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

[nullius]

The Targets of Biden's War on "Domestic Extremists" May Not Be Who You Think
Illustrating the dangers of the federal government's war on "domestic extremists," animal rights activists are being prosecuted under a capacious definition of "terrorism."

Leighton Akira Woodhouse
[26 April 2021]

[...]

The following year, the animal agriculture industry successfully lobbied the Iowa state legislature to make what Pachaud had done a crime. The law was one of many so-called “Ag Gag” laws in agricultural states across the country, which make undercover investigations on factory farms by animal rights groups unlawful (an estimated 99 percent of animals raised for meat are factory farmed; the very few small family farms that are left are being systematically driven out of business by the industrialization and economic consolidation of the industry). As Ag gag laws effectively criminalize speech, some of the more sloppily written among them have been subject to successful constitutional challenges; Iowa’s 2012 law was among them. In 2019, a federal judge struck down Iowa’s 2012 law.

[...]

As should surprise nobody who lived through the political aftermath of 9/11, these laws were passed under the pretext of combatting “terrorism.” Radical animal rights and environmental activists have, in fact, long been among the FBI’s top “domestic terrorism” targets, as well as targets of draconian new legislation. In 2006, at the behest of the pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries, Congress passed a law specifically defining animal rights activism aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” — whether or not violence was involved — as “terrorism.”

[...]

Currently, a bill with 196 Democratic co-sponsors (and 3 Republicans) is before Congress, which would begin to build the legal and bureaucratic architecture for an interagency domestic terrorism response unit within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation is explicitly a response to the Capitol Riot and is pointed particularly at “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” groups — a particularly unsympathetic and uncontroversial cast of culprits.

But the PATRIOT Act was also purported to target only the most hateful, murderous people in the world — Islamic terrorists — before it metastasized into a massive surveillance state infrastructure that spied on literally every single American with an internet connection. Are we to expect that a domestic analogue to the PATRIOT Act will draw the line at violent sociopathic racists? The intelligence community demonstrably does not: a recently declassified report lists animal rights and environmental activists, abortion activists on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides, anarchists, and anti-capitalists as potential domestic terrorist threats.

Whoops!

Almost as if animal agriculture is inherently exploitative and wrong.

Amazon and Walmart similarly put mom and pop shops out of business.  Are mom and pop shops “inherently exploitative and wrong”?  /logic

Not to mention, there are fewer and fewer independent family farmers growing veggies nowadays.  “Almost as if growing veggies is inherently exploitative and wrong.”

[DaRude]

https://twitter.com/excellion/status/1386777620604325888?s=21

Spotted a llama what does it means ?

Why is Samson tweeting this now? Or am i reading it wrong

There is only one reasonable way to read it.  It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad.

Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists:  They don’t understand markets.  Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand.

A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted.  Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes.  (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.)

Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people.  It would not solve any problems, and it would create many.  We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block:  Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block.  But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin.

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database.  That is the cost of decentralization.  A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages.  It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago.  The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence:  Bitcoin has value!  Just keep in mind that it is costly.  Freedom is not free.


Oh, “llama”?  I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure.  Also, I do not care.  The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid.  Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!


P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO?  If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death.  Do you want for me to starve!?  You are just full of hate.  

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed?

As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized the childish way of supporting arguments against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines the argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments.

[nullius]

<snip>

There is only one reasonable way to read it.  It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad.

Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists:  They don’t understand markets.  Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand.

A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted.  Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes.  (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.)

Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people.  It would not solve any problems, and it would create many.  We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block:  Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block.  But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin.

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database.  That is the cost of decentralization.  A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages.  It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago.  The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence:  Bitcoin has value!  Just keep in mind that it is costly.  Freedom is not free.


Oh, “llama”?  I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure.  Also, I do not care.  The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid.  Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!


P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO?  If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death.  Do you want for me to starve!?  You are just full of hate.  

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed?

As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized his childish way of supporting his argument against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines his argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments.

• Implication of unwarranted assumptions about me, as a sort of underhanded ad hominem attack that you evidently don’t have the balls to say outright.  ✔
• Knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word “socialists”.  (I referred specifically to UBI, which in practice pretty much requires making money printer go brrr; and regardless of whence the money comes, the concept is to give everyone free money.  Pop quiz:  Due to the workings of markets, what would giving everyone free money do to prices?)  ✔
• Tortuously pompous concluding paragraph which shows incisively that my sarcasm about Marcus’ hurt feelings just went over your head.  Whoosh.  ✔
• All that, just to ignore the valid points I made except where you criticize me for making valid points in a way that is disagreeable to you.  ✔

Filed accordingly, >/dev/null.

