All posts made by bobabouey2 in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread
1.
Post 8944158 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.15h):
Tim Draper on fox business news talking bitcoin.
2.
Post 9074342 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.18h):
Okay here is a theory for comment.
What if a fund is cashing out for tax purposes because today is the end of the fiscal year?
In other words, window dressing?
If so, tomorrow or Monday they start buying it all back.
If this is true and they are on the West Coast of US, then the dumping will stop in about a half hour.
In the US, companies can select whatever fiscal year they want for accounting purposes (i.e. for audited financials and SEC filings), but the IRS taxes everyone on a calendar year basis.
That said, deadline for filing tax returns, if you got an extension, is Oct 15. But that is for personal tax returns. Corporate tax return extension deadline was Sep 15. [Edit - to clarify, this could cause some selling pressure, but not much. When you elect an extension in April, you have to pay estimated taxes at that time. So the only people dumping bitcoin for US tax purposes now would be people who were smart enough to realized they would owe taxes on bitcoin and file an extension, but not smart enough to pay their estimated taxes at that time and thus face penalties.]
In the stock market, there is a "window dressing" effect where funds may play games at the end of a quarter - piling into hot stocks, dumping weak ones. That way, they can say they owned those companies in their quarterly filings.
3.
Post 9592879 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.33h):
You really think the FBI talked to DPR and discussed with him whether now would be a good time to sell? They sell now because they can, the FBI are no speculators and they certainly didn't ask for DPR's permission first.
Actually they did talk with Ross (not clear on whose initiative) and both agreeed to sell. The FBI still cannot sell those coins on their own, it is not yet decided whether they belong to Ross or to SilkRoad. If they belong to Ross, they would have to wait for the verdict on Ross's trial.
I stand corrected then, thanks.
Still the point stands that Ross and the FBI aren't speculators, Ross probably agreed with it because even at the price today they are worth a hell of a lot more than when he got them so why not auction them off? It's unlikely Ross will be planning to get back into the SR business and BTC if he is declared innocent, he will probably be happy with just the cash without worrying about the volatility of Bitcoin.
They agreed back on January 27, 2014 to sell based on volatility risk. "WHEREAS, the government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings;"
http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdfHaving agreed to permit government to sell back in January, the government no longer needs any further agreement from Ross to sell. Same link: "1. The United States and Ulbricht agree that the United States may, at its sole discretion, sell any portion or all of the Computer Hardware Bitcoin, on a date or dates and in a manner to be determined by the Government."
4.
Post 9594874 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.33h):
How would a reduced price "tank" his other business interests, considering most of these businesses will be set up to extract transaction fees which don't care about price, just usage.
I'm curious as to what bitcoin businesses this guy is even invested in. Googling the guy shows he bought a bunch of coins, plans to invest in some bitcoin businesses in the future (could be another pump line), and that he thinks it will go to 10k. No actual businesses listed anywhere, though.
From this link,
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-venture-capital/, his fund has invested in:
-Coinplug - Second (10-14)
-Snapcard (10-14)
-Korbit - Second 8-14)
-Volabit (7-14)
-BitPagos (6-14)
-Vaurum (5-14) - Now Mirror, and this is the one he noted the auction coin would be used for, to add liquidity
http://www.coindesk.com/vaurum-rebrands-mirror/-Coinplug - First (4-14)
-Korbit - First (1-14)
5.
Post 10600463 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.01h):
Couldn't that jump have been just a large buy by Kim Dotcom?
erm he seems to have hinted in his tweet that Mega would start accepting bitcoin now that his paypal account is frozen. Surely he would have been accumulating at lower levels prior to suggesting this.
Kim is broke, only thing he is currently accumulating is legal bills. http://torrentfreak.com/destitute-kim-dotcom-begs-high-court-for-millions-150226/
6.
Post 10646761 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
you would think its obvious that second market is going to buy up the lot if possible..
SecondMarket did not bid for themselves on the previous auctions. In both cases, they only formed syndicates (assaciations) of small bidders who would not bid for a whole 2000 or 3000 BTC lot, and merged their bids into full-lot bids. On the first auction they did not get a satoshi, Tim Draper took all the ~30'000 BTC. On the second auction they got 48'000 of the 50'000 BTC, and Tim took the other 2000. SecondMarket promptly distributed the 48'000 BTC to the small bidders, after taking a 1% service fee from them.
