There is a lot of talk about ETF. After the rejection, a lot of false hope has ended. I do not know why some people are trying to revive this issue.
Even if it accepted, the benefits would be for the investor rather than ordinary people. "Maybe the only benefit is the price hike."
The price will rise sooner or later, so there is no need to rush until you get your profits. I'm not even convinced there would be a price hike. Even if the SEC approves a new security, how do we know investors are going to flock to the market? I've already been hearing about hedge funds investing in cryptocurrency for years. And more importantly, the futures-based ETFs don't actually affect supply at all. I think the commodity-backed ones have already acquired the BTC backing their trusts. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if an ETF launch ended up like the CME futures launch last year. |
|
|
|
Also, if Bitcoin is so weak that it can get rekt by price manipulation from it's opponents (banksters, elites), than the whole idea was flawed from the beginning, because there's nothing we can do about it, we can't close exchanges or censor transactions we don't like. But I don't think that it's the case, Bitcoin can not be destroyed by price manipulation, and those who will try will fail and lose money, just like those who tried to spam the network. I don't think that would mean a flaw in Bitcoin. It might just indicate how powerful the banking elite is. Do you believe any of the theories about price manipulation of gold and silver via the futures markets? That might be coming to the Bitcoin markets, with some of the derivatives that are being devised for institutions. It might be inevitable, and it won't "destroy" Bitcoin of course. But these new instruments are nothing to celebrate. |
|
|
|
So will there never be an SEC approved bitcoin ETF?
I think they want to see regulated exchanges / brokers -- and especially regulated U.S. exchanges / brokers -- possess more of the market's trading volumes. They've stated that the underlying market is under-regulated and prone to manipulation. I don't see that position changing until the underlying market structure changes and/or regulated U.S. venues pick up volume. My hope is on the application which will be ono September end. Hopefully it will be accepted and the market will again start to fly as usual. Hopefully.
"As usual?" There are bear markets too, you know!  |
|
|
|
Is 200GB a lot? It sure was in 2009 but now? No, storage really isn't an issue for Bitcoin anymore -- at least not at the current growth rate, based on the current block weight limit. The premise of the OP is totally wrong. The bottlenecks to worry about are probably bandwidth and latency. Generally it will cost you less than 10USD to store the whole blockchain on your computer. That cost will grow but not by a lot. Maybe next year it will be $12. Is that a lot? Not for me.
There will be more data to store, but storage is also getting cheaper and cheaper. Bitcoin's blockchain size is a joke (in a good way). People will be able to run it without problem from their home computer for many more decades.
The other thing is, you don't need to run an archival node to run a full node. |
|
|
|
IMO if Bitmain's IPO success, that would allow Bitmain continue to monopolize mining (both ASIC and pool) and we might continue see red days since they will have 51%+ hashrate on many cryptocurrency on both pool and ASIC. Do you really think so? Why, because of the amount of funding the company might raise? That's one side of things, sure. I was considering things from another perspective, though. An IPO is generally an exit strategy that intends to maximize the returns of early investors while raising capital for the business. Between their missteps with Bcash and forecasted profit margins shrinking (I'm guessing), I think this is an exit plan for Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan. |
|
|
|
As BitHodler mentioned, you wouldn't normally need to "prove" anything, unless you're being audited. And if you're being audited, the important thing is that your withdrawals (BTC that eventually makes its way to fiat exchanges) reconcile with what you report. In this case, all you can really do is make a good faith effort to report correctly, based on your recollection and withdrawals. Anyway, your trading history is literally wiped out, so it's not like Livecoin could prove you wrong, right?  The problem is that governments often couldn't care less if you couldn't be proved wrong because there is no evidence. If they demand records and you don't have it, you could be in trouble.. hence why now im hesitant to ever sell coins whose origin is not really clear anymore because of situations like this one where you have lost partial or total records. From what I've read, and in regards to US law, that's not really true. One of the only facts in this case is your provable income. That's what tax authorities base cases on. If you make a good faith effort to pay taxes on your provable income, there are no facts that can be used against you (in a court of law or otherwise). I'm not sure where you are, but here, the IRS isn't particularly interested in the origin. They only have jurisdiction over the tax code. And they're probably not very interested regardless if you're income is 5-figures to low 6-figures. If you send a BTC output to an exchange and sell the proceeds, then pay the requisite taxes on the capital gains, the IRS has no reason or evidence to claim you owe additional taxes.* I'm not sure what kind of totalitarian regime you might live under, though? * They are analyzing the blockchain, though. So I would keep that in mind if you're trying to keep some of your stash off the radar. |
|
|
|
If they would, there'd be many people on the streets talking about fraud and whatnot, all the while ignoring fiat donations and shady dealings during an election campaign. I suspect you're right. I've worked on the legal/compliance of side of campaigns before. While it seems like the FPPC, FEC and others are open to the idea of political committees accepting cryptocurrency, there are a couple angles from which it seems problematic. For one thing, regulators may opine that BTC contributions are akin to cash contributions because there are no banks involved and there's no way to verify funding source. If so, that means there will be much lower contribution limits than for checks or credit cards. That's one way to limit allegations of campaign money laundering and fraud -- by limiting the amount of money that can come from cryptocurrency. Also, inevitably these bitcoins will be converted into fiat knowing that not every campaign materials and/or services can be paid with bitcoin, so what's the fuss about?
