did you not see that $13k/32% crash over the past couple weeks?

sure, we could technically go lower, but that's a lot of blood already. so many people were just ruined by margin calls---there was something like $1 billion in longs liquidated on the crash below $30k. so many new bitcoin investors just panic sold at the bottom too.


actually, both:

a lot of their prior complaints have been mitigated. the unregulated derivatives market (eg bitmex) has been cut down in size. the regulated (CFTC) derivatives market has grown significantly. as of a few weeks ago, the CME is now the largest futures exchange in the world by open interest. https://www.coindesk.com/cme-tops-in-bitcoin-futures-rankings-amid-rapidly-growing-institutional-interest

fake volume, another complaint by the SEC, is drastically down: https://cointelegraph.com/news/few-big-exchanges-continue-to-report-fake-volumes-in-2019-chainalysis

frankly, there is so much investor interest in bitcoin that i don't think they have much choice. by refusing to provide regulated options for non-accredited investors, they are driving investors into unregulated markets, and that is not their goal.


as we saw in 2017-18, the number of applications is not a gauge of the likelihood of approval.

nothing yet. those proposals are still in limbo. re the self-hosted wallet regulations, the public comment period was reopened for another 45 days.

if passed, many of the existing mining pools (especially those in china) won't comply anyway. if you use a pool that does comply, they might enforce KYC on you, have you declare ownership of a self-hosted wallet/address, and then only allow withdrawals to that wallet. from there, you can send your coins to an exchange.

they're gonna jack up our taxes, and then throw us back some crumbs in the form of a stimulus check---great!


if stimulus money pumps the price of bitcoin, i guess it doesn't matter where he lives.

even if not many people put their stimulus checks into bitcoin, dropping helicopter money on people removes pressure to sell off their investments. that pumps all markets, including bitcoin.

i was hoping for this sort of delay since the new treasury/FINCEN regulations were obviously being rushed through at the last hour.

unfortunately, this doesn't mean they won't be implemented at all. in fact, if i had to guess, the final versions will probably be worse once biden's team gets through with them. but at least we'll have some more time (weeks/months?) before they go into effect.


the writing is on the wall. the USA complying with the FATF travel rule is only a matter of time. the biggest question is how low the reporting threshold will be.

andreas antonopoulos did have this to say in their defense: https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1352285439621664768


i suppose people use the term "double spend" in two different ways. one is at the protocol level and would mean the same coins could be spent/confirmed twice---obviously not the case here. the other is from the perspective of a transaction recipient who is sent inputs that are re-spent and confirmed in a conflicting transaction.

the concentration of wealth in society is already quite perverse. i don't think bitcoin will change that, although i do think bitcoin's concentration of wealth will continue dropping over time as early adopters distribute their coins to an exponentially larger number of late adopters.


at this point, my top priority is not being low hanging fruit. there is a lot of easy pickings out there.

i've been trying to structure my tax situation in an ideal way and also leave some emergency coins stashed away off the books. unfortunately, things move so fast in bitcoin land that i haven't quite reached all my goals in those departments.

it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. there is no reason to keep 100% of their treasury reserves in cash or similar instruments if most of it is just gonna sit, depreciating in value.

the proportion of reserves we're discussing is probably 1% or less: https://news.bitcoin.com/mayor-miami-treasury-reserves-bitcoin/

i think it's being presented as a radical proposal so everyone will be shoehorned into accepting the moderate democrat position---biden's tax plan. https://taxfoundation.org/joe-biden-tax-plan-2020/

that would reverse the trump tax cuts and increase payroll taxes for high income earners, and it would increase the corporate tax rate.

the wyden plan would be absolute madness and would wreak havoc on the markets. legislators just aren't that interested in rocking the boat and changing the status quo. it's a dog and pony show.

federal regulation (as opposed to prohibition) gives the green light to mainstream investors. it's a major form of legitimization for bitcoin in the eyes of society. most people i know IRL are either too sketched out by exchanges or too overwhelmed by the technical aspects of bitcoin to buy in. this would take care of the former concern, and sadly, third party custody takes care of the latter.

plus, they're laying the ground for an ETF approval.


retail investors are definitely adopting---just not in the ways that we early adopters would like. they're using paypal, robinhood, square, not holding their own keys, and they generally view bitcoin as an investment and not a decentralized currency.

all is not lost though. when i first entered this space, i viewed bitcoin the same way. i came because of the hype and because i thought it would make me rich. but then i rode out the bear markets and became a legitimate user. many have and will follow the same path.

that WSJ article is from april 2019, btw.