Their BIT fund only buys BTC when investos buy BIT shares. BIT now has ~135'000 BTC in their possession, but it has not grown since May/2014, except for a 10 M USD "freak" investment in November. Only a few investors had the opportunity to withdraw; redemptions have been disbled since October, and it is not clear whether they will ever be re-enabled.
BIT investors have been barred from selling their shares to other people since the beginning. The listing on OTCQX and the possibility OTC trading of the shares (only those older than 12 months) does not directly cause buying or selling of BTC by the fund. However, if the BIT shares get traded at significantly more than their nominal value (the market price of 0.1 BTC), BIT may buy more BTC and issue more shares to sell to the brokers. Conversely, if the BIT shares get traded at significantly less than their nominal value, BIT may buy back those shares from the brokers and sell the corresponding BTC.
The last paragraph is incorrect. You are right that BIT is taking advantage of an exemption that allows unregistered shares to be sold without restriction (i.e. to the "public") after they have been held for a year. But this means that the arbitrage method you mention by BIT cannot work. If they buy more bitcoin and issue shares, whether to brokers or otherwise, those shares will not qualify for the 12 month exception, and cannot be sold to the "public." (They could potentially be sold to other accredited investors if permitted by the fund.)
The BIT fund will be more comparable to a closed end fund, than a mutual fund or ETF. Mutual funds and ETFs have mechanisms to expand or contract their assets based on supply and demand of shares, meaning the NAV and the public price are usually quite tight. Closed end funds do not, shares are issued in one or more transactions, and then resold in the public market. They can therefore trade at material discounts or premiums to their NAVs.
7.
Post 10659803 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
Bitcoin isn't Gold, Steel or Cement. In theory an ETF (or similar) shouldn't be necessary. I understand that a lot of investors like to work that way, but it's kind of odd when they just as well could open an account on Coinbase and trensfer it to a Trezor.
institutional investors dont or rather cant do that.
In terms of safety, investing in bitcoin (remotely) by buying GBTC shares does not seem to be much safer than buying and keeping (a bit more directly) in a Coinbase wallet.
As for institutional investors: recall that Fortress Investment (a multibillion financial outfit, not to be confused with TradeFortress) bought some number of bitcoins directly in 2013. Bitcoin was the only red stain in their 2014 quarterly reports. Fortress quicky got rid of their bitcoins, swapping them for equity in the Pantera subsidiary that runs the PBP bitcoin fund. (Note: not shares of the fund, but shares of the managing company).
This example shows that some big institutional investors
could invest in raw bitcoins, but currently
don't want to, presumably due to its high risk and unpredictable future. These same reasons should prevent them from buying GBTC or COIN shares, since their financial risk cannot be better than bitcoin's.
While I see articles noting that Fortress rolled their $20m bitcoin stake into Pantera, their latest 10K indicates they still seem to own bitcoin directly, and it traces back to the $20m original investment in 2013.
Go to link below and search for bitcoin, and you will see the $20m investment in 2012, the year end 2013 value of $16.298m, and year-end 2014 value of $6.828m, a 58% decline, which is consistent with the market decline from 12/31/13 to 12/31/14.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1380393/000138039315000003/fig-20141231x10k.htm
8.
Post 10660832 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.02h):
Fortress Investment bought some number of bitcoins directly in 2013. Bitcoin was the only red stain in their 2014 quarterly reports. Fortress quicky got rid of their bitcoins, swapping them for equity in the Pantera subsidiary that runs the PBP bitcoin fund. (Note: not shares of the fund, but shares of the managing company).
While I see articles noting that Fortress rolled their $20m bitcoin stake into Pantera, their latest 10K indicates they still seem to own bitcoin directly, and it traces back to the $20m original investment in 2013.
Go to link below and search for bitcoin, and you will see the $20m investment in 2012, the year end 2013 value of $16.298m, and year-end 2014 value of $6.828m, a 58% decline, which is consistent with the market decline from 12/31/13 to 12/31/14.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1380393/000138039315000003/fig-20141231x10k.htmThanks for the link!
Indeed, those amounts match 6828 k / ~315 and 16298 k / ~725 are approximately equal to 22'000 BTC.
You saw those articles too, so I was not dreaming. Perhaps the deal got sour after it was announced? Or perhaps Fortress actually swapped the raw BTC for PBP fund shares, not for Pantera equity; which, being pegged to BTC, are counted as BTC for the purposes of the report?
I had the same thought that it could reflect indirect holdings via a swap of the raw BTC for fund shares, but I don't think that could be the case, as Pantera doesn't just hold bitcoin, it also invests in bitcoin companies: https://panteracapital.com/portfolio/ So there couldn't be a one for one match. And regardless, the Pantera website describes Fortress as a shareholder, so its investment in that entity would be treated just the same as any other shareholding.
