SELL ORDERS Total: 128534.53141440 XMR BUY ORDERS Total: 2623.91310833 BTC This is bullish  Agree. My recollection is during the big run in August 2016, buy side was well above 3,000 BTC (which we haven't seen for a while), but sell side was also in the 200,000+ range (maybe even over 300k)... Probably because Monero whales hodling to spend on the Treenero ICO... |
|
|
|
We do not consider TreeNeroChains as a full replacement to Bitcoin. On the contrary, having two (or more)
strong and convenient currencies is better than having just one. Running two and more different projects in
parallel is the natural flow of electronic cash economics.
Interesting..... Edit: From his twitter: Riccardo SpagniVerified account @fluffyponyza 3h3 hours ago Don't take the 3 papers I tweeted as serious, I used the Koinster whitepaper generator for altcoin-quality papers: https://whitepaper.koinster.com/ 2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes Aww, spoilsport... |
|
|
|
Cryptos aren't registered securities; therefore, cryptos aren't securities. By law.
By no means do securities have to be registered to be securities. You can form a company in hours and issue yourself securities, unregistered. Subject to various exemptions from registration, you can also issue unregistered securities to your employees and investors. You can legally raise large amounts of money from qualified investors using unregistered securities. Or you can illegally sell unregistered securities. Like this guy: http://www.coindesk.com/sec-voorhees-deal-unauthorized-securities-sales/Lots of things can be securities. Whether or not they need to be registered is a secondary question. |
|
|
|
They could handle the KYC aspect of Monero coming into Coinbase the same way they do for cash and bitcoin currently, and the same way banks do. I.e. ask the owner to disclose how they acquired them, source of funds, etc.
Banks have rules about cash. Coinbase does not handle cash, only bank transfers and Bitcoin (and Ethereum). That's a big difference. A bank could just throw up their hands and say "Can't trace the chain? Let's treat it like cash to be safe" but Coinbase can't in practice do that. I thought all crypto currency's had already been determined to be securities, didn't they have to rule on that for tax purposes a few years ago? IRS deemed them property / assets, like securities. Doesn't really affect the KYC / AML issues with a cryptocurrency (anonymous or pseudonymous). Other than meaning that if you use crypto to money launder, and you haven't paid taxes appropriately, you will also be charged with tax fraud. Sets precedence doesn't it? Not sure what precedent you are referring to? If the IRS has classified them as securities than all gov must recognize them as such unless that ruling gets challenged in a court of law, correct? Well in the US anyway. Not necessarily. And again, not securities, property. Securities are property. Bitcoin are property. Bitcoin not necessarily a security. And whether they are property or security, doesn't affect KYC / AML. Show up to your bank with a bunch of bearer bonds of unknown source, they may decide they need info on source. |
|
|
|
They could handle the KYC aspect of Monero coming into Coinbase the same way they do for cash and bitcoin currently, and the same way banks do. I.e. ask the owner to disclose how they acquired them, source of funds, etc.
Banks have rules about cash. Coinbase does not handle cash, only bank transfers and Bitcoin (and Ethereum). That's a big difference. A bank could just throw up their hands and say "Can't trace the chain? Let's treat it like cash to be safe" but Coinbase can't in practice do that. I thought all crypto currency's had already been determined to be securities, didn't they have to rule on that for tax purposes a few years ago? IRS deemed them property / assets, like securities. Doesn't really affect the KYC / AML issues with a cryptocurrency (anonymous or pseudonymous). Other than meaning that if you use crypto to money launder, and you haven't paid taxes appropriately, you will also be charged with tax fraud. Sets precedence doesn't it? Not sure what precedent you are referring to? |
|
|
|
They could handle the KYC aspect of Monero coming into Coinbase the same way they do for cash and bitcoin currently, and the same way banks do. I.e. ask the owner to disclose how they acquired them, source of funds, etc.
Banks have rules about cash. Coinbase does not handle cash, only bank transfers and Bitcoin (and Ethereum). That's a big difference. A bank could just throw up their hands and say "Can't trace the chain? Let's treat it like cash to be safe" but Coinbase can't in practice do that. I thought all crypto currency's had already been determined to be securities, didn't they have to rule on that for tax purposes a few years ago? IRS deemed them property / assets, like securities. Doesn't really affect the KYC / AML issues with a cryptocurrency (anonymous or pseudonymous). Other than meaning that if you use crypto to money launder, and you haven't paid taxes appropriately, you will also be charged with tax fraud. |
|
|
|
They could handle the KYC aspect of Monero coming into Coinbase the same way they do for cash and bitcoin currently, and the same way banks do. I.e. ask the owner to disclose how they acquired them, source of funds, etc.
