Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/peirce-dissent-34-83723
https://www.sec.gov/biography/commissioner-hester-m-peirce

also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jnC_Nq7uUI&
CoinDaddy - I Just Hold

[STT]

I thought that was the whole deal with the futures based ETF that it could have a better chance then this winklevoss ETF which is old news by now.   I'm not sure just that decision is an impact on the market exactly.

Its out of the channel at the moment though and taking a negative view but still within a bullish move I think 7725 would be the target downside for it being significant news to produce some selling.   It should already be anticipated and not significant imo but its a measure of strength also

I don’t consider a one-off pilot transaction for a nominal amount as major.  Let’s see if we get some adoption.  

Maybe its major in potential and he is declaring the fact it even took place as the first footstep, hence major but yea it has to be a regular event and useful to those companies as a tool.  Then its Major    Any idea BTC could be within the range of traffic conducted by commerce daily is fairly big if it were to happen.   However its got a long way to go as the SEC says, still small on the world stage

The SEC noted that more than three-fourths of the volume in bitcoin occurs outside the United States, and that 95 percent of the volume occurred on non-U.S. exchanges.

The bid-ask spreads varied widely across exchanges, the SEC said. The volume in bitcoin futures markets are small: 20 percent the volume of platinum, and 2.5 percent that of silver.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Maybe you just look down on those who attempt to engage in self-improvement BTC trading practices? 

I think that's an astute observation. I don't have the gumption to trade. Full-stop.

And this is why I suck at this.

[JayJuanGee]

What is the net result of the mob style introduction of lightning.

1.) shifted the only alternative from litecoin to bitcoin cash
2.) created numerous forks all (most) share the same deflation aspect making bitcoin weaker in the process
3.) created disharmony, lawsuits, confusion and personal insults

I could not care less about Roger or Dr. whats his name. I care about the technical aspect and generally myself.
Isn't there some old saying, Better the Devil you know that the one not known.

Is the forced deviation for pure personal gains/interests by a bunch of individuals of which Lee was one of the main characters (and now wants unlimited bitcoin because of security issues) and had to venture several times to china to convince the miners (and probably forget a suitcase full of coins in the office) in the process or is there a deeper reason?

It is plain stupid to tell someone to buy some money. Bitcoin is an investment. Far better tools exist or can be used to pay for a coffee....
Money has no value it is just a tool. To add the bill of the coffee to my phone bill is just fine at the same time i would not top the phone up with life savings or some crazy amount.

Lighting is akin to ripple tech, no-one with sound mind sinks so low.

I don't claim to have a lot of technical skills, but I fail to understand the jist of your supposed concern about lightning...   From what I understand, lighting is in a testing phase that is getting a lot of increased usage, use of lightning is voluntary, lightning is largely pegged to bitcoin, so I have no idea how it could reasonably in any way be related to a centralized supply scam, such as ripple.

For the time. Will you give personal guarantee that it will remain so for ever. I can tell you it will not, why? Same reason as always enough money hungry whores exist.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  None of us know how the future is going to evolve, and we can only project, yet the here and now is the main thing that matters.  If you want to contribute to the direction of lightning then build on it or contribute to some competing project... otherwise, if we are talking about BTC walls and BTC prices, then we currently we can choose the extent to invest into BTC or some other project.. so who gives a shit, in terms of current relevancy, if 50 years down the road, lightning might become so dominant that it is no longer voluntary.  You seem to be speculating about some kind of compelling force that has no bais in reality in order to spread FUD about some system (aka lightning) that is taking over and as if you have no fucking choice, but the reality of the matter is that you do.  If you find utility in lightning, then use it, and if you don't then don't.  Others are going to make similar choices regarding a variety of competing products and whether they recognize any use case in lightning network in its early stages of development or sometime later down the road.  You seem to be going on and on and on about some speculation that has little to no basis in reality because right now people can decide and they have choices and if lightning provides a superior product that people find useful, then it will get used, and if it does not, then it will not be used. 

Satoshi and scam ripple are light years apart. Lightning is much closer related to scam ripple than to Satoshi.