So I think it must have fallen through, or just have been speculation. Quite frankly, it never really made much sense. By May 2014 when the deal was happening, Fortress' bitcoin were already underwater from a tax perspective, so if they wanted to get out of them, it would have made more sense to sell them and take the tax loss, and put new money into Pantera, than to try and roll them over. Also, it would have complicated all the deal documents, as others investors would be paying dollars.
9.
Post 11091230 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.11h):
Does everyone realize that taxes are due tomorrow in the US (April 15th)? The recent sell off is obviously miners cashing out to pay taxes. Nothing to worry about.
IIRC, the deadline for tax selling was Dec 31, 2014. April 15 is only the deadline for filing the 2014 tax statements. Isn't that so?
Nope, payments are due April 15th.
The payment for the 2014 taxes is due April 15, 2015, yes. But the numbers that go in the 2014 tax statement - revenues, losses, deductibles, etc. -- must have happened between 2014-01-10 and 2014-12-31. So, in particular, one cannot claim losses incurred on trades made this year. Isn't that so?
Taxes due are based on 2014 income (mining, recipients of bitcoin as payments) and capital gains (traders / other spenders of bitcoin).
If there are taxes due for 2014, the payment deadline is April 15, 2015. So this deadline could have caused some liquidation pressure.
Now, technically, you aren't supposed to just pay all of 2014 taxes in a lump sum on April 15, 2015, you should have been making estimated tax payments quarterly during the year. So there shouldn't be a huge last minute need for cash.
Then again, miners / early adopters with big capital gains for whatever they sold during 2014 may not be well versed in US tax regulations, so could have come to last minute awareness of the need to pay their taxes.
10.
Post 11729486 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.18h):
FX Brokerages Move To "Close Only" Ahead Of Monday Open
Upcoming risk - Instruments moving to 'Close Only' mode
Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ongoing Greek debt negotiations, and ahead of a potential announcement over the weekend that could lead to high volatility on the market, please be informed that we have decided to decrease your risks by temporarily moving all Instruments to 'Close Only' mode, from 22:30 GMT+3 on Friday the 26th of June 2015, until 00:30 GMT+3 on Monday the 29th of June 2015, trading terminal time.
Please take this information into consideration whilst making your trading decisions.
If you have any further questions regarding this issue, then please feel free to contact your Personal Account Manager or our support department on
support@mayzus.com
11.
Post 11729648 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.18h):
Meanwhile French fin min "I will repeat, France is on hand at any time to find a solution for #Greece. Before the 30th, on the 30th, after the 30th...", EU won't let grexit to happen now at any cost to save EU countries from ultimate financial damage. They will do whatever it takes to rescue euro, "And Varoufakis (greece's fin min) even floated the prospect of the Greek government reversing its position and backing the plan in next Sunday’s referendum - if creditors offered better terms." There will be a deal eventually.
Only #France wanted an extension of the Greek programme at the EWG. All other MS were against: official. #Grexit #Greece #Eurogroup
https://twitter.com/OndrejHouska/status/614841203327111168Maybe France is scared that it will be pushed down the same road: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-25/forget-grexit-madame-frexit-says-france-next-french-presidential-frontrunner-wants-o
12.
Post 11729695 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.18h):
They said there would be no extension possible the last time until after the deadline. Then they not only gave them an extension but also found extra emergency money to throw at them for keeping things afloat until the extension's deadline. If Greece is having a referendum about it on 5th July the institutions could well refuse an extension, then change their minds and grant one.
Hint: Monday is coming... tick tock, tick tock...
You didn't answer me my brother.
Most probably there will be Grexit, right ?
If yes, how this will affect bitcoin ?
Greece imposes capital controls. Greek banks insolvent. Greece bails-in banks partially through retail depositors. People realize advantage of holding a currency where imposing capital controls / seizing deposits is much harder to do.
13.
Post 11730057 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.18h):
Greece imposes capital controls. Greek banks insolvent. Greece bails-in banks partially through retail depositors. People realize advantage of holding a currency where imposing capital controls / seizing deposits is much harder to do.
If it goes like this, it will be so late to adopt bitcoin by Greek people, or I'm mistaken ?
Yes, but it is not about Greek people adopting bitcoin. It is about other people fleeing to investments that aren't exposed to the same risks about to be experienced by Greeks.
14.
