And?
Do those paper bitcoin pushers (providers) have any of the bitcoin to back up those claims on bitcoin? In other words, do they have as many bitcoin as they claim to have? We know that entities like that do not shoot straight, and they will take every opportunity to shave off extra profits when they can get away with it, and also to control and manipulate the market as much as they are able to accomplish. Perhaps contrarian goals, yet certain insiders are able to get away with fleecing aspects of the public when they are supposedly "providing a needed service."
Without publicly and easily auditable balances, I do not believe that ETFs hold all the coins that they claim to hold. Without this they are easily able to hide that they have plenty of paper coins. This is why institutions tend to refuse to do this or avoid the topic, it has nothing to do with security or whatever else they say.. a signed message or other proof or reserves methods once per month would go a long way.
Of course, they do not want to be monitored either.
If they make their bitcoin addresses public, then whenever they move coins or they make claims that are contrary to the bitcoin addresses, then the public may well end up losing confidence in whatever spins that they are making, and the public ends up knowing too much and can put together the inconsistencies of various spin claims that are being made.
They (sure some are more manipulative and benefitting from obscurity more than others) love to keep us in the cave (in a Plato sense) as long as they can and as far away from the light as they can get us to stay. Historically, they have made a lot of money through those kinds of various smoke and mirror manipulation systems, and they are not going to change their ways without trying to keep their manipulative (Cantillon) systems as long as they are able to get away with such.
and the issue is very simple.
if illegal immigration is wrong. then every state that has sanctuary is in an act of open rebellion against the federal government.
soooo why doesn’t don the man lock up all the governors of all the sanctuary states and put them on trial?
less people to arrest don’t need to run the icemen all over the states.
to me the donald is at a fail point by not grabbing 1 governor at a time or all the governors at once and putting them on trial.
the crux of the issue is a state allowed to declare itself as a sanctuary state or not.
seems to me that this is actually a civil war happening as I type.
and I do not understand why The donald does not come to my state and arrest mikie sherril for allowing the executive order signed by murph the surf in 2019 to stay on the books.
if he did that either he would win in court or lose and then we would have real legit sanctuary states or criminal goverments that need to be jailed.
i truly think the don is at a major fail here by not going after the various governments that declared they are a sanctuary state.
btw i think the democrats favoring illegal immigration’s are fuck8ng nuts 🥜.
My antennae go up whenever anyone takes a seemingly publicly controversial topic and proclaims the matter to be "very simple"
In regards to certain topics like immigration, policing and/or property rights there are states rights and federal laws that sometimes will contradict, and on certain sub-topics, including local policing, the federal laws are not always supreme even if there might be some federal policies that overlap with the topics.
And?
Do those paper bitcoin pushers (providers) have any of the bitcoin to back up those claims on bitcoin? In other words, do they have as many bitcoin as they claim to have? We know that entities like that do not shoot straight, and they will take every opportunity to shave off extra profits when they can get away with it, and also to control and manipulate the market as much as they are able to accomplish. Perhaps contrarian goals, yet certain insiders are able to get away with fleecing aspects of the public when they are supposedly "providing a needed service."
Without publicly and easily auditable balances, I do not believe that ETFs hold all the coins that they claim to hold. Without this they are easily able to hide that they have plenty of paper coins. This is why institutions tend to refuse to do this or avoid the topic, it has nothing to do with security or whatever else they say.. a signed message or other proof or reserves methods once per month would go a long way.
@BitHodlers - You have no trust in SEC Reporting & Regulations? Sad for you!
Bitcoin is designed to remove trust, adding back trust does not make sense. It is just plain wrong.
I would respectfully push back against this notion as a simple axiom.
It's a little too black and white for my liking. I agree with the notion that trust minimization is extremely important, particularly in certain circumstances, and must be fought for to be maintained.
I think that trust in itself isn't negative. Being forced to put trust in someone or something is negative.