Banks have rules about cash. Coinbase does not handle cash, only bank transfers and Bitcoin (and Ethereum). That's a big difference. A bank could just throw up their hands and say "Can't trace the chain? Let's treat it like cash to be safe" but Coinbase can't in practice do that. In my quote, I guess instead of cash, I meant USD. If there is a large deposit of USD, they often ask for the source of the funds, employment, etc. to fulfill their KYC. Other than asking those questions, they have no way of verifying where those USD actually came from. They just don't accept them if it raises flags. If they did accept cash, they would ask the same questions for large deposits. Same as if you deposit large amounts of Bitcoin or Ethereum. Which is why I think its the anonymous outflow which is currently the bigger problem for them. |
|
|
|
Coinbase is very good about complying with the law. Maybe it's because they have to, I don't know, but do you guys really think they would add Monero? Just thought they would be kinda against the anonymity.
That being said, I remember someone mentioned about how if they added Monero, it would actually be easier for Coinbase or whoever, because if someone were to come ask questions, all they can say is "I don't know where it came from or where it went".
I don't know, what are you guy's opinions?
Would be really sad to see them add Dash because of some hype. I'm sure they would do more research on this stuff. Unless they get paid or something.
They could handle the KYC aspect of Monero coming into Coinbase the same way they do for cash and bitcoin currently, and the same way banks do. I.e. ask the owner to disclose how they acquired them, source of funds, etc. Buying and selling within the Coinbase ecosystem also should not be different from bitcoin. The issue is the ability to send Monero anonymously. Currently, it is pretty clear that Coinbase tracks at least the first transaction out of their system for use on darkmarkets, gambling etc., and have closed accounts based on this. They may also track multiple hops. Obviously, they can't do this for Monero. So the issue is to what extent their counsel has decided being ableto track the blockchain is an integral part of KYC / AML for crypto, or just something you have to do if its possible (i.e. not doing it would be seen as willful ignorance.) Now, clearly banks have gotten comfortable with KYC / AML for cash where there is nothing to track once it leaves the bank. They monitor patterns, report large amounts and repeated transactions that may look like structuring, and ask customers for the reason / destination for large transactions. So Coinbase could theoretically do the same for Monero. But given their past actions, and the pending IRS subpoena, I think they will err on the side of caution for now. It would be too easy for the IRS lawyers to tell the judge "they just came up with a new way of letting their customers hide their funds." I think the lagging price and total market cap is also an issue. The fact they've only added ethereum so far, when it been near a $1 billion market cap for some time suggests they have a pretty high threshold for market acceptance. |
|
|
|
You said "I don't think this [anti-Trump FUD] is going to help BTC's EFT at all" followed by two links. In response, I asked "What does the anti-Trump FUD about Shkreli's friend have to do with the BTC ETF, and/or the inevitability of XMR ETFs?" I didn't say anything assuming you'd reached any kind of conclusion about the ETF approval. I just asked WTF your links about Shkreli's friend had to do with it; I didn't "argue" anything by asking that question. Perhaps those critical thinking classes you teach should cover the concept of non sequitur!  Shkreli's lawyer who was also charged in the same proceedings, Evan Greebel, was the lead lawyer listed as counsel to the ETF in the original couple of S1s. After this charge, it looks like they switched law firms to Davis Polk. |
|
|
|
They have been using Ropes and Gray at least since amendment 6 in June 2016. There are many reasons the ETF may not be approved, I doubt this is one. |
|
|
|
If you don't agree with my veiws then that is fine. Just know you have not and cannot change mine on this subject.
If your views "cannot change", then I agree this conversation is not worth pursuing. And that is fine. Good night. |
|
|
|
The bolded sure didn't stop vinyl, As a matter of fact They are still made today right?
And as to the market being limited to Videophiles, that was a direct result of the rest being priced out. Tell me how many VHS collectors there were and if they were priced competitively which do you think the majority would prefer? And of course better tech was found and adopted, THAT happens to every Tech there is. And yes once again Sony cost themselves with copywrite just like the Betamax. But as a simple recorded media storage device Laserdisc was leaps and bounds beyond any magnet tape consumer system, that just cannot be argued.