Post 11736821 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.18h):
The movie Wizard of Oz was about bitcoin all along. "follow the yellow brick road?" the bitcoin logo is predominantly yellow. The wizard lives in the emerald city, his power is held by a man that keeps his power through lies and making it out to seem he is more threatening than he really is. Both the wizard and the witch are green when they're "bad guys", just like how the US is bad when it's green (cash).
...or I'm reading too much into it.
I assume you are aware that there is a theory that the book is an allegory about monetary policy, when some politicians were trying to move away from the gold standard in favor of a gold / silver standard:
The rusted Tin Man, stuck in the same position for a year before Dorothy oils his joints, has parallels with US industry after the depression of 1893; the Scarecrow reflects the Kansas farmer as viewed by outsiders, needing a brain to replace the straw in his head; the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan, who campaigned to be US president at the turn of the 20th Century and advocated a standard of both silver and gold to replace the gold standard (in Baum’s book, Dorothy’s slippers are silver, not ruby). Littlefield sets his reading against the backdrop of the late 19th Century debate over US monetary policy; in subsequent interpretations, the Emerald City symbolises ‘greenback’ paper money that has no real value, instead obtaining its value from a shared illusion.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140819-the-wizard-of-oz-hidden-meaningsAnd more in depth here: http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-wonderful-wizard-of-oz-a-monetary-reformers-brief-symbol-glossary/
15.
Post 11798284 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.19h):
Wow, so much for Greeks who thought they were keeping their cash safe in bank vaults...
"Greeks cannot withdraw cash left in safe deposit boxes at Greek banks as long as capital restrictions remain in place, a deputy finance minister told Greek television on Sunday."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-05/eurogroup-shock-finance-ministers-would-not-know-what-discuss-after-greferendum-stun
16.
Post 11855848 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.20h):
Having flashbacks to the bearwhale dump below 300 back in October... Except the opposite.
17.
Post 11868712 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.21h):
18.
Post 12704867 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.28h):
Gemini at $275. It's tiny, but it has personality.
278 now. Arbitraging opportunities should bring in some much needed volume.
Whoops, arbitrage opportunity gone, with only about 30 bitcoin.
19.
Post 12786928 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
20.
Post 12801540 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
as i understand it one new victim buys btc and sends them to MMM which takes some of the BTC and sells them to pay the older victims
so afterall it should lead to revenue but not necessarily buy pressure
Does he pay out in money? I would expect him to pay out in bitcoin too, for the same reason that he takes bitcoin.
Many of the victims will surely re-invest all their payouts in the scheme, and then add some more money.
Thus the net effect of the ponzi should be to lock up increasing amounts of bitcoin in (a) the members' accounts, (b) in transit, and (c) in Mavrodi's deep pockets.
You may be right in terms of net amount. But his scam is subtler than that. He never takes in bitcoin or cash directly, nor pays it out. Instead, it is a decentralized ponzi. It involves individuals making requests for contributions, and other people fulfilling those requests directly, using bitcoin or bank transfer.
However, the twist is that before you make a request, you have to make a contribution to someone else who has made a request. And the amount of money you can request is tied to their own virtual currency, Mavro. You earn Mavro by making a contribution, and then that Mavro grows over time, and you can accelerate that growth by doing "tasks" (why appear to be social networking, i.e. growing the scam). I think you may also to be able to "by" Mavro.
Presumably, the way MMM makes money is either in the selling of Mavro, or there is some kind of monetization of tasks.
21.
Post 12801686 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
as i understand it one new victim buys btc and sends them to MMM which takes some of the BTC and sells them to pay the older victims
so afterall it should lead to revenue but not necessarily buy pressure
Does he pay out in money? I would expect him to pay out in bitcoin too, for the same reason that he takes bitcoin.
Many of the victims will surely re-invest all their payouts in the scheme, and then add some more money.
Thus the net effect of the ponzi should be to lock up increasing amounts of bitcoin in (a) the members' accounts, (b) in transit, and (c) in Mavrodi's deep pockets.
You may be right in terms of net amount. But his scam is subtler than that. He never takes in bitcoin or cash directly, nor pays it out. Instead, it is a decentralized ponzi. It involves individuals making requests for contributions, and other people fulfilling those requests directly, using bitcoin or bank transfer.
However, the twist is that before you make a request, you have to make a contribution to someone else who has made a request. And the amount of money you can request is tied to their own virtual currency, Mavro. You earn Mavro by making a contribution, and then that Mavro grows over time, and you can accelerate that growth by doing "tasks" (why appear to be social networking, i.e. growing the scam). I think you may also to be able to "by" Mavro.
