 10K indicates they still seem to own bitcoin directly, and it traces back to the $20m original investment in 2013.

Go to link below and search for bitcoin, and you will see the $20m investment in 2012, the year end 2013 value of $16.298m, and year-end 2014 value of $6.828m, a 58% decline, which is consistent with the market decline from 12/31/13 to 12/31/14.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1380393/000138039315000003/fig-20141231x10k.htm

The last paragraph is incorrect.  You are right that BIT is taking advantage of an exemption that allows unregistered shares to be sold without restriction (i.e. to the "public") after they have been held for a year.  But this means that the arbitrage method you mention by BIT cannot work.  If they buy more bitcoin and issue shares, whether to brokers or otherwise, those shares will not qualify for the 12 month exception, and cannot be sold to the "public."  (They could potentially be sold to other accredited investors if permitted by the fund.)

The BIT fund will be more comparable to a closed end fund, than a mutual fund or ETF.  Mutual funds and ETFs have mechanisms to expand or contract their assets based on supply and demand of shares, meaning the NAV and the public price are usually quite tight.  Closed end funds do not, shares are issued in one or more transactions, and then resold in the public market.  They can therefore trade at material discounts or premiums to their NAVs.

Bitcoin Investment Trust Gets Finra’s OK to Become Public Bitcoin Fund

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-investment-trust-gets-finras-ok-to-become-public-bitcoin-fund-1425242094

Google the title to get to a paywall free version.

By MICHAEL J. CASEY
March 1, 2015 3:34 p.m. ET

Barry Silbert’s Bitcoin Investment Trust is poised to become the first publicly traded bitcoin fund, with approval and assignment of a ticker symbol by the financial industry’s main self-regulatory body paving the way for trading on an electronic platform operated by OTC Markets Group .

The BIT, which was first launched in 2013 as a private fund for accredited investors with annual incomes greater than $200,000 or assets of more than $1 million, has been racing against a rival offering by twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, best known for their lawsuit against Facebook Inc. chief executive Mark Zuckerberg .

Whereas the competing Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust is going through a lengthy Securities and Exchange Commission process to register a formal exchange-traded fund, the BIT as taken a backdoor route to public listing. By exploiting a rule that allows holders of a private fund to sell their shares publicly after a 12-month lockup period and completing a less arduous approval process with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, some of those long-held shares in BIT should soon be available to investors of any income or wealth bracket. The BIT is sponsored by Grayscale Investments, a unit of Mr. Silbert’s Digital Currency Group, which he established last year to hold the digital currency interests of his broker-dealer SecondMarket Inc.

Kim is broke, only thing he is currently accumulating is legal bills.  http://torrentfreak.com/destitute-kim-dotcom-begs-high-court-for-millions-150226/

Or could be no-one wants to invest in a fund that doesn't currently permit redemptions.

And, with things like new Coinbase exchange, easier to take large positions directly.

Fair point.  Can I rephrase it to say that they are assisting others in sending their coins to other persons for the benefit of others?

"Bitcoin mining imposes no obligations on a Bitcoin user to send mined Bitcoin to any other person or place for the benefit of another."

Isn't that exactly what a Masternode does. You are taking other people's coins, mixing it up, and sending it to other people, for the benefit of other people.

Prosecutors Trace $13.4M in Bitcoins From the Silk Road to Ulbricht’s Laptop

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/prosecutors-trace-13-4-million-bitcoins-silk-road-ulbrichts-laptop/

And: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/ulbricht_direct.html

It was an ETF conference, Terry was there on behalf of the ETF conference generally, not Winkledoodles / Bitcoin.

Doesn't look like it.  I get 135,461 vs last on Jan 13 of 135,351.

Silkroadreloaded accepting multiple cryptocoin, including DRK.

Using shapeshift perhaps?

https://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoadReloaded/comments/2rg7jz/site_is_now_live/

Seems to be pretty hated by the DNM people given reuse of Silkroad name.

I just donated 200 XMR to this project.  Atrides, I hope you still find the time to do some work on it even if your full 10k goal isn't reached.  But I understand if you can't.

Fincen head asked "to what extent have you been looking at the blockchain, developing tools, to analyze and make your work more useful."

"Without going into specifics, that is exactly what we do at Fincen."

Then a little later, she notes: "We do follow the technology, we do work with and train our law enforcement counterparts on how they might be able to follow money by looking at the ledger.  And then we watch with concern as we see new technologies developed to make it more difficult to trace the flow of proceeds."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdG1OhD2wVI#t=2470

The whole session was actually pretty interesting.  Right before the above link, at 40:44, she also talks about how they are seeing growth in bitcoin adoption in the US, as evidenced by over 100 business registered with Fincen, and several filings of Suspicious Activity Reports ("SARS") that are well done.

I've wondered if the terms of his settlement might be part of the issue.

If you recall, Mike Caldwell stopped Casascius because his lawyers said he could be deemed to be a money transmitter.  "A lot of the discussion I had with my legal counsel is that part of what makes it money transmitting is there is no way for me to know whether the person ordering is the person receiving. In other words it is money transmitting because each order "could" be a money transmission with no way to know. Restricted delivery changes that aspect of the story."  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=243341.msg6789094#msg6789094

Charlie is just doing the opposite of what Mike was doing.

its likely the terms of any settlement would include things like Charlie agreeing not to violate money transmitting and other laws again.  This is fairly common in financial crime settlements / convictions.

So maybe one of his lawyers came across this transaction, and told him to stop it, especially pending sentencing.

But if this was the case, you'd think they could tell Charlie he could just return the physical coin.  But maybe Charlie had already sold the coin, so had not other options than to (i) pay Bracek, and potentially violate the terms of his settlement or (ii) just stop responding.

Or his lawyers just told him to stop dealing in bitcoin at all, regardless of whether it meant he would default on commitments.