Oh yeah and yes it is a nice rally, just got a little more yesterday at 0.01236290
Vinyl is a niche / hipster resurgence. The recent resurgence doesn't even begin to compare with the growth of VHS / CD / DVD in their prime. All three were among the fastest / largest consumer appliance adoptions in history. And vinyl players are much simpler / smaller than laserdisc players. And urning over a vinyl while smoking pot and drinking craft beer is less disruptive than having to do that while watching Jaws. Pricing doesn't happen in a vacuum. If more people perceived Laserdisc as superior to VHS, there would have been more first adopters, and then second adopters, and then the Laserdisc manufacturers would have more economies of scale and capital to invest in R&D to develop cheaper players. Original video cassette players were also very expensive, but as people started to see the paradigm shift / mass consumer appeal, more competitors entered the market, more capital invested in factories, economies of scale, etc. Quality in terms of mass consumer adoption is a subjective matter. While Laserdisc may have had better image / sound quality, it turns out the qualities that were more compelling were: multi-function (time-shifting TV, ability to play recorded home videos with also originally expensive VHS cameras); lower cost of production (niche videos and PORN!); and relative durability. Cost followed these attributes. When music companies were getting killed by the ipod and other digital offerings, they also tried the "quality" argument. They tried to point out that CDs were better quality than most digital offerings, and there was a brief attempt at "HD Audio." But it turned out, the quality that mattered this time was cheapness and ubiquitous access. The FLAC guys remained a niche. PS - Re. the Sony patent I cited, that one didn't hurt them. Together with Philips and other players, they created a patent licensing consortium where they bundled all the patents that were "essential" for CD production into a single offering that was available to any party who wanted to make CDs for a fixed cost, part of the "red book" standard. So there is also a legal / cooperative aspect to why CDs and then DVDs became the global standard. PPS - Seriously, don't dismiss the impact of porn. The high capital costs to manufacture laserdiscs meant manufacturing was centralized among large companies. Those companies didn't want to make dirty filthy porn movies. But the ease of duplicating VHS cassettes meant smaller companies could easily enter the VHS porn market. Porn is to media as drugs / illegal activities are to crypto. Aha - I managed to turn the conversation back to Monero! |
|
|
|
Ohh, I didn't mean All of the time I meant alot of the time. My bad, I was playing loose with the verbage.  AFA the Laser Tech it was only competing with tape when released and cdroms didn't come out till much later. they had ample opportunity to own the market but in their case they priced the majority out of the market. IIRC I was making $2.80 an hour and the machine was $800 and one movie was $50 which is just an insane amount for the time. I think they only had 4 movies on launch and Logans Run was the one I wanted. Yep, and there was virtually no protective coating on the things, so the smallest scratch on the disc pretty much ensured the picture would lock up indefinitely at some point We're on the same page. You're saying at any given point in time an inferior tech might be favored due to prohibitive cost or other limitations of its rival. I can agree with that. For what it is worth, it wasn't a lack of protective coating that made laser discs less reliable than CDs or DVDs. In addition to gradual improvement of the technology, two key breakthroughs for CDs was that they were digital (Laserdiscs were analog) and also incorporated the Sony patented cross-interleaved Reed–Solomon code for error detection and error correction. This meant small scratches no longer impacted the output. Laserdisc providers didn't intentionally price themselves out of the market. They were cumbersome (large players, needed multiple sides / discs per movie, delicate discs); a one trick pony (as mentioned, can't record TV, home videos, porn); and had more centralized manufacturing (complicated mastering process and moulding of multilayer discs, vs. just buying a bunch of recorders and duplicating porn or other non-mainstream content). Their market was limited to videophiles. They never got enough widespread adoption to drive the costs down as happened with VCRs and later DVDs. So I don't think you can simply say Laserdisc was "better technology" at the time. And if you want to move to the underlying technology of "recording data using bumps on a piece of plastic that is decoded by a laser reading reflectively" vs "recording data using magnetic storage", well, the laptop I use to listen to music and watch movies only has the latter technology, and my other laptop has neither! But back to Monero - while I was typing this, nice little rally! |
|
|
|
So, is this the Charlie Lee rally? https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/825138178591821825Charlie Lee @SatoshiLite 3h3 hours ago
Best-in-class cryptos Today:
#Bitcoin - 💰 store of value
#Ethereum - 📱 dapps
#Monero - 👤 fungibility
#Decred - 🏛 governance And note further down that XMR gets #2 in governance as well. I guess I need to look into Decred. |
|
|
|
|
The big 3 all up 11% (24hr), in unison.
Top 25 cryptos all in the green.
What fun!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