Presumably, the way MMM makes money is either in the selling of Mavro, or there is some kind of monetization of tasks.
Just finished setting up an account to check it out, its actually a bit of a pain.
The tasks do indeed seem to be social networking promoting MMM. But I'm not sure how they would be monetized by MMM.
For example, here is the one for bitcointalk:
#1421: Create a signature the top at the forum bitcointalk.org
ONLINE > Forums
#HashTags: null
Follow the link
https://bitcointalk.org Click “Register”
Fill in the registration form.
Go to the page of your profile
Click on the profile configurations.
Write a short and unique advertisement offer.
Write a personal post
Change the profile
Go to the page of your profile
Take a screenshot of the your profile. Send the screenshot for the revision by moderator. In the field for links enter your e-mail
22.
Post 12801895 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
The thing I don't get with this MMM thing is, how do broke ass people living in shacks in South Africa get anywhere near an exchange that counts?
Check their success page.
http://mmmglobal.org/wineletters/I see a lot more Chinese than South African shack-dwellers.
23.
Post 12804781 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
Gemini at all time (Gemini time) highs on price and volume. (Although high volume in this case is still under 700 coin.)
24.
Post 12805230 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.29h):
I'm looking at Nov. 2013 late rise and still can't shake out how quickly the price rose.
The idea of this repeating simply has me in awe. Especially if you consider the amount of money standing on the sideline at this point are straight out frightening
those were crazy times. litecoin was even more crazy nov/dez 2013.
It was insane. My husband and I make our first BTC purchase like a few weeks before the rise too so we were in total shock at how fast the price rose.
To all of you that are newbies and have not experienced such a bubble, my advice is have a plan in place so you don't get too emotional and sell everything (then cry as the price goes way past your wildest dreams) or get too emotional and buy buy buy as it rises then suddenly crashes when you least expect it without taking advantage of the sudden gains. There is a smart way to play with little risk involved, but it takes some thinking ahead. Here is a great resource:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345065.0Can't post that link without this one: "I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.0
25.
Post 12871387 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Ah, so there is still some dollar buying power on bitfinex!
26.
Post 12871686 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
So much this. I can' think of anything in my life that I have invested as much time as Jorge has in btc with 0 financial gain.
Bah. I invested even more work and time on the Voynich Manuscript, and don't regret it at all.
Voynich manuscript is fascinating. Do you have any other budding obsessions (serious question).
27.
Post 12872054 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.31h):
Uh oh, short squeeze running out of ammo.
28.
Post 12897532 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
Interesting that Marshall selected 5th of November for the date of the last Silk Road coin sale:
And, according to reddit's darknetmarkets forum, various markets are either under attack or there are exit scams going on.
Maybe something else is planned for November 5th, 2015, after the Silk Road auction is finalized...
PS - Blake Benthall (Defcon of SR2.0) remains a ghost in government databases. Nothing on Pacer since March, which was a 30 day continuance dated 12/22/14. And nothing on
http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ except an 11/21/14 release that appears due to transfer from CA to NY. Presumably he must be cooperating with various agencies...
29.
Post 12897964 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.32h):
Interesting that Marshall selected 5th of November for the date of the last Silk Road coin sale:
And,
according to reddit's darknetmarkets forum, various markets are either under attack or there are exit scams going on.
Maybe something else is planned for November 5th, 2015, after the Silk Road auction is finalized...
PS - Blake Benthall (Defcon of SR2.0) remains a ghost in government databases. Nothing on Pacer since March, which was a 30 day continuance dated 12/22/14. And nothing on
http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ except an 11/21/14 release that appears due to transfer from CA to NY. Presumably he must be cooperating with various agencies...
Can you post some links to the threads on reddit's darknetmarkets forum which say various markets are either under attack or there are exit scams going on?
Which darknet markets do they say are possibly exit scamming, and are they among the biggest markets?
I didn't study it in detail, just skimmed the headlines and saw a lot of general consternation about markets being down:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/
30.
Post 12968699 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.33h):
31.
Post 13097877 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.35h):
Those gains were unrealised unless you sold. Yeah, it must have been great to watch the value soar, but how many actual holders sold? vs the scam pumpers that did the pump/dump?
Unrealised unless you sold *and* managed to cash out. Remember that Gox had frozen fiat withdrawals. If you were lucky or had decent spidey senses, you were using a different exchange but for many, even if they "won", they lost.