Poor Marcus!  What will all this toxicity do to his self-esteem?  Could we please have a safe space here?  

[Hueristic]

https://twitter.com/ahcastor/status/1378894958510317569

[DaRude]

<snip>

There is only one reasonable way to read it.  It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad.

Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists:  They don’t understand markets.  Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand.

A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted.  Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes.  (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.)

Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people.  It would not solve any problems, and it would create many.  We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block:  Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block.  But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin.

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database.  That is the cost of decentralization.  A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages.  It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago.  The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence:  Bitcoin has value!  Just keep in mind that it is costly.  Freedom is not free.


Oh, “llama”?  I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure.  Also, I do not care.  The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid.  Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!


P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO?  If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death.  Do you want for me to starve!?  You are just full of hate.  

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed?

As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized his childish way of supporting his argument against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines his argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments.

• Implication of unwarranted assumptions about me, as a sort of underhanded ad hominem attack that you evidently don’t have the balls to say outright.  ✔
• Knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word “socialists”.  (I referred specifically to UBI, which in practice pretty much requires making money printer go brrr; and regardless of whence the money comes, the concept is to give everyone free money.  Pop quiz:  Due to the workings of markets, what would giving everyone free money do to prices?)  ✔
• Tortuously pompous concluding paragraph which shows incisively that my sarcasm about Marcus’ hurt feelings just went over your head.  Whoosh.  ✔
• All that, just to ignore the valid points I made except where you criticize me for making valid points in a way that is disagreeable to you.  ✔

Filed accordingly, >/dev/null.

Poor Marcus!  What will all this toxicity do to his self-esteem?  Could we please have a safe space here?  

I post a simple one liner question "Why is Samson tweeting this now? Or am i reading it wrong"
-Replies and quotes my question ✔
-For some reason mentions UBI ✔
-Mentions socialists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy✔
-Writes up a decent explanation of issues with bigblocks (wasn't asked, but still a nice change of pace) ✔
-Accuses me of not having balls to do something (lol we in 5th grade?)✔
-Question left unanswered ✔

As much as i enjoy the unexpected attention, but i got shit to do IRL. We can play the "i say one word and you tie it to socialism" (Godwin's law for socialism) game later. Ta-ta

&> /dev/null

[nullius]

-Accuses me of not having balls to do something (lol we in 5th grade?)✔

Deflection.  I will ask outright:  In your prior reply to me, what did you mean by this?

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash.

As much as i enjoy the unexpected attention, but i got shit to do IRL.

So do I.  So why are you wasting my time?

We can play the "i say one word and you tie it to socialism" (Godwin's law for socialism) game later. Ta-ta

You argue like a Commie.  Instead of admitting that you had a ridiculous and disproportional reaction in attacking my post, which was not even hostile toward you, you try to ridicule me and yet also somehow act as if I have aggrieved you.  Waaah, you’re so oppressed!

I can have some patience toward this level of crap from SwayStar123—not from you.  At least she comports herself with more basic dignity than you do, even if she is totally wrong about absolutely everything.

P.S., inb4 you try to strawman me into rolling’s position:  I would make you both very unhappy.  You seem unable even to follow the various different threads of discussion, the way you went full retard over my off-hand remark about socialists in an unrelated context.  Work on your reading comprehension, and also your attention span.

Hereby lately, I have also been ignoring a quasi-religious theological war between the Marxist wealth redistributors, and the Reformed Capitalists who repose their faith in the godliness of the free market; there is not much sense on either side.

[bkbirge]

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

[Elwar]

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/goodbye-bitcoin-kimchi-premium-regulator-says-all-200-of-south-korea-s-crypto-exchanges-could-be-shut-down-report-says

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

Localbitcoins is alive and well in SK. I used to get my local cash in Seoul from time to time.

[suchmoon]

✔

Oh no. You plagiarised checkmarks. Remember what happened to the last dude who committed this crime? Me neither.

[lightfoot]

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/goodbye-bitcoin-kimchi-premium-regulator-says-all-200-of-south-korea-s-crypto-exchanges-could-be-shut-down-report-says

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

How is this different from the sludge in the US?

[nullius]

✔

Oh no. You plagiarised checkmarks. Remember what happened to the last dude who committed this crime? Me neither.

No, in his case he was mimicking me as a sort of a “no u” argument.  I am surprised that he didn’t blow me a raspberry.

But thanks for the general reminder that there are a few things on my “to do” checklist which have slipped for the past few weeks, given the relative place in my life’s priorities of dealing with forum idiocy.

[bkbirge]

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/goodbye-bitcoin-kimchi-premium-regulator-says-all-200-of-south-korea-s-crypto-exchanges-could-be-shut-down-report-says

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

How is this different from the sludge in the US?

