Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 05:28:17 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 ... 800 »
5741  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin is Dead on: July 03, 2013, 03:21:05 AM
I don't think ASIC chips are a good thing really. If anyone would want to take out the bitcoin network (governments, rich people etc.) they'll just buy or manufacture their own ASIC chips and until they get 51% hashing power of the network. So the most good thing that people keep talking about in regards to ASIC mining and how it's gonna help "secure the network" seems flawed to me.

Only the rich will get richer with ASIC while the average person won't be able to get into mining if they'd want to.

You can get into ASIC mining with $90 to $100.
5742  Economy / Speculation / Re: Winklevoss Twins File to Launch Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product on: July 03, 2013, 03:11:36 AM
Not everyone is a Bitcoin nerd.

/thread
5743  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICS killing BTC ? on: July 03, 2013, 03:08:23 AM
What a load of nonsense. Seems to be an amazing number of LTC supporters showing up this week talking nonsense. Part of the FUD campaign against BTC in preparation for MtGox's launch of LTC trading I've no doubt. LTC has been pump-and-dump since inception. Please take note everyone.
I disagree.  Most of his points are accurate and reflect the people that I know.  The price lowering though is coming more from the larger ASIC players not only controlling the supply of BTC's but also selling more of them then a typical small miner would do.  A small miner is more likely to spend  BTC in the Bitcoin economy while a larger player is most likely selling most coins right into the market. 

The real failure is that many small miners DID invest in ASIC hardware and they DO NOT HAVE IT.  If they had that hardware now, the price would probably be more stable and higher. 

The largest ASIC player is owned by thousands of shareholders each who receive a relatively small amount of Bitcoins.  If Joe Smith average AsicMiner shareholder gets 3 BTC in dividends and sells them how is that any different than Joe mining 3 BTC and selling them.
5744  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Discussing Bitcoin's future, and increasing its total supply on: July 03, 2013, 02:50:07 AM
When there are say 0.0000004 and 0.0000002 Bitcoins left who are you going to trade them with exactly ?

Do you read any of that.  It is just numbers.  You act like 0.0000004 BTC (0.4 uBTC) is a small amount.  0.4 uBTC (micro Bitcoin) is 400,000,000,000 aBTC (atto Bitcoins) or 400,000,000,000,000,000 yBTC (yoctoBitcoin).  Look at all those zeros.  Using 128 bit numbers for value it is possible to go way beyond that, 32 decimal places which means that same 0.4 uBTC can be used for 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 discrete, assignable, tradable units.  Who will I trade them with?  How about every single human on the planet even assuming the population increases from 8 billion to 80 billion.

Of course that even assumes the asininely improbable scenario where 20,999,999.99999996 BTC are lost will ever happen.  BTW that is 99.999999999999809523809523809524% of the coins being lost).  Somehow in 6,000 or so years we have managed NOT to lose 99.999999999999809523809523809524% of the available gold or 99.999999999999809523809523809524% of the available silver or 99.999999999999809523809523809524% of pretty much ANYTHING.  Hell we haven't even burnt up 99.999999999999809523809523809524% of the available oil, coal, natural gas, or uranium.  Unlike currency which merely trades hands being consumed (potentially an infinite number of times) those materials are are actually consumed in use and we still haven't "lost/used" that high of a percentage of it.

Still if it happens to Bitcoin ... it STILL isn't a problem.  There may be a lot of potential issues with Bitcoin but running out is not one of them.
5745  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Discussing Bitcoin's future, and increasing its total supply on: July 03, 2013, 02:29:11 AM
You seem to forget that Bitcoin's unlike your foolish oil analogy aren't used up and money unlike oil or other commodities is merely an accounting system.  Bitcoin works equally well with 21M active Bitcoins, 2.1M active Bitcoins, or 2 active Bitcoins.

The protocol allows perfect divisibility (something not possible with commodity money).  Currently that is limited to 8 decimal place providing 2.1 quadrillion discrete assignable units.  BTW that is roughly 4x as much as the global currency supply (~$5T) when counted in pennies (500T units).   