There was also an exchange that popped up after things looked awful for Gox where you could sell your right to Mt. Gox coins for real bitcoin, albeit at a significant discount. Some smart / paranoid people were able to salvage some of their losses...
32.
Post 13522950 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.40h):
The furor on reddit over whether Peter Todd has broken laws with his double spend through RBF, and the calls for Coinbase to pursue a legal case against him are hilarious.
Which is the better approach for a cutting edge digital currency -
- Fraud (double spend) protected by the existing legal structure (no different from laws trying to prevent various forms of credit card fraud, or)
- Accepting that zero-conf transactions on main bitcoin layer have risk, and working on technical workarounds to truly solve that issue for people who want to accept zero-conf without risk
33.
Post 14033849 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
"Sounds like the most patronizing bitcoin conference ever." Yep, that sums up my view of Bruce.
34.
Post 14043823 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.46h):
What, did Bruce Fenton just solve consensus?
35.
Post 14458978 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.48h):
Completely irrelevent for Bitcoin though, since the entire purpose of a currency is to become a monopoly, a consensus mechanism for exchange. The less of a monopoly it has, the less useful it is. Your link argues popularity weakens the idea, so the article is inverse to how Bitcoin actually works. Don't try and conflate grunge music and economics. People like money to be as boring and predictable as possible, not "cool". Just like when you open your refrigerator, you don't want to have to guess what's edible or not. That's definitely not cool.
I don't think the link argues popularity weakens the idea, it is more subtle about the dynamics. And I think its more about the impact on the creators / fanatics (ie developers) than just the overall network.
For example, in the mop phase, there are these comments:
Also, the mops also seem increasingly entitled, treating the fanatics as service workers.
Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses.
It then notes that to avoid this outcome, you need the sociopaths to take it to the next level, monetize the mops, and ultimately take control.
I definitely see parallels to the debate over the blocksize limit. There are clearly developers who are frustrated with what they see as demands from "reddit" that the changes should be made quicker than they are comfortable with.
And I think both extreme sides of the blockchain size debate have their own theories on who the "sociopaths" are that are trying to take control (big blockers and their conspiracy theories about blockstream, and maybe small blockers to a lesser extent when they get frustrated at people like Brian Armstrong demanding bigger blocks while his firm doesn't do much if any core development, or optimize its transaction to limit bloat.)
36.
Post 14609534 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
GBTC at all time high.
https://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GBTC#{"range":"max","allowChartStacking":true}
Based on yesterday's close, a near 45% premium.
http://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/#market-performance
37.
Post 14609727 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
That's still a thing? I haven't heard much about it for a long, long time. I wonder how many people actually own any.
It is nice to have some bitcoin in a tax deferred account. If you think the bitcoin value or GBTC premium to NAV has gotten too high, you can trade out without any tax hit.
38.
Post 14610047 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
it is not at an all time high
Guess you are right looking again, the max function on yahoo finance chart doesn't seem to be showing the whole period. Getting close though!
39.
Post 14664162 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
I might check out that plug once we hit moon levels.
I heard a guy in Europe shit in a jar and then traveled around the world with it, went to art conventions. Art sometimes is amazing indeed. I mean there's literally no limits.
Artist's shit. Was originally priced based on its weight in gold. On October 16, 2015, tin 54 was sold at Christies for £182,500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
40.
Post 14731071 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
I posted this detailed analysis describing a likely motivation for Craig needing to "prove" he is Satoshi.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/cxuo6acThe short version is that he made fictional investments in a company by claiming to have transferred his personal "interest" in $29m of bitcoin to the target company. (I.e. no blockchain transfer, just a legal document claiming to transfer that amount of bitcoin.)
He then claimed substantial
cash R&D credits from those transactions.
Australian taxation office (ATO) began investigating. He has paperwork showing the transactions, but knows that ATO might dig around and want to see verification that he truly owned $32m of bitcoin. To cover that, he claims he put all his bitcoin in a trust, where the trustee was another early bitcoiner. Unfortunately, that friend has now passed away, and the private keys are lost.
In order for the BS to be even vaguely plausible, he needs to show that he originally had access to $32m of bitcoin. This is why he pretends to be Satoshi.
41.
Post 14756746 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Here is another weird Craig Wright issue that I've been mulling over.
Back in November, so-called @BitcoinBelle moderated a so called "All-Star Panel" at a bitcoin conference, that included Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, and good old Craig Wright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrEThis was shortly before the so-called leak of Craig being SN. At the time, Craig was not well known in the bitcoin panelist world, and did seem to stand out as being less of an "All-Star" than others. (Szabo in particular seemed to think he was a a fool).