O.k.  Don't fucking use it then.  Again, you seem to proclaiming some kind of baseless theory about lightning taking over the world of bitcoin - similar to what the bitcoin bashers and alt coin pumpers.   You hardly seem to be providing any kind of meaningful information with your exaggerated bad comparisons (ripple, come on?)  and seemingly fear based speculation.

Satoshi give me an address and i sent you some coins, scam ripple lets establish a banking channel, NO get lost i dont want your scam.

Why don't you provide some actual facts and some actual logic rather than spouting out baseless attempts to trigger with your stupid ass ripple exaggeration comparison.

Again, lightning is in early testing stages and it is pegged to actual bitcoin not some paper tiger scam like ripple... You are going to get on the nerves of a lot of folks, robin hood, if you continue to spout such baseless exaggerated nonsense.. and maybe you need to go to some alt coin thread or bcash thread so you can harmonize with those folks about the supposed "greatness" of on chain scaling and the supposed "evils" of lightning network (I gather you are against the use of segregated witness, too?  )

[ivomm]

I don't know why the twins are so stubborn with their poorly prepared ETF request. Their little exchange Gemini can't be trusted with ETF. Cboe's request on the other hand is a completely different story. It is prepared very carefully and all these manipulation monitoring etc. stuff are propersly addressed. SEC can't find a legitimate reason for a dissaproval. If they just don't want to give an approval although the criteria are fulfilled, then there are only 2 outcomes. First, the ETF proposals will be send again with amendments until SEC gets sick of it and approves it. Second, the issuing company may sue the SEC commission for an unfair treatment and  in the end obtain the ETF.  Having said that and reading between the lines, the SEC members are terrified that some senator or banker may rebuke them for their eventual approval. For ignorants like them, Bitcoin is something like a ponzi. They still don't understand the true meaning of a decentralized currency. By the way, if SEC are so strict, why they never suspected what was going on with the Bernard Madoff ponzi that stole over $50 billion just under their noses? In 2008 the whole USA financial system collapsed because of the SEC's incompetence covered up with high-class words.

[JayJuanGee]

I like the above graph... Do you have a link for it?

[Last of the V8s]

I like the above graph... Do you have a link for it?

https://twitter.com/MustStopMurad/status/1022169639386836992

[bones261]

Well, it appears the dumping has cooled off a little, for now. A 5% drop doesn't appear too bad considering that some trader's ETF dreams are looking less probable than ever. Hopefully the CBOE has indeed put together a better argument than the twins. I noticed that today's ruling is 3 to 1. So at least there is one dissenter among the group.

[JayJuanGee]

What code did you write?

Respect

Haha. You found a few play projects. Most of my code is not open source. And most of my FOSS stuff was written before git was conceived , let alone github.

The point of the initial comment is that JJG, in his/her technical ignorance, is in no position to judge the capability of various engineers.

Yes, you fuck twit.  I already responded to your point here that you are repeating.  You are attempting to make your stupid ass bcash defense about personal technical status rather that the actual point that I was making and I already made, and that is bcash is a way inferior product  from bitcoin that is mostly engaged in attacking bitcoin rather than providing technical competence.  So get the fuck out of here with your attempt to get into technical weeds in order to support your lame bitcoin attack vector.

Let alone his/her making of blanket statements about a group of folk, without even being able to identify one or two of said group.

No need to identify anyone about this mostly off topic coin that serves as an attack vector on bitcoin.  Yeah, sure, you and some other bcash pumpers participate in this thread because you want to engage in ongoing polishing of such turd in order to attempt to make bcash seem like a more legitimate contribution than it is... . and in part, you do so by engaging in various distractions, including your latest distraction that is attempting to pull technical status rank.. Get the fuck out of here with your supposed rank pulling efforts... by the way, remember stolfi was engaged in the ongoing practice of attempting to pull rank, and that did not seem to get him too far in terms of his providing substantive contributions to the thread, even though he surely distracted us into the weeds a lot with his nonsense.. Are you stolfi-lite?