If that ever is not enough increased divisibility is possible.  The ptotocol stores values in a uint64 field which can handle integers up 18,446 quadrillion.
Just updating how the protocol records values without increasing the size of the field would allow us to increase divisibility to the 12th decimal place (a 10,000x fold increase).

If that isn't enough a more significant change would be moving to 128 bit integers which would allow divisibility to the 31st decimal place. If there was only 1 Bitcoin left with 31 decimal places it would provide for 16,203,922,234,330,403 quadrillion discrete units.  Enough for every man, woman and child on the planet to have more than 2 million a piece.

It is a complete and utter non-issue.
5746  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICS killing BTC ? on: July 03, 2013, 02:23:11 AM
No. Slowly it will decentralize again. IMHO, ASIC's are going to be one of Bitcoin's biggest strengths in the future!

This.  If LTC ever gets large enough it too will have ASICs and be stronger for it.  Without ASICs the miners = network defenders are fighting with one hand tied behind their back and the attackers will be using miniguns. 

Not having ASICs deployed doesn't mean an attacker is somehow prohibited from deploying them against you.
5747  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin is Dead on: July 03, 2013, 01:26:02 AM
The potential for ASICs have always existed.  If no Bitcoin companies produced Bitcoin ASICs the threat would still exist.

Imagine if the network was protected by $100M worth of GPUs. No FPGA, no ASIC just "fair" GPU power.  Yay it is fair AND we are safe right?  It would be cost prohibitive not to mention the massive amount of space and energy for someone to attack the network using $100M worth of GPUs.  I mean we are talking about warehouses worth of GPU farms, and Megawatts of electrical load.

The problem is that an attacker wouldn't use GPUs.  They would spend $2M, build a custom line of ASICs and wipe put the network with a token amount of effort.  So really the power/security of the network (which is based not of hashpower but on the economic cost of that hashpower) is just an illusion.  It only appears strong because the defenders are foolishly using inefficient technology.  

Now if/when the network is protected by $100M in ASICs there is no "cheat card".  An attacker could still try to outspend the network but they can't do it for cheap.  It would take a $100M investment not a $2M one.  Hopefully someday it will be a billion dollars of deployed hardware protecting the network putting an attack out of reach for almost all entities.  We aren't going to get to that level of security until the ASIC transistion is complete though.

Pretending away the threat of ASICs is like going to war today using a massive army equipped with flintlock rifles.  It will become painfully obvious how bad of an idea that is when the enemy advances using body armor, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and attack helicopters.  Oops our 1 million man flinklock army got routed by a tiny force using superior tech at a fraction of the cost.

5748  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "51% actor or botnet could manipulate the source code of the bitcoin network" on: July 02, 2013, 09:39:29 PM
I agree it is pretty horribly written but manipulate doesn't have to mean "modify".  Someone with 51% of the network can manipulate (exploit) the limits of the software/code namely double spend coins, reverse transactions, etc.   

The S-1 is essentially a rough draft.  Hopefully they have some Bitcoin experts go over it before publishing the final prospectus.
5749  Economy / Speculation / Re: Winklevoss Twins File to Launch Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product on: July 02, 2013, 09:33:42 PM
And how do you get bitcoins once you have your ETF shares?


You don't. This is a product for people who want exposure to something that serves a gold-like (Gold 2.0, IMO) store of value purpose. Yes, it's only "exposure" because people owning these ETF shares will not actually possess the underlying bitcoins. So they'll get the price-action, but be subject to the same counter-party risk that nearly everything in the fiat economy is exposed to.

And that's fine. This product puts further options on the table for people. They can get the hard-asset exposure without having to deal with what many consider "sketchy" small operators (bitcoin exchanges), and they can get in and out of the position as easily as buying/selling a stock, which they're already very familiar with.

Personally, I'll just hold my own bitcoin and trade it directly (if I ever decide to sell any), but I see this ETF product as a way to increase bitcoin awareness and exposure. If it also increases market-cap, that's a big net benefit too; not just to the net-worth of people holding bitcoin, but to bitcoin's utility as a currency too.

