SEC tendering for blockchain analysis companies

[Pab]

Common guys
SEC is not a devil.SEC wants to learn finally about blockchain
Also SEC is looking for blockchain like a way of securing his data
It is in fact very optimistic change in SEC behavior

by the way one of SEC official twitted that SEC is actively working on ICO guidance
What can be considered  like a security what like a utility etc

[Dumitru Rusu]

 Main issue with SEC is that they create confusion about secondary markets for these securities (cypto). By definition a security is an investment contract between legal persons and creates obligations that are enforceable by law. Tokens held by smart contracts fail both of the scenarios.

But the true benefit of crypto assets is that they overcome this problem by not being a product of law or limited to its jurisdiction. For obvious reasons the SEC wold like to apply jurisdiction over crypto. If SEC or no one fails to recognize this distinction will only create more confusion and will have the potential to rob us for the benefits of a global, digital method of managing ownership and value.

[gentlemand]

I actually wondered before if freshly minted coins would one day be worth a bit more if that ever happened (utxo interpretations, their attack on fungibility), ensuring miners get a hike on income. This would go completely contrary to the past, where older coins actually gained priority.

But I think for as long as users like us deliberately accept and use coins, and steer away from such exchanges or compliance, then we starve them off business anyway.

I've read of OTC buyers paying a premium for freshly minted coins. Dunno if it's true. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. As soon as it's established 'clean' coins are worth more the entire thing falls apart and becomes unusable. You'd wind up with a virgin subset that everyone else would spam with their dirty coins anyway.

[squatter]

I actually wondered before if freshly minted coins would one day be worth a bit more if that ever happened (utxo interpretations, their attack on fungibility), ensuring miners get a hike on income. This would go completely contrary to the past, where older coins actually gained priority.

But I think for as long as users like us deliberately accept and use coins, and steer away from such exchanges or compliance, then we starve them off business anyway.

I've read of OTC buyers paying a premium for freshly minted coins. Dunno if it's true. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. As soon as it's established 'clean' coins are worth more the entire thing falls apart and becomes unusable. You'd wind up with a virgin subset that everyone else would spam with their dirty coins anyway.

Fungibility has always been an open question with Bitcoin. We can't foresee exactly how governments are going to apply money laundering regulations, and the ledger is completely transparent. I certainly would never seek out freshly minted coins personally, but I could understand if whale investors with deep pockets want to hedge that way as an insurance plan. They want their capital to be unimpeachable. I'm sure whatever premium they're paying is a drop in the bucket compared to the potential gains they're looking for.

[buwaytress]

I've read of OTC buyers paying a premium for freshly minted coins. Dunno if it's true. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. As soon as it's established 'clean' coins are worth more the entire thing falls apart and becomes unusable. You'd wind up with a virgin subset that everyone else would spam with their dirty coins anyway.

Ludicrous is true, but I would hardly be surprised if there were instances of such, marketing, coupled with ignorance, could easily see how a demand could be created by "bad actors", but good thing right now is that you can't block incomings, so yeah, you couldn't do anything to hide clean coins when everything's traceable easily esp for coinbase virgins.

Fungibility has always been an open question with Bitcoin. We can't foresee exactly how governments are going to apply money laundering regulations, and the ledger is completely transparent. I certainly would never seek out freshly minted coins personally, but I could understand if whale investors with deep pockets want to hedge that way as an insurance plan. They want their capital to be unimpeachable. I'm sure whatever premium they're paying is a drop in the bucket compared to the potential gains they're looking for.

Same here, I actually am quite happy when given the chance to transact with as diverse and as many as possible. Large corporate interests do have a funny way of rational logic, though, and should they overlook fungibility for that unimpeachable capital, they may very well go down that path, even if they don't have the foresight to see the harm at the end.

[gentlemand]

I could understand if whale investors with deep pockets want to hedge that way as an insurance plan. They want their capital to be unimpeachable. I'm sure whatever premium they're paying is a drop in the bucket compared to the potential gains they're looking for.

I can understand their sentiment, but I can't understand their logic.

Their coins won't have any value if the 'dirty' users and miners accepting dirty fees are in a locked out or placed in a second tier market. Everyone else will either ignore the clean market, which'll be be so microscopic it'll be incapable of operating anyway, or give up and switch to something fully fungible.

[cellard]

Indeed, there's 2 officially banned Bitcoin addresses in USA, but that's nothing, you don't really know which addresses each exchanges have on their blacklisted lists.

I would for starters avoid Gemini at all costs since they comply with the BitLicense, the rest is a gamble.

But the real problems will come when governments start passing laws on how their interpret utxo's. It's just nuts how bad it could get if they pass stupid laws involving tracing back addresses, and if they find something on their database and you happen to deposit the coins which contain these coins on the trace, you would be in trouble since they are attached to your real identity... all these things are being discussed right by lawyers and so on. This is why I was asking about experience when selling coins which don't have a clear origin (basically bought in exchanges with your real name)

I actually wondered before if freshly minted coins would one day be worth a bit more if that ever happened (utxo interpretations, their attack on fungibility), ensuring miners get a hike on income. This would go completely contrary to the past, where older coins actually gained priority.

But I think for as long as users like us deliberately accept and use coins, and steer away from such exchanges or compliance, then we starve them off business anyway.

I think this is the case already. I can't give any links, but I've heard something similar to what the other forum user above said. It's probably rather irrelevant in volume, so irrelevant that it doesn't pose a risk ever of challenging the "official price" as seen by the biggest exchanges.

I believe the mixer "helix" has a special feature where you can pay a premium and get your coins mixed within freshly minted coins by miners. When I was experimenting with mixers I think that one had that special option, at least back then I didn't saw others offering such service.