But I'm not arguing against what I believe is your greater point. The idea that an ETF, for example, is superior because it offers many advantages in exchange for your trust is not that simple. Exposing yourself to Bitcoin price volatility through an institutional instrument contains many trade-offs that might not be worth the cost.
So I think it is a worthy thing to prioritize, trust minimized tools and processes that are built on top of Bitcoin. But it will also be somewhat advantageous under certain circumstances to also introduce small amounts of trust back to the picture.
A simple example of this would be a multi-signature wallet for which one key is held by a paid third party. They can only access your funds through collusion with one of the other two members (in a two of three) but they are there to be coordinated with in the event something happens to one of the other two keys.
This is a much different trust trade-off than what we have with something like the ETFs. And something far more palatable to me.
So everybody's got to make their own choices about where they're going to place their trust and what trade-offs are worth a sacrifice of it.
Isn't the context of "trust" here related to potential dilution of bitcoin's supply? I surely consider privacy on the individual level to be more important to protect as compared with companies who are luring in investors and also custodianing bitcoin that supposedly is sufficiently backing up shares that they had issued. There should be public concerns (and public interests) in regards to ETF providers and/or their custodians not having as many coins as they claim to have and/or if they might be otherwise manipulating bitcoin prices with coins that they have and/or coin moving (and/or storing or acquisition/selling) practices that they are employing.
In other words, it seems to me that individuals deserve way more privacy than institutions (and/or governments) that are proclaiming to be providing services to the public and profiting off of those services that they are supposedly providing to the public.
For sure, the republicans just love the concept of state's rights until the democrats start to use such concepts, and I doubt that dilemmas get resolved easily - and courts likely would not resolve the matters either - even if Trump were to proactively begin to arrest governors and/or other levels of state/local officials in regards to the sanctuary matters.
[edited out]
My guess is the woke little snowflake lives in Croatia or Slovenia, maybe Hungary...
Aren't you the most lovey-dovey bot than no one ever met.
Comparative WO-ology:
To me, this market "feels" like 2018.
In 2018, upon the first 68-70% decline from 20K to about 6.4K, market stabilized for quite a long time (from about June to Nov), only to undergo another 50% decline to about 3.2K minimum in Nov-Dec.
If this market would "rhyme": we had an initial 36-37% decline, now we are in a range, maybe.
Let's say, middle of the range is 89K. Therefore, this analogy suggests stability for maybe 4-5 months (this timing is not important, though) and then a sharp decline of another 20% or so. Numbers are smaller than in 2018 because the climb was much shallower.
20% decline from 89K is $71.2K, slightly undercutting the first "tariff" drop.
71.2K vs 126K is a 43.5% "bear", which would be quite "bear-able".
TL;DR Judging by the fact that markets seem to be "stuck", we are in a true bear, which would conclude earlier this year than cycle adherents expect.
Wow!!!!!
Biodom declares a "true bear."
You heard it here first.
For some reason I sent you an smerit, even though I don't necessarily agree with you, yet in any event, if you end up being correct, I better cut my looses, since I am going to end up losing my bet with LFC.
At least I have 2 months and 1 week more to prepare my lil selfie (which is 9.5 weeks according to the calendar).
[edited out].........
Excuse me? Or rather...what?
Bears will not be tolerated.
[edited out]
I remember Dec 2017 ($19k) and Dec 2018($3.5k). Even in 2019, price went mostly under $10k.
I have made a resolve that I will buy maximum if Bitcoin went down to $70k.
Between if price went down to $70k then JJG might win the bet (CMIIW).
As far as I know, my only outstanding bet is with LFC regarding whether our $126,272 might be breached prior to April 1, 2026. There is no bottom angle to the bet, yet if the BTC price goes that far down in the coming weeks (and it is not just a flash crash), then it is going to become quite difficult for me to win that bet with LFC - and even right now it is not looking too good, absent an ability to get a 1 quarter extension on the bet (which I am not even sure if that will resolve the matter to better put the odds in my favor in a way that is materially likely to end up in a favorable outcome in my direction).
Poll