When the Craig / SN "leak" surfaced shortly thereafter, many wondered why Craig was at the meeting, and whether @bitcoinbelle was involved in some way. (And note that my comment describing the ATO tax credit fraud angle on Craig was in that chain, which to toot my own horn, was one of the earlier detailed articulations of this theory, as far as I know.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/Now, from looking at more recent tweets by @bitcoinbelle, we see an interesting exchange between her and Joseph VaughPerling.
https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727470504932720640Of note:
Steve @MrHodl May 3
@BitcoinBelle @01101O10 @iang_fc @haq4good JVP, supposedly met Satoshi in 2005 and has his picture. I'm sorry but I call bullshit
JVP = Joseph VaughnPerling = @haq4good
DI$RUPTIV3
@BitcoinBelle
@MrHodl @01101O10 @iang_fc @haq4good told me that almost a year ago so I invited him to be on the panel. Figured he'd recognize his voice.
And then:
https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727207098442993665Of note:
DI$RUPTIV3
@BitcoinBelle
@haq4good @dakami You told me that you spoke to Satoshi many years ago and that he was definitely not Craig. What changed your mind?
And:
JVP @haq4good May 2
@BitcoinBelle @dakami A closer look at his face.
And:
DI$RUPTIV3 @BitcoinBelle May 2
@haq4good @dakami Huh Well you had that chance at the panel and insisted his voice was not the same either. Regardless, you lied then or now
So, the sequence seems to be that @bitcoinbelle was instrumental in getting Craig into that panel. Part of the motivation was to put JVP and Craig in the same room, probably because Craig had intimated to her that he was SN and a "leak" was imminent. JVP initially denied that Craig was SN, and later changed his tune.
JVP could have denied the connection because he was keeping SN / Craig's identity secret. Or, maybe JVP really didn't connect Craig with SN, but later had some reason to support the Craig = SN story for unknown, and possibly suspect reasons.
And, FWIW, @bitcoinbelle currently seems to think that Craig is a fraud. She claims he hacked her twitter, and that he turned kind of pervy on her.
https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727336811899543553 https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727346525106491392I don't really know what to make of this, but on the off chance that people on this board know more about the character and motivations of some of the people involved, I throw it out there.
(Also, I'm not sure exactly how twitter links function, you may have to click "viewconversation" on the links I provided to see the back and forth).
42.
Post 14760369 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Your second link notes the claim was retracted by the researchers.
"It had just been brought to our attention that Dustin D. Trammell had published a post at
http://blog.dustintrammell.com/2013/11/26/i-am-not-satoshi/ in which he details his very early association with the bitcoin scheme, states that he is the owner of the account which received some of the first batches of mined bitcoins, and describes how he deposited them into his account at MtGox from which they found their way in a few short hops and without his involvement into DPR's account. We find this post completely believable, and thus we no longer believe that the very early Founder account we identified in the full bitcoin transaction graph belongs to Satoshi Nakamoto. We will revise our paper accordingly."
43.
Post 14764206 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Joseph Vaughnperling not giving up:
I also have a message for Dr. Wright from the trustee of the Tulip trust that is controlling the coins that he wants to move. Not yet announced:
“The Tulip Trading Trust trustee, appointed by Dave Kleiman as of Oct 12nd 2012. It has been rumored that Craig Wright will need to access Tulip Trading Trust assets. Trustee acts in the interest of the beneficiary alone and must defend against undue influence by others. In order to authorize movements of trust assets the beneficiary must come forward and make a direct request of the trustee our way–NOT via 3rd party nor any intermediaries. Any coin movement affecting the trust asset without prior authorization will be considered a trust violation and invalid irrespective of any claim of constructive bailment. The Trust alone has control over its assets. Tampering or manipulating with trust assets by anyone (including the beneficiary) might have material legal and tax implications. Beneficiaries are invited to a conference call 12:00 UTC Friday to discuss interests. Principals only.”
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-saga-continues-tulip-trust-trustee-expected-to-appear-by-september-says-joseph-vaughnperling-1462467803?q=%20&hPP=5&idx=articles&p=0&is_v=1
44.
Post 14766096 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Kudos to Gavin:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/with_repliesJerry Brito @jerrybrito 4h4 hours ago
@gavinandresen Are you still certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craigs Wright is Satoshi?
@gavinandresen
@jerrybrito Ask me in six months; I don't trust my own judgement right now after all the drama.