Bootstrapping the world's first global electronic currency takes many steps, of which these sorts of "bridge" products are one.

Well technically redemption is possible but only in baskets of 50,000 shares (10,000 BTC).  It is in the  S-1 under the section creation and redemption of shares.
5750  Economy / Speculation / Re: Winklevoss Twins File to Launch Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product on: July 02, 2013, 05:25:58 PM
I still don't get it. Can someone explain me why anyone would invest in this?

The only reason such a trust makes even the slightest sense is for precious metals as they are hard to store in larger quantities. That's a problem Bitcoin doesn't have.

Why would anyone in his right mind buy these instead of buying Bitcoin directly? Unless people that have no Idea what Bitcoin is of course.


In case the reason to invest in this is obvious: This is a honest question.

Access.

Many people will never want to go through the hassle of figuring out MtGox, wiring a huge sum of funds to "Magic the Gathering Online Exchange" ( a copy then have never heard of before) on the other side of the globe, wait 3-5 days, oops Japanese holiday all service/support enters a blockhole, oops your account is locked and requires validation, please send an apostled copy of your passport (for the record I have NEVER had to send a copy of my passport to a brokerage in my life).  The vast majority of people are simply NEVER (not today, not even in their lives) going to find someone on localbitcoins, grab $1,000 in cash and go to a starbucks to meet "BitcoinRadier487" and make a trade.  It is a pipedream to think otherwise.  Most people are never going to build a mining rig or join a mining pool, etc.

That isn't to say these are "bad" methods for investing in Bitcoins but they aren't for everyone. If you have physical Bitcoins and have jumped through all the hoops this isn't for you but not everyone is you.

If someone has a brokerage account they can invest in BTC just as easily as they can buy a share in AAPL.  If someone has a 401K/IRA this would be the only possible way to invest in Bitcoins in a tax exempt manner. A hedge fund will find Bitcoin more viable if it is traded alongside thousands of other assets on NASDAQ or other major exchange and has high liquidity and depth.  

More options is always better right?
5751  Economy / Speculation / Re: Winklevoss Twins File to Launch Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product on: July 02, 2013, 05:17:37 PM
A nice scam.

How is it a scam?  Nobody is required to pay more than NAV if they do it is because they believe the asset will rise and thus the premium paid is just the cost of getting into a position now rather than waiting.  Slippage happens on exchanges is that a scam?  Price is currently $91.08 and you believe it will fall.  You can sell 100 BTC @ $91.08 but selling 500 BTC will drop the price to $90.98.  You are getting less than if you sell slowly, then again if you feel the price will fall below $90.98 before you can unload all 500 BTC @ $91.08 the premium paid for fast execution is worth it.

It would be like saying selling BTC for x on MtGox and buying it for y on BTC-E when x > y thus collecting a profit of x-y is a "scam".  It is called abritrage.  The fact that new shares can be issued or redeemed is what keeps the price inline with the underling asset.

For future reference ... just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a scam.  Many people call Bitcoin a scam using the same "logic".
5752  Economy / Speculation / Re: Winklevoss Twins File to Launch Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product on: July 02, 2013, 05:10:04 PM
I'm interested to see how they will handle expansion if institutional money moves in and buys out all $20 mill straight away. What is their profit model from all of this?

If the demand drives the price higher than the NAV then the sponsor will deposit an additional basket of 10,000 BTC with the trustee and trustee will issue 50,000 new shares.   The trust has now grown by 10,000 BTC and has 50,000 more shares outstanding so each share still represents 0.2 BTC.

Before:
200,000 BTC in trust
1,000,000 shares outstanding
NAV per share 0.2 BTC (200,000 BTC / 1,00,000 shares)

After
200,000 BTC in trust + 10,000 BTC deposited = 210,000 BTC in trust
1,000,000 shares outstanding + 50,000 newly issued shares = 1,050,000 shares outstanding
NAV per share 0.2 BTC (210,000 shares / 1,050,000 shares)


Those shares can then be sold on the market at the current price (higher than NAV) increasing supply, lowering excess demand and moving the price towards the NAV.Note there is an economic incentive here as the newly issued shares only cost 0.2 BTC each but can be sold for more than 0.2 BTC how much more depends on how much of a demand premium is being offered by buyers.