I think it's about knowing/verifying/disclosing the identity of donors. In California elections, donors of $100 or more are supposed to be publicly disclosed on campaign finance reports. |
|
|
|
You guys should really start to ignore CNBC or do the opposite of what they're telling you to do. I tend to agree. If anything, Brian Kelly and company are what traders refer to as a "contra-indicator." IIRC, with several altcoins last year, he ran segments hyping them up right near the top.  CNBC's Analyst Brian Kelly Says Bitcoin ETF Approval Likely by February 2019
Crypto analyst Brian Kelly has predicted that approval of a Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF) will “likeliest” and “earliest” come in February 2019, in an interview on CNBC’s Fast Money August 23.
Kelly pointed out that while the SEC has recently chosen to delay its decision on a separate and high-profile BTC ETF application from investment firm VanEck and financial services co. SolidX until this September, the regulator in fact has the option to again defer its final decision on the proposal until February at the latest. Kelly suggested the agency would be likely to choose to do so, citing four further grounds.
I think he's right that it'll be delayed past September, and possibly until February. But I think he's wrong that it'll likely be approved at that time. Something tells me that's a long shot. |
|
|
|
I guess the "Mrs. Watanabe" effect is coming to the West. Throughout late 2017 and early 2018, there was a narrative about Japanese housewives flooding cryptocurrency exchanges: "Cryptocurrencies are very narrowly held. A lot of them are Asian investors, particularly Japanese. It's very analogous to the mid 90s to early 2000s, when this mythical Mrs. Watanabe, who's sort of the cliché Japanese housewife that would manage the family's finances, would buy Australian currency because those interest rates were higher.
"Now, it seems like the 21st century Mrs. Watanabe is buying cryptocurrencies. Because a large percentage of cryptocurrency holders — particularly bitcoin — are Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, it means the rest of us are kind of playing on the margins and are beholden to what the Mrs. Watanabe's of the world want to do." Anyway, good for them (and us). More traders coming to the market means more liquidity for the rest of us, and more efficient price discovery. I suppose this narrative helps to combat the attitude that Bitcoin is totally male-dominated, too. I wonder how this turned out for them, considering the date of publication: Roughly 30 moms sent Britt money —$20 here, $100 there — to garner varying shares of the pot's ownership. When all was said and done, she'd raised $1,400 to invest in bitcoin and bitcoin cash. |
|
|
|
It's an interesting question. I don't think the commonly used definition of "private currency" really contemplates the idea of "issuance by computer protocol", which is how BTC is issued: A private currency is a currency issued by a private entity, be it an individual, a commercial business, a nonprofit or decentralized common enterprise. It is often contrasted with fiat currency issued by governments or central banks. The Bitcoin protocol doesn't seem to fit under the umbrellas of "entity" or "enterprise." But BTC still seems much closer to private currency than the other end of the spectrum (sovereign/fiat currency). In fact, the above Wikipedia page mentions Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Thank you Guys  please correct me if I am wrong. Assume I have couple of LTC and I want to exchange it.. to lets say NEO or EOS you are telling me it is taxable event? Meaning, I will be taxed twice even though it is just 1 investment (assume, I bought 2 LTC , then I exchanged LTC to NEO and sell NEO lets say in the same fiscal year -- bought, exchange and sell ? What about Like for Like? is it applicable here? Nope, capital gains tax does not apply on each of your transactions/trade, just like how income tax works capital gains is recorded annually and it is based on the increase/decrease on your capital from the start to the end of that year. This is not necessarily true, and I would be very careful treating altcoin trades as like-kind exchanges. Consult a tax advisor. After the 2017 tax year, crypto-to-crypto trades definitely don't qualify for the Section 1031 exception: Buried deep in the massive tax bill enacted at the end of 2017 was a provision that limits like-kind exchanges to real estate transactions, effective after December 31, 2017.