Gavin Andresen @gavinandresen 4h4 hours ago
Today I'm thinking: @aantonop is a very wise man. And: "we are all Satoshi" is such a lovely idea; might say "yes" when asked "are you?"
45.
Post 14766264 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Kudos to Gavin:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/with_repliesJerry Brito @jerrybrito 4h4 hours ago
@gavinandresen Are you still certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craigs Wright is Satoshi?
@gavinandresen
@jerrybrito Ask me in six months; I don't trust my own judgement right now after all the drama.
Gavin Andresen @gavinandresen 4h4 hours ago
Today I'm thinking: @aantonop is a very wise man. And: "we are all Satoshi" is such a lovely idea; might say "yes" when asked "are you?"
How do you give Gavin kudos for that level of lameness, non-commitedness (and vagueness) in his response?
He acknowledges he shouldn't have done the London meeting (@aantonop reference), and says he no longer trusts his own judgment. Not vague at all. If you lose faith in your judgment, why would it be better to make another judgment call so quickly?
Oh, and being scammed and then publicly humiliated takes a pretty big toll, I think a three day turn-around ain't bad.
Regardless of whether we agree on kudos, I think we can agree it is far better than Matonis, JVP and Grigg.
46.
Post 14900717 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Great piece on some of the legal issues related to the DAO.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/blockchain-company-wants-to-reinvent-companiesI particularly like this:
But what if an impecunious owner of a Mobotiqmobile rents it to her impecunious peer, and it autonomously crashes into a bus full of children? What if they sue? What if Mobotiq, and the owner and the renter, don't have enough money to pay their damages? (Presumably the car has no money.) What if the insurance that Mobotiq is required to buy under the smart contract turns out to be worthless because someone filled out a form wrong? What if the only deep pockets anywhere near the accident are those of the DAO itself? What if the DAO has spent all its money on a pyramid scheme, and the only deep pockets are those of the DAO's individual investors?
At that point, the DAO might want to know what its relationship is with Mobotiq, not in terms of "immutable, unstoppable, and irrefutable computer code," but in terms of traditional corporate structures under relevant local law. Is Mobotiq a division of the DAO, identical with the DAO for liability purposes? Is it a separate corporation in which the DAO has a (limited liability) equity investment? The DAO's investors, similarly, might now be keenly interested in whether they are in fact general partners in the DAO under local law. Because general partners tend to have unlimited liability for their partnership's misdeeds. Even if the smart contract says otherwise. Without the protections of limited liability based in local law, all you have to rely on is cryptography.
I also think the potential legal liability of the "curators" is going to be interesting.
47.
Post 14952430 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Between this "leak" of an unsolicited group email and the "crashing" of his club med roundtable, Queen Bruce proves he has a very naive view of what is and isn't private.
48.
Post 14966852 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.51h):
So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims... And $91m of assets.
49.
Post 15398229 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.54h):
I used to be a permabull , but recently have become extremely negative and will start shorting bitcoin.... and all because of Waynechain .
http://waynechain.com/Check out the oracles that support this new blockchain and the this of features! I can't wait to sell my large stake in btc for some tokens!
I prefer the bobchain of Inthereum.
http://intheoreum.org/#welcome
50.
Post 15550829 (copy this link) (by bobabouey2) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.55h):
Wow.
According to the SEC, it will approve or disapprove the request within 45 day of its posting on Friday, unless a longer period of up to 90 days is deemed necessary.
I am not sure, but I think this may be a technicality as it relates to BATS.
I.e. BATS is seeking to amend its rules to permit trading in this new Commodity-Based Trust Shares. This is governed by various regulations related to Self-Regulatory Organization Rulemaking generally, and commodity-based trust shares, particularly.
Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change - The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade Winklevoss Bitcoin Shares (the “Shares”) issued by the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust (the “Trust”) under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), CommodityBased Trust Shares.
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx/2016/34-78262.pdfI do not think permitting this amendment means the S-1 for the actual trust and its shares has been approved. In fact, the document notes:
The Shares of theTrust will be registered with the Commission by means of the Trust’s registration statement on
Form S-1 (the “Registration Statement”) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The most recent amendment to the Registration Statement was filed on June 29, 2016 and the Registration Statement will be effective as of the date of any offer and sale pursuant to the Registration Statement.
So if it is approved, not a bad sign that the S-1 might one day be cleared, but I don't think it means the decision for S-1 is now within 90 days.
If this request isn't approved, probably a very bad sign for S-1 approval.