wyden's tax plan never materialized into anything. it was never even written into a bill AFAIK, and now we're in a brand new legislative session. biden has proposed an increase in capital gains taxes (typical democrat) but i think wyden's plan was always dead on arrival.


it depends on your income/assets---the proposal only applies to those with income in excess of $1 million or assets exceeding $10 million.


yes, that was the basis for a lot of criticism of his plan---it would crash the markets according to tax deadlines, and this could be particularly harmful in more illiquid markets.

ultimately, they will be.

governments like municipalities are also institutional investors.

the question is whether to keep a portion of their reserves in cash (where the value will depreciate), more conservative investments like bonds (where the gains are small), or......bitcoin.

jumping from $80k to $450k---huge red flag. that is a case of greed clouding judgment.


there is some reasonable middle ground between $100 and $450k.

if you've ever worked in cash businesses, you might not feel that way. dealing with and handing off tens of thousands USD cash is just another day in the life for many business owners. there are safe ways to do this, with strong deterrents against robbery. the victim should not have been exchanging for cash in a private office---public highly trafficked areas with cameras only, during daytime hours.


this. 6 figures, or even high 5 figures, is where i'd draw the line---even with traders you consider trusted.

2.5 years ago this is what blackrock's CEO had to say about bitcoin: BlackRock's Fink Says Clients Have Zero Interest in Crypto


back then, he was in "blockchain not bitcoin" mode. how quickly things change in bitcoin land!


cash-settled futures, unfortunately. they basically operate like an isolated CFD market. since nobody can arbitrage between the spot market and cash-settled markets, the latter can't really lead spot.

by comparison, an open-ended physically backed ETF would be a way bigger deal because the trust would be buying real bitcoins to back the shares. regardless, it's impressive to see the about face from blackrock, and it's an obvious sign of the increasing institutional appetite for bitcoin exposure.

humans are plagued by recency bias. if an asset triples in price, the price naturally begins to appear too high. who in their right mind would buy bitcoin at $19k when i just bought at $5k a few months ago? idiots! sell everything!

these people don't realize that bitcoin is changing the entire financial paradigm. it's like they think it's another tech stock in the dot com bubble. they can't conceive of the idea that bitcoin is replacing money as we know it. thinking it's limited to a tiny 280% rise is madness.

it's pretty ironic. in years past, everyone would FUD about how much hash power was concentrated in china. in this new narrative of potential transaction censorship by north american miners, chinese miners will actually be the solution to our problem---they don't give a shit about american regulations. and so, bitcoin will work as intended.

given the scale of crypto capital flight out of china, i also wonder if the chinese government might eventually press chinese miners to censor such transactions. with any luck, foreign miners will render this approach completely ineffective.

is that not terrifying? we aren't required to declare our personal gold holdings, or the stocks we own (at least if they are held in the USA). forcing people to declare their holdings is one step away from legally confiscating them...


money transmission and tax stuff. a lot of people are totally disregarding tax laws and the IRS knows it. that's what all the AML regulation is really about IMO---forcing exchanges to KYC so they can do proper tax investigations.

once stuff like the FATF travel rule is widely enforced and all the major exchanges are doing tax reporting, the fun and games are over.

congress could always amend the securities exchange act to include bitcoin and exchanges. i dunno how likely that is, but i mention it because gary gensler has in the past advocated for bringing crypto exchanges under SEC jurisdiction.

centralized organizations---military, corporations, banks---can harden their systems extremely quickly if necessary. bitcoin cannot. millions of coins will remain vulnerable.


how about in 10 years? how about when bitcoin is bigger than gold's market?

i just don't understand the blind optimism. everything boils down to "even if it happens, nobody cares enough about bitcoin to attack it" or "everyone on the network---including the former owners of lost coins?---will magically move their coins the second before QC is a real threat". neither of those are believable to me.


right, and you think that applies to everyone on the network? is satoshi gonna move his coins to quantum-resistant outputs too?


+1. the inertia around this subject, and the blind optimism that it will never have real consequences for bitcoin if we do nothing, is very frustrating to me.

keep in mind, that's just the DCMNA's claim. it's not publicly verifiable at all. they have an interest in creating the perception that they are a force to be reckoned with, especially considering the general expectation of future consolidation in the mining industry, and also the expectation of growth in north america.


that will be an unfortunate side effect if "clean miners" ever become a big chunk of the network. people in sanctioned countries or those transacting with them, anyone with "higher risk" outputs, etc will have less predictable confirmation and may have to pay higher fees.


censorship, straight up.