Of course institutional investors can do the same thing so if the sponsor doesn't act then someone else will and scoop up that risk free arbitrage. The process can also be completed by selling 50,000 shares short (sold at price > NAV), deliver the underlying asset to the trustee, collect 50,000 newly issued shares and cover the short with newly issued shares (buy @ NAV).  The institutional investors picks up the difference as profit.
5753  Economy / Speculation / Re: Could price have been kept "stable" for the Winklevii news? on: July 02, 2013, 05:01:23 PM
Sorry D&T, I respect your opinion greatly, but this isn't entirely true. IPOs can go quickly, especially if you have experience or were planning on it. Though, "quickly" here still means about 4 to 6 months. It may be that, because of the political implications, you were imaging that a Bitcoin ETF could take longer...

Google, for example, went from S-1 to full IPO from April 29th to August 19th in 2004. The Facebook S-1 was in February of 2012, IPO in May. Even Groupon, which filed on June 2nd, 2011 was seen as having been "mired in accounting corrections" yet still had their IPO by November of that year.


Noted.  For some reason I recall the Facebook IPO took much longer but I guess I was mistaken.  Still 4-6 months vs "better part of a year" I think we are pretty close.  The timeline is likely measure in months not days or weeks, anyone expecting less will probably be disappointed.  I think it is more likely the offering is simply rejected rather than approval taking years.  So we should probably know by the end of the year.

Since the S-1 is public record, is any rejection by regulators also public record?
5754  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 04:43:45 PM
@DnT

You mentioned that different agencies will likely define Bitcoin in different ways and I agree with you. What do you think the correct definition, or should I say most favorable definition, of Bitcoin is and do you see a way of presenting that definition to different departments (like a letter campaign) to help speed along the correct legal perception of Bitcoin?

Well that is complicated and I don't want to derail this thread.  The issue with FinCEN is that they took the easy way out and as a result created a regulatory mess.   Which of these doesn't fit.

Company trades Bullion for USD or USD for Bullion.   Buyer <---> Company
Company trades EUR for USD or USD for EUR.  Buyer <----> Company
Company trades BTC for USD or USD for BTC.  Buyer <----> Company
Company takes USD (or other monetary value) from Party A and at Party A direction delivers the USD (or other monetary value) to Party B.  Party A----> Company ----> Party B

All these are regulated activities but the first two are NOT money transmitters.  The first is Bullion Dealer and the second is a dealer in foreign exchange.  The lack of MT classification is great for these industries because MT is the most byzantine mess of conflicting state and federal regs.   The last example is a the classic Money Transmitter (think Western Union).  It is important to realize that generally speaking "payments" are not money transmission.  If your employer gives you a paycheck (or ACH) that is not money transmission.  If you use a bank wire to pay a bullion dealer who ships you some gold that is not money transmission.  If you make monthly contributions to your IRA by ACH withdrawal from your checking account to your brokerage account that is not money transmission.

Generally speaking money tranmission involves (not lawyer terms) "moving someone ELSES money".  If your employer uses a payroll company and provides funds and instructions (pay QA $10,000 monthly into this account) the Payroll company is a money transmitter.  If you take $500 cash to Western Union and "send" (although your money never moves) it to your friend in Virginia who picks it up at a WU location that is money transmission.  The $500 isn't WU it is yours, WU is just moving it for you.

Now look at the BTC example above.  I would argue trading/exchanging BTC for USD has more in common with trading/exchanging Gold for USD or trading/exchanging EUR for USD.  FinCEN however couldn't make it "fit" in those classifications.  Bullion dealers specifically name precious metals and Dealers in Foreign currency specifically define "foreign currency".

