I am not sure, but I think this may be a technicality as it relates to BATS.

I.e. BATS is seeking to amend its rules to permit trading in this new Commodity-Based Trust Shares.  This is governed by various regulations related to Self-Regulatory Organization Rulemaking generally, and commodity-based trust shares, particularly.


https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx/2016/34-78262.pdf

I do not think permitting this amendment means the S-1 for the actual trust and its shares has been approved.  In fact, the document notes:


So if it is approved, not a bad sign that the S-1 might one day be cleared, but I don't think it means the decision for S-1 is now within 90 days.

If this request isn't approved, probably a very bad sign for S-1 approval.

Btcoin rallying, Monero rallying... Where the hell is Risto?  More than a month since his last post.

I prefer the bobchain of Inthereum.  http://intheoreum.org/#welcome

Agreed.  And I still struggle with how the DAO can even claim it is a problem, as the DAO terms expressly say the code supercedes the description / intent.


https://daohub.org/explainer.html

So I guess future DAO will need to have a disclaimer that there are situations where the code doesn't control, and therefore you have to look to intent... Which basically means opening the same can of worms lawyers and courts have been dealing with for ages, but "smart contracts" were supposed to avoid.

It would be hilarious if the "hacker" sued the DAO for breach of contract if the "stolen" funds are returned!

Where's Risto?  I would have expected the bitcoin surge would have led to some new Malla retreat discussions?

I'm not following his math to get to $697, but I disagree with his view on mining = stock split.  A stock split does not affect market cap, but does affect individual share price.  Instead, mining is simply akin to a continuous offering, which will affect market cap, and also possibly share price, depending on whether the offering is dilutive or accretive.

The simpler comparison to account for the continuous issuance is to look at both price per coin / share, as well as total market cap, as shown many places, including coinmarketcap.com.

As for the lost coin, its anyone's guess.  But unless you assume there is increasing rate of lost coin over time, it shouldn't affect the comparability of periods.  In fact, I would argue lost coins have decreased over time, as people are more careful with bitcoin in the hundreds than when it was in the pennies and dollars.

So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims...  And $91m of assets.

Between this "leak" of an unsolicited group email and the "crashing" of his club med roundtable, Queen Bruce proves he has a very naive view of what is and isn't private.

Great piece on some of the legal issues related to the DAO.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/blockchain-company-wants-to-reinvent-companies

I particularly like this:



I also think the potential legal liability of the "curators" is going to be interesting.

He acknowledges he shouldn't have done the London meeting (@aantonop reference), and says he no longer trusts his own judgment.  Not vague at all.  If you lose faith in your judgment, why would it be better to make another judgment call so quickly?

Oh, and being scammed and then publicly humiliated takes a pretty big toll, I think a three day turn-around ain't bad.

Regardless of whether we agree on kudos, I think we can agree it is far better than Matonis, JVP and Grigg.

Kudos to Gavin:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/with_replies

Joseph Vaughnperling not giving up:



https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-saga-continues-tulip-trust-trustee-expected-to-appear-by-september-says-joseph-vaughnperling-1462467803?q=%20&hPP=5&idx=articles&p=0&is_v=1

Your second link notes the claim was retracted by the researchers.


http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-satoshi-paper-retraction-2013-11

Here is another weird Craig Wright issue that I've been mulling over. 

Back in November, so-called @BitcoinBelle moderated a so called "All-Star Panel" at a bitcoin conference, that included Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, and good old Craig Wright.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

This was shortly before the so-called leak of Craig being SN.  At the time, Craig was not well known in the bitcoin panelist world, and did seem to stand out as being less of an "All-Star" than others.  (Szabo in particular seemed to think he was a a fool).

When the Craig / SN "leak" surfaced shortly thereafter, many wondered why Craig was at the meeting, and whether @bitcoinbelle was involved in some way.  (And note that my comment describing the ATO tax credit fraud angle on Craig was in that chain, which to toot my own horn, was one of the earlier detailed articulations of this theory, as far as I know.)  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/

Now, from looking at more recent tweets by @bitcoinbelle, we see an interesting exchange between her and Joseph VaughPerling.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727470504932720640

Of note:


JVP = Joseph VaughnPerling = @haq4good


And then:  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727207098442993665

Of note:


And:


And:


So, the sequence seems to be that @bitcoinbelle was instrumental in getting Craig into that panel.  Part of the motivation was to put JVP and Craig in the same room, probably because Craig had intimated to her that he was SN and a "leak" was imminent.  JVP initially denied that Craig was SN, and later changed his tune.

JVP could have denied the connection because he was keeping SN / Craig's identity secret.  Or, maybe JVP really didn't connect Craig with SN, but later had some reason to support the Craig = SN story for unknown, and possibly suspect reasons.

And, FWIW, @bitcoinbelle currently seems to think that Craig is a fraud.  She claims he hacked her twitter, and that he turned kind of pervy on her.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727336811899543553  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727346525106491392

I don't really know what to make of this, but on the off chance that people on this board know more about the character and motivations of some of the people involved, I throw it out there.

(Also, I'm not sure exactly how twitter links function, you may have to click "viewconversation" on the links I provided to see the back and forth).

I posted this detailed analysis describing a likely motivation for Craig needing to "prove" he is Satoshi.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/cxuo6ac

The short version is that he made fictional investments in a company by claiming to have transferred his personal "interest" in $29m of bitcoin to the target company.  (I.e. no blockchain transfer, just a legal document claiming to transfer that amount of bitcoin.)

He then claimed substantial cash R&D credits from those transactions.  

Australian taxation office (ATO) began investigating.  He has paperwork showing the transactions, but knows that ATO might dig around and want to see verification that he truly owned $32m of bitcoin.  To cover that, he claims he put all his bitcoin in a trust, where the trustee was another early bitcoiner.  Unfortunately, that friend has now passed away, and the private keys are lost.

In order for the BS to be even vaguely plausible, he needs to show that he originally had access to $32m of bitcoin.  This is why he pretends to be Satoshi.

Of course, but a key rationale for owning GBTC is owning it in a 401k / IRA.  It is hard to buy bitcoin in those funds.  You could buy direct from bitcoin investment trust at NAV, but you have to be an accredited investor and then hold for at least a year.  And you'd have to have self administered fund, you couldn't do it through a company 401k.

There are other ways of getting direct bitcoin into a self-administered IRA, but it is fairly complicated.

It will be an interesting dynamic for GBTC if the Winklevoss ETF (COIN) suddenly gets traction.

As COIN is going through a full listing process instead of relying on the 144 loophole, it will not have the same arbitrage issues as with GBTC.  So it should have very little - or at least, much less - spread between market price and NAV.

And COIN will be purchasable in the same 401k / Roth / IRA accounts as GBTC.  And those accounts grow tax free, so you won't take a tax hit if you sell GBTC to buy COIN.

So once COIN is trading, the GBTC premium should evaporate.

However, if COIN starts to show traction, bitcoin may have a run, and GBTC's premium might be maintained for some period of time by people who want to capture that run without buying bitcoin directly, or if 401k type accounts.

Artist's shit.  Was originally priced based on its weight in gold.   On October 16, 2015, tin 54 was sold at Christies for £182,500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

Oops, not quite there, yahoo max range wasn't working properly for me.

Guess you are right looking again, the max function on yahoo finance chart doesn't seem to be showing the whole period.  Getting close though!