Looks like link was bad, here's a good one, will fix in op also.

Deadline to comply or else be shuttered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

[El duderino_]

Ant pump, HODLsleep

Night brothers

[nullius]

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/goodbye-bitcoin-kimchi-premium-regulator-says-all-200-of-south-korea-s-crypto-exchanges-could-be-shut-down-report-says

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

The link is 404.

Somehow says “status: 404”, then redirects (?); see metadata banner at top here:  https://archive.is/B0CHW  (Took forever to load with its zillions of ad tracker embeds.)

Hrm.

The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.

This page is not available on the web
because page does not exist

Archives checked after it failed to load normally.

[lightfoot]

Deadline to comply or else be shuttered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

That's a pretty stupid article: They have till November and my guess is it's an ass ton of paperwork. But let the Govt shut them down, I'm sure that will instantly drop the number of S. Koreans who want to hold Bitcoin to absolute zero. No, they won't get it elsewhere, their government knows so much better.

There will just be a bigger "won premium" as who would want a currency like the S. Korean Won.

$5 bucks says N. Korea will open a wall of bitcoin ATMs on the border in November  Just to fuck with them.

[Arriemoller]

Anyone old enough to remember the Number Stations broadcasting out of Eastern Europe during the years the Berlin Wall was standing? They were used to communicate with intelligence agents, who needed nothing more than a SW radio to anonymously receive messages.
The Stations used high power short wave transmitters, the broadcast would start with a signature tune often from a worn stretched tape or a Station number ID.
Then a series of numbers would be read out by the announcer or voice synthesizer.
They were always in blocks of 5.

So 2-7-9-0-4 then 9-4-3-6-4 and so on.
Decoding could be by the use of a one-time pad or simply a book.

Where
digits 1 and 2 could be the page number.
digits 3 and 4 could be the line number
digit 5 the position of the word in that line.

The numbers then decoded to reveal the message.

The application of this for Bitcoin could be to code your wallet seed phrase in this way by choosing a book and finding those seed words in the book and converting them to 5 digit numbers.

Then writing down and storing anywhere the series of meaningless 5 digit numbers.

Without knowing from which book and the exact print edition (your key), your seed phrase is reasonably safe.

The cryptographers here will be able to punch holes in this but for good enough protection for regular folk it could work quite well.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Russian_Man_signoff_2013-04-23.ogg

As far as I know they are still in use.

[bkbirge]

Deadline to comply or else be shuttered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

That's a pretty stupid article: They have till November and my guess is it's an ass ton of paperwork. But let the Govt shut them down, I'm sure that will instantly drop the number of S. Koreans who want to hold Bitcoin to absolute zero. No, they won't get it elsewhere, their government knows so much better.

There will just be a bigger "won premium" as who would want a currency like the S. Korean Won.

$5 bucks says N. Korea will open a wall of bitcoin ATMs on the border in November  Just to fuck with them.

Haha! And they'll be selling the coins they got with hacking/ransomware back to the people they stole from, lol.

[Arriemoller]

https://twitter.com/sallymayweather/status/1386881393146408960?s=21

People who make these arguments have clearly never heard of Northern Europe

Let me, as a northen European debunk that. We are not socialis countries. Heavily taxed welfare states, yes, but very much capitalist states.
We don't even have any minimum wages, and the unions don't want any, because it is to socialist, it means the government sets the price of work, which in turn means that everybody pays that same wage, no competition in the lower wage brackets what so ever and that in the long run means lower wages than a system without minimum wages and good competition over the wage slaves.

[nullius]

$5 bucks says N. Korea will open a wall of bitcoin ATMs on the border in November  Just to fuck with them.

Are you really just totally unaware of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)?  

That border cannot be crossed in either direction.  Or do you really suppose that South Koreans will sneak through a heavily guarded area covered with land mines and electric fences to get some bitcoins?

Please tell me that you’re American.  I don’t want to believe that anyone else is so totally ignorant of the world.

LOL, Bitcoin ATMs on the other side?

South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

Google’s source:  https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638
Just to make sure:  https://archive.is/CmxaD
https://web.archive.org/web/20210427222022/https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638

The article does not give much information.  Just fluff.  If there is anything significant going on here, I think that much of the impact would hinge on what they mean by “anti-money laundering strategies”.  (Strategies to launder anti-money?  I just put my positrons and anti-protons in my washing machine.)

[Richy_T]

Forget bigblockers.  To stick one’s head n the sand with that type of thinking is to cede the field to altcoins, in the manner of

Yup. 100kB or bust. Then onward to 10kB. After that, zero transaction blocks are only a short step away and no transactions = 100% SOV security.