The only category that could possibly fit, in the sense of round peg and square hole but we have this sledgehammer is Money Transmitter.  Of course that opens up a nightmarish world of bureaucracy at the state level.  Honestly there is no worse classification.  It is cheaper and faster to form a new credit union (or buy an existing failing one) then becomes registered as MT in all states.

So I guess I answered what it shouldn't be.  The reality is no existing MSB laws properly cover what Bitcoin is.  In an optimal world regulators would have gone to congress and asked them to expand the scope of their authority to cover virtual currencies.  FinCEN then could either have expanded the "Dealer in Foreign Currency" category to also cover virtual currencies, "Dealer in Currency" or created an entirely new category (there are 6 classes of MSB, no reason it couldn't be 7).

For the record this is the approach that regulators in Canada have taken.  They indicated that no existing MSB regs cover Bitcoin brokers/traders/exchanges.  This isn't to say they don't see the new for regulation but rather the existing regs don't cover it and new regs will need to be written.



5755  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 04:28:34 PM
As an NYSE trader, I would definitely be buying some shares of the ETF.  For some reason I just don't think it will get approved.

I fear you may be right.  Now I think a Bitcoin (or some future CC) ETF is an inevitability but I don't know if it will be this ETF at this time.  While structurally it is very similar to any physical commodity ETF the concept of a "virtual asset" is a huge jump for regulators (who generally are non-creative old men).

It may take a decade of failed attempts before one gets approved.  Then again lets hope they have friends in the right places.   I know if I (as a wallstreet outsider) tried to launch a fund like this the chance of approval would be 0.0%. 
5756  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 04:23:44 PM
This article posted today, said that their initial investment was $11M but it is worth around "Oops, that’s about $8-million now." today.

So, at $8,000,000 by today's price (~$86 at time of article) we are looking at under 100,000 BTC.

I believe that article is misquoting another article to a flawed conclusion.  In an interview the twins made a reference to purchasing there coins in the summer of 2012 and owned 1% of all Bitcoins.  I assume that meant 1% of coins minted to date (~11M) not all 21M coins but either way if the bought in summer of 2012 neither sum required an investment of $11M USD.  I don't believe they have ever indicated their actual purchase price but the exchange rate in Summer of 2012 ranged from ~$5 to ~$10 per BTC.

The author mixes up the value of an investment and the amount invested. At the time of the New York Times article, their holdings were reportedly WORTH $11M (110K BTC @ $100 ea?).    If we assume they didn't increase or liquidate their holdings it is worth less today then at the peak but it would still be up 800% or so in roughly a year.  I would say that is "not too bad". Smiley

Still the S-1 simply indicates the trust will have 200K BTC, issue 1 million shares (0.2 BTC initial NAV), and pre-IPO shares will be issued in baskets of 50,000 shares (10,000 BTC).  It is unclear what will fund the initial share sales.  The W twins might be using their 110,000 BTC, they might have more bought for this purpose, or they may be looking solely for outside capital to acquire BTC.  We may never know unless they decide to tell us.
5757  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 04:12:45 PM

d) for better or worse their names are now tied to Bitcoin.  Don't underestimate egos.  If this thing hits big people on Wallstreet will remember who launched it, who bought coins when most people hadn't heard of Bitcoin, who "got it right" and laughed all the way to the wallet.dat.

Once again I caution this is just my speculation but it seems illogical they would go through all this simply to unload some coins.

That's an interesting side of it I never thought of... what a great way for them to be seen as the "guys who mainstreamed Bitcoin" and not "the crybabies who sued Facebook"

Yeah I think it is a lesser consideration but it is important to remember people are people not wealth accumulating robots.  Motivations often have a very human element to it.
5758  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Now, let' s start again and I will try to be more accurate in the asking. Are the Winklevoss twins attempting to recover their money from creating a fund because if they sell a bunch of Bitcoins at a time they will crash the price or are they doing this because they really love Bitcoin and ultimately want it to succeed? Is this like a hedge against their investment?

No offense intended I honestly didn't know what you were asking but it is a good question and one other people have asked in a variety of ways.

