NY Hearings - lets live blog this puppy : - )

[windjc]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

[1714072284]

1714072284

[1714072284]

1714072284

[1714072284]

1714072284

[1714072284]

1714072284

[segeln]

as a german I was very content with that Hearing. I think the BTC issue is doing fine.
The Regulators have been  at least  neutral,not to say positive about BTC. My Impression-

Bitcoin is Freedom. Bitcoin is very American."

very good

[Bitcoin BEAR]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

What he said^  

[coinpharmer]

speaking as one who couldnt watch, thanks for all the posts about it, keep it comming ! =)


.... MERICA!

[RyNinDaCleM]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

No, I agree SEC is good for the exchanges. But it's good for those who use the exchange, not necessarily for Bitcoin itself (not that it's bad for it either, but it doesn't matter). Those who use the exchange can have a path of recourse once it's all set in motion, but I don't think that equates to guaranteed bullish

[Ibian]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Most people - that's the 99% - won't get on board without official approval. That's why we need regulations. The actual form of the regulations won't matter much at all to us.

[windjc]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Yeah I'm not an idealistic fanatic like yourself. I believe we need exchanges backed by banks. I believe we need funds backed by the SEC. I believe in a strong growing bitcoin Eco system. I believe these are the things we need as soon as possible. Bitcoin needs to operate with a certain amount of regulatory guidelines.

No, I agree SEC is good for the exchanges. But it's good for those who use the exchange, not necessarily for Bitcoin itself. Those who use the exchange can have a path of recourse once it's all set in motion, but I don't think that equates to guaranteed bullish

I do. US exchanges that are completely trustworthy and banked backed ventures that are designed to make bitcoin easier to acquire, sime to handle and readily available is extremely bullish. Techies and bitcoin evangelicals have very limited perception of the way most humans live their lives. Simplicity, security, ease of handling, feeling mainstream, these are the qualities bitcoin needs to be widely adopted. Bitcoin needs to be attractive to people who don't think like you do.

[Biodom]

I liked Mr Wilson the most with take no-nonsense attitude and a clear drive for innovation that you would expect from a VC; Winklevoss brothers scored a bunch of home runs as well. I was thinking that the audience might spontaneously rise and burst into hymn recital. Messrs. Silbert and Liu were a bit too cautious and "programmed". I think if too much regulation will happen, Mr. Liu will take his funds to Hong Kong or Canada vs Wilson and Winklevosses who are clearly fighting for US to be the hub of it all. All and all-it was quite entertaining.
With just 0.5% in illicit trade, why 50% of time was devoted to it?

[BitcoinAshley]

The only thing that would have made it better, is if the jingoistic shit at the end had been expressed thusly:
"Such american. Very freedom."
i.e. a DOGEcoin plug.


Oh well, I guess I'm still satisfied with the way it went.

I like how they didn't mention ANY alts by name at all, yet they stopped saying "digital currency" and were exclusively talking about Bitcoin the entire time. (Which is fine, I'm not complaining.)

[Biodom]

This is neither bullish nor bearish. It is completely neutral. The senate hearings was a bit bullish because they seemingly embraced Bitcoin. This is more of an interview to determine what to do to regulate it.

Lol. Regulation=bullish. This is bullish.

lol Keep dreaming!
Why would regulation be bullish by default? Because they allow Bitcoin to exist and work with it? lol. They know they can't stop it, so their main reason for regulation is revenue. They just want their cut of others' profits. The AML practices have already been in place for nearly a year.

Most people - that's the 99% - won't get on board without official approval. That's why we need regulations. The actual form of the regulations won't matter much at all to us.

Bonkers. First of all, i could care less if 99% people use it tomorrow or not. I could accumulate bitcoin slower. Second, I am fine with it taking 10-12 years: 0.035% right now (2mil out of 7bil), 0.12% in 2015, 0.3% in 2016 (slow down to double a year from 400-500%), 0.6% in 2017, 1.2% in 2018 (still just 100mil people), 2.4% in 2019, 4.8% in 2020, 9.6% in 2021, 19.2% in 2022, 38.4% in 2023, 76.8% in 2024, everyone in 2025.

[jamesc760]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

[jamesc760]

He's actually reading from a prepared statement.

[jamesc760]

Van Cleef, a lawyer, is reading from a prepared statement and is about a new bitcoin money service company called co-optus(?).

[virtualfaqs]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

I did not know that. And I could have sworn some media have said they were brothers.

[Dalmar]

Charles Lee, the inventor of litecoin, is speaking right now.

BTW, he is NOT of Chinese descent and has no relationship to Bobby Lee, the CEO of Chinese exchange.

What? Isn't that his brother? And he sure as hell looks Chinese.

[Biodom]

Who cares about cooptus nonsense? Is this a longest informercial on gov airways or what?

[nak]

Who's this nutjob talking about a "centralised" cryptocurrency? Doesn't that default the ethos of bitcoin?

[merkin51]

What the fuck is this shit? Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket... bring back Freddie!

[threecats]

what a snoozefest. wtf are these people`? is this some affirmative action effort for obscure cryptocurrency variations?

poor charles lee. he must feel like he got bumped down into economy.

[sgbett]

I think the guy eating his lunch at the back is very bullish news.