As a result, there seems to be zero ability for crypto traders to claim that their coin trades undertaken after 2017 qualify as Section 1031 like-kind exchanges. Whether such trades completed prior to 2018 can be considered like-kind exchanges is a bit more of a grey area. My personal take, based on an open-faced reading of the law, is that crypto-to-crypto trades may never have qualified to begin with. Some others seem to agree: The IRS could rule they are not like-kind property. It’s interesting to see how the IRS ruled on like-kind exchanges between coins and bullion. In some cases, exchanges of gold for gold coins or silver for silver coins may qualify as like-kind property, but gold for silver coins is not like-kind property. With a lack of IRS guidance, using Section 1031 on cryptocurrency trades is uncertain, and I suggest wrong in almost all facts and circumstances. There is no “substantial authority” for its use, which would be required to avoid tax penalties. |
|
|
|
I´d bet that a huge percentage of the Paypal users even believe that the Paypal service
is completely free.
It's a psychological matter in the end. If people keep buying stuff without realizing that fees in most cases are priced in, they will not bother to care about anything else. It's with everything requiring use of central parties. When I use my NFC enabled debit card to near instantly pay for stuff, the fees are on the store's end but are again calculated in the items I'm buying. In other words, I'm still paying for the fees. I did some research about the payment gateway local brick and mortar stores use, and there is a 2% fee for every debit card transaction. If people use the Visa or MasterCard option it could go up to even 4% which is insane. Based on that I assume that every item is 4% overpriced just to cover the fees. If I use a payment option only costing stores 2% in fees it means they are gaining on me. The problem is we, as consumers, are incentivized not to care. I know that credit card usage drives prices up, but those costs are socialized and therefore outside of my control. It's not in my interest to save merchants money, and the fact that other people use debit/credit cards already raises my prices. It's not like we get to pay a lower price with cash. In fact, I can get 1.5-5% cash back by using my credit cards. So, the cycle continues.... It reminds me of all these "no-fee" crypto trading apps coming out like Robinhood, etc. There are definitely fees -- they're just taken from the order book spread (giving you a worse price) instead of being itemized as a trading commission. |
|
|
|
As BitHodler mentioned, you wouldn't normally need to "prove" anything, unless you're being audited. And if you're being audited, the important thing is that your withdrawals (BTC that eventually makes its way to fiat exchanges) reconcile with what you report. In this case, all you can really do is make a good faith effort to report correctly, based on your recollection and withdrawals. Anyway, your trading history is literally wiped out, so it's not like Livecoin could prove you wrong, right? |
|
|
|
In contrast with past Congressional hearings which at times turned acrimonious toward the concept of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, senators on the Energy Committee largely inquired about how blockchain can be applied to various projects. It's interesting to see how attitudes have changed over the years among members of Congress. Years ago, the only thing I remember hearing from them was prohibition talk. Now some of them even own BTC. Murkowski remarked that growing demand on the local level from new crypto mining farms can cause stress for utility providers, and may even damage the electric grid. Her concern is that this may translate to increased costs for the provider's customers.
"Can we anticipate the consumer rates and the concern that some might have that, 'my family and I might not be the ones that benefit from blockchain and bitcoin and yet I'm wondering are my rates going to be expected to pay for this infrastructure?'"
Senator Steve Daines similarly asked how communities can prepare for mining farms moving onto their power grids. These concerns seem fair enough. Residents aren't going to be happy if miners start driving up their electricity costs. Miners gravitating towards excess capacity may not be the most efficient process. |
|
|
|
No-one should be rewarded for making mistake, incentives to do smart things must be in place for everyone, the alternative is to squander resources on people who don't make productive use of those resources.
Well said. Reward the Poor & middle class, if they lose money on high risk investments and stop bailing out these fat cats.
