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

[Newbie1022]

Disregard short squeeze. People are not incorrectly reading bad news as though it were good news like they normally do. Bring on the end of the world.

haha
I was waiting for someone to try and spin this further delay and uncertainty surrounding the ETF as good news, but it seems not to be happening. I think they've spotted the snipers in the bushes  

You sir are trying to do the spinning  

No sir , just calling it how it is  
If I am spinning, please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.
At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism 

+1

I almost took the author's word for it. Thankfully others took the time to do some proper research.

Bingo! There was a quick spike before people figured out what the news really was. Fortunately, nobody appears to have gotten caught too far out on that limb.

[cryyptc]

Explanation

//^$500!!!GOGOGOGOO+

[akujin]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

[JorgeStolfi]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

[galdur]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

B-bull don´t need no helmet for space.

It´s just there for photographic effect.

[jertsy]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

B-bull don´t need no helmet for space.

It´s just there for photographic effect.

Space helmets are for wimps?

[Newbie1022]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

[indiemax]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

[Newbie1022]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Coinshot]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

Excellent, top trolling!

Happy New Year, I hope we see a bull run sometime soon. I think there may be one in the second half of 2015.

[akujin]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

B-bull don´t need no helmet for space.

It´s just there for photographic effect.

[indiemax]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

[Hunyadi]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.

[silverfuture]

Bitcoin bull to the moon in 2015

Aww.. The poor bull thought he's finally going to the moon... He didn't know he wouldn't be able to put his helmet on

B-bull don´t need no helmet for space.

It´s just there for photographic effect.

[jertsy]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.

Is the change likely to delay things considerably? The approval process seems to have moved at a glacial pace to date.

[Newbie1022]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.

How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?

[brg444]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.

How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?

If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.

Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.

[KFR]

Happy New Year everyone.  

[jertsy]

please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline.  At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.  

The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter  

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/

They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware.  Would this change improve the chances of approval?

The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.

Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.

yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval

Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.

as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations

IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.

How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?

If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.

Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.

I don't like the timing of the revision. Christmas is a good time to bury bad news. I'll wait to find out the reasons behind the revision before making up my mind about its implications.