[Last of the V8s]

Well, it appears the dumping has cooled off a little, for now. A 5% drop doesn't appear too bad considering that some trader's ETF dreams are looking less probable than ever. Hopefully the CBOE has indeed put together a better argument than the twins. I noticed that today's ruling is 3 to 1. So at least there is one dissenter among the group.

https://twitter.com/HesterPeirce/status/1022601549309198337
Trump's pick.

[HairyMaclairy]

[JayJuanGee]

Jbear

Blocksize is a security parameter.

I know this.

You know this.

Let’s move on.

jbreher is not here in order to present actual practicality.  He's got technical irrelevance to spread.. in order to attempt to fulfill a mission that certain bcash peeps might be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, someday.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Jbear

Blocksize is a security parameter.

I know this.

You know this.

Let’s move on.

jbreher

Jbear might be the best salesman bcash has on the floor. He's too good at it, and his timing is suspect. It's fishy. I'd put him on your list if I was you.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Ain't gonna lie.

I has a pretty bad sad about now.

WHY BITCORN WHY !?!???

* BobLawblaw breaks down and sobs unconsolably

I will go make you a personal action figure to cheer you up. Wait.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

From https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/peirce-dissent-34-83723

By precluding approval of cryptocurrency-based ETPs for the foreseeable future, the Commission is engaging in merit regulation. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon, and its long-term viability is uncertain. It may succeed; it may fail. The Commission, however, is not well positioned to assess the likelihood of either outcome, for bitcoin or any other asset. Many investors have expressed an interest in gaining exposure to bitcoin, and a subset of these investors would prefer to gain exposure without owning bitcoin directly. An ETP based on bitcoin would offer investors indirect exposure to bitcoin through a product that trades on a regulated securities market and in a manner that eliminates some of the frictions and worries of buying and holding bitcoin directly. If we were to approve the ETP at issue here, investors could choose whether to buy it or avoid it. The Commission’s action today deprives investors of this choice. I reject the role of gatekeeper of innovation—a role very different from (and, indeed, inconsistent with) our mission of protecting investors, fostering capital formation, and facilitating fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Accordingly, I dissent.

Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner

[Elwar]

I think the key to look for (I haven't been paying attention enough to the new ETF to know) is, if the CBOE is trying to change the rules in the same way that Winklevoss ETF did. Which they require some safeguards to manipulation according to their shit response.

They said that they would approve something with existing futures markets if "an ETP listing exchange...demonstrates in a proposed rule change that it will be able to address the risk of fraud and manipulation by sharing surveillance information with a regulated market of significant size related to bitcoin"

Is this what CBOE is doing?

[Rosewater Foundation]

Bitcorn B'awb is hodling for Bitcorn music.

[HairyMaclairy]

I think the key to look for (I haven't been paying attention enough to the new ETF to know) is, if the CBOE is trying to change the rules in the same way that Winklevoss ETF did. Which they require some safeguards to manipulation according to their shit response.

They said that they would approve something with existing futures markets if "an ETP listing exchange...demonstrates in a proposed rule change that it will be able to address the risk of fraud and manipulation by sharing surveillance information with a regulated market of significant size related to bitcoin"

Is this what CBOE is doing?

The point is there is not yet a regulated market of sufficient size.  

Give it a couple of years.  Then moon.

[JayJuanGee]

Bbut... but Anon, it's like when you want a car engine to 'scale' to higher horsepower and speed, the most straightforward way is to simply add more cylinders!  V32 engines for everyone so we can get places faster, amiright?  /s

Stupid analogy is stupid.

If you want a transportation analogy, a closer analog would be passenger demand for a certain train route exceeding capacity solved by adding more passenger cars to the train.

Still a stupid analogy, but an order of magnitude closer to the situation at hand.

Dude you are eating my merits! Put those pic'a'nic baskets down!

For the record, I maintain that segwit was a mistake. And that bcash is shit. And no, these are not contradictory, Torque. Feel less and think more.

O.k. great, so you cannot find another coin?  Instead you want to come here and bash on segwit which was accepted through consensus and NOT likely to be diminished anytime soon, except you nutjobs just want some pie in the sky speculative things to complain about?

[V1lpu]

I like the above graph... Do you have a link for it?

Yes, https://twitter.com/MustStopMurad – interesting account