There is an important aspect people tend to ignore, which is the fact that poor people or those who fit in the middle class category, tend to victimize themselves by blaming everything around them for being where they are in life. That's quite the generalization; "poor or middle class" covers the vast majority of people. In this system of governments and nation-states, there's plenty of blame to go around. To me, the problem is that most people think electing someone different can fundamentally change the system. It can't. Most people turn to the government for change, but meaningful change rarely happens that way. The reason government exists at all is to protect elites and to keep the status quo from changing. Instead of blaming those around you, which hasn't worked out for decades, so the chances that it will work in today's world are even slimmer, people need to actually put time and effort into finding a solution themselves. People should be proactive about their circumstances, yes. But that only goes so far when the system itself is corrupt and intended to keep most people disenfranchised. I do think it's important to know who to blame, and why the system is fucked. You don't have to expect help from anyone, so it's all up to you to make the best out of it. Either complain and don't progress in life, or take the initiative and open all possible doors in the world that otherwise wouldn't open for you. Bitcoin is a great first step towards that, which worked out well for me looking back now. True, but remember, we're pretty damn lucky to have been early adopters. All the kids growing up today won't have that chance. |
|
|
|
I really do not get it. Why is it a bad thing when you develop your own cryptocurrency and make it become the second official currency? It would actually encourage people to buy that particular cryptocurrency, thus the demand will increase, thus the price will grow. I'm not sure on the official definitions, but centralized tokens issued on blockchains don't seem like cryptocurrency at all. If issuance and redemption is centralized (as ICO offerings are), there is no functional difference here between the Petro and sovereign bolívar. Both are backed only by the credibility of the Venezuelan government. Both can be drastically devalued whenever the government wants. And who even knows if the Petro supply has any real relationship with Venezuelan oil assets? This reeks of desperation and corruption. |
|
|
|
Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.
It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws. That's my take as well. None of the applications up for review will be approved based on their objections from last month. If the SEC thinks there's insufficient oversight of the underlying market and that it's prone to manipulation, no amount of restructuring the proposed ETFs is going to matter. It's simply not going to happen. Constantly hearing about these DOA applications is getting old.  |
|
|
|
Some interesting titbits in this article such as the government regularly running TV ads for the Petro. Today is the day it supposedly launches. Will it become an object lesson in how creative thinking can turn things around or more ammo for the anti crypto brigade?
This last-ditch effort seems fundamentally problematic. Even if we assume the Petro will track oil prices, oil is a highly volatile commodity. People could see their wages change 10-20% from month to month. More importantly, as d5000 points out, this is an issue of credibility. We really can't assume the Petro will track oil prices because its issued and backed by the same corrupt government that backed the dying bolívar to begin with. |
|
|
|
...
I actually expected a decline a year or two ago, but they keep growing and growing, which for them as business is a healthy way to move forward. The question is how long will they be able to keep it up.
I guess that Paypal is simply capitalizing on the increase in online shopping in general. More and more people order stuff online instead of buying in Brick and mortar stores and Paypal is often one of the most convenient payment options. Indeed. I also think it's partly because consumers are becoming more aware of fraud risk. By linking their credit cards to Paypal, they can avoid exposing their credit card numbers to online retailers. In fact, I've had a couple card issuers recommend doing just that. Also, I think they've expanded their credit issuing business -- which is probably significant in a time when consumer spending is up. I see more and more merchants offering Paypal Credit (previously Bill Me Later), and they drastically increased my limits over the past year or two even though I hardly use them. |
|
|
|
Yoni Assia, the CEO of major multi-asset trading platform eToro, has said that the correction of Bitcoin is positive for the long-term health and growth of the crypto market.
He emphasized that the demand for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as an emerging asset class has not declined even after the 78 percent correction in the valuation of the crypto market. Assia said:
“In our view, the recent market correction is good for the long-term development of the market. Cryptoassets are still a relatively nascent market; emerging technologies like this often see swings in their value in the early days. Market adjustments like those we have experienced recently help to stabilize prices, and make the industry more robust. Despite these adjustments, however, we have not seen a significant dip in demand for digital assets.”
Crucially, Assia added that based on market data eToro obtained, the demand for Bitcoin will not slow down in the near future, as the crypto market continues to grow at exponential pace.
“As the market matures, more investors are expanding their portfolios to include cryptos, while new investors are opening portfolios to trade crypto assets. We do not expect this demand to slow down any time soon, as more people recognize the potential of crypto assets,” Assia stated. It's nice to hear that mainstream eToro users are expanding their portfolios to include cryptocurrency, even in markets that have recently dropped 70% + in value. Given the price drop and the lull in transaction load, I assume demand has dropped from its fever pitch last year, though. I think he's correct in general, but it's really hard to predict when the market will turn around. It could take years, based on my experience after 2013... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