My guess (and this is just my guess) they are doing this to profit both directly from the fees generated by the ETF and indirectly by the benefit to Bitcoin in general.  If they simply wanted to unload 100K BTC they could do so much easier, cheaper, and quicker then then the huge regulatory expense of starting an ETF.  

The first reason is that regulators may simply not approve this ETF or they may require lots of back and forth and modification of the proposed financial insturment.   Second is that even once approved they need to find an exchange to list it and it is possible no exchange will or their first choice will decline (after some wasted months of underwritting) and they need to shop it to a second or third or fourth exchange.

Lastly 100K BTC is really not that much.  This is a very slow process.  Remember we are moving at the speed of government mixed with risk averse accountants with the added bonus of lawyers dealing with something totally new (and thus hard to provide firm legal guidance).  Honestly I would say 3-4 months is naively optimistic.  There is a real possibility it will take much longer given the novel first of its kind nature however lets say it takes them four months though.  That is 120 days.  If they wanted to unload that on MtGox that would only require selling 833 BTC a day for the next four months.

Once again simply my opinion but I see the motivation for the ETF as:
a) if Bitcoin becomes very big someday and the ETF is popular they will have first mover status.  They will be the GLD of Bitcoins and that is a license to print money.  Hell I will use it and I own physical Bitcoins.  Why?  Because I can use tax exempt money in my IRA or 401K to buy Bitcoins without taking a penalty to withdraw it from the IRA/401K.

b) it provides liquidity/access on a scale that MtGox simply can't handle.  A VC fund would be far more comfortable dealing in "paper Bitcoins" on the NASDAQ then wiring $10M to the Magic The Gathering Online exchange in Japan.

c) it is potentially bullish for Bitcoin in general and Bitcoin related enterprises.  The whole a rising tide lifts all ships.  They can profit indirectly in addition to the direct profits.

d) for better or worse their names are now tied to Bitcoin.  Don't underestimate egos.  If this thing hits big people on Wallstreet will remember who launched it, who bought coins when most people hadn't heard of Bitcoin, who "got it right" and laughed all the way to the wallet.dat.  If Bitcoin has a great year in 2014 (or 2015, or 2029) say up 500% the fund would post gains up 500%.  Imagine the news story and inverview on CNBC about the guys who brought you the best performing ETF on a year to date and 5 year basis.

Once again I caution this is just my opinion but it seems illogical they would go through all this simply to unload some coins. 
5759  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is there a limit on the max number of inputs and outputs in a transaction? on: July 02, 2013, 03:54:08 PM
There is also a far less practical limit.  The number of items in the input and output lists are specified using varint values, which max out at 264-1.

It is obviously difficult to imagine situations where that limit will matter, but it is the only limit that applies directly.

Ah good point although I agree it is unlikely that limit will be a practical one.
5760  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq on: July 02, 2013, 03:49:59 PM

And for every additional 50K units the trust issues, it has to buy 10K BTC on the open market. Once this works, resulting demand for BTC will be absolutely unimaginable for anyone involved in BTC trading right now.

where does it say that they have to keep buying BTC in the open market?

They don't have to but institutional investors will exploit it for arbitrage.  Say demand exceeds supply and while 1 share = 0.2 BTC the price rises above NAV and is trading at say 0.22 BTC per share (in USD equivelent).  An institutional investor would short 50,000 shares and deliver 10,000 BTC to the trustee.  The trustee would then add the 10,000 BTC to the trust, issue 50,000 new shares.  The investor then uses the new shares to cover the short and pockets 0.02 BTC per share * 50,000 = 100 BTC in a 0 risk arbitrage.

IT doesn't matter who buys the underlying asset, someone will if demand for the ETF shares exceeds supply.  This isn't a new concept.  For example physical bullion trusts have existed for over a decade.  The best known one is GLD.  The trust proposed by the  W twins is functionally identical to GLD except the underlying asset is Bitcoins not Gold Bullion.
Pages: « 1 ... 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!