Printable View
1. I think I said this upthread. The idea that the US or China couldn’t take over and control BTC with minimal effort is laughable. “A hedge.” STFU.
2. Uproar over denying transactions to those on the OFAC list is fucked up. Why is it good for terrorists to be able to freely transact?
Every now and then you forget that the BTC proponent machine is made up mostly of people who are actual or intellectual children, or absolutely craven, and then they remind you again.
10 yrs ago, I passed on BTC out of principle. I know a thing. Or two, about money laundering, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been shut down. But then again, western Union is the biggest conduit of that right now, and they don’t care. Probably because they collect taxes. That’s all they care about, that they get paid.
However, I’m also a fierce proponent of leaving people alone to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as they are not hurting others.
Waiting for Jong to tell us again how Chuck Schumer is not a Dem insider.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...crats-00158630
Democrats defy Biden and Warren on cryptocurrency
A sudden Capitol Hill momentum boost for the digital currency industry has come from a surprising source: Democrats
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s anti-cryptocurrency crusade is facing pressure from her own party.
Dozens of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have broken with her in recent days and supported an effort to undo SEC guidelines that critics say discourage banks from holding digital assets. The Democrats defied not only Warren, but also President Joe Biden, who is threatening to veto the rollback. The rift may grow further next week when the House takes up sweeping, industry-backed legislation to incorporate crypto trading into federal financial regulations.
The sudden burst of support, following waves of scandals and the skeptical posture generally taken by the Biden administration, is rattling some Democrats who see looming risks to consumers and the financial system.
“It scares the dickens out of me,” said Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois, who, with Warren, has tried to warn colleagues about money laundering risks in the industry.
The party’s Capitol Hill clash over crypto policy comes as the issue is becoming more prominent in the 2024 campaign. Former President Donald Trump is courting crypto fans, though they may represent a small minority of the electorate, and signaling that he’d rein in the SEC’s crackdown on the industry. Crypto super PACs are poised to spend more than $80 million to influence control of Congress and secure friendlier policy. It’s leaving Democrats at odds over whether to follow Warren’s push to clamp down on crypto firms or to take a friendlier approach.
A total of 32 Democrats voted with Republicans in recent days to send the SEC crypto rollback to Biden’s desk. Lawmakers were motivated by a mix of crypto advocacy, bank lobbying and deep frustration with the SEC under Chair Gary Gensler. Schumer said in a statement that he supported undoing the SEC guidance because “New York State already has a strong law on the books, and they weren’t consulted on this regulation.”
This month marks the first time the House and Senate have devoted floor time to standalone crypto bills, giving lawmakers a platform to pick a side.
“I wanted to send a message,” Sen. Cory Booker, who was one of 11 Senate Democrats who supported the SEC rollback, said in an interview. “I’m frustrated because we haven’t had a chance to debate any of the real [crypto] bills.”
Warren said in an interview Thursday that she is “concerned about anyone in Congress who is not worried about the threat posed by Iran and North Korea and their use of crypto,” but declined to address the differences in her party.
House members will have to go on the record again next week. Republicans have scheduled a vote on legislation from Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry and Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson that would divide crypto trading oversight between the SEC and the CFTC. Some Democrats expect even greater bipartisan support.
“There’s still some big names on the Democratic side who haven’t made their thoughts known,” Rep. Wiley Nickel of North Carolina said.
Key Democrats are still resisting the effort. Rep. Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on House Financial Services, and Rep. Stephen Lynch plan to rally opposition to the legislation on the floor next week, aides said.
But it’s not clear how other senior Democrats may come down. House Democratic leadership has yet to decide whether to whip against the crypto legislation scheduled for the floor next week, said another aide granted anonymity to discuss closed-door conversations.
The votes are giving the industry’s campaign arms a clear look at where lawmakers stand as crypto super PACs begin to spend tens of millions of dollars on the 2024 elections. The goal is to elect allies and eliminate critics.
A spokesperson for the largest crypto super PAC network, Josh Vlasto, said in a statement that the group, Fairshake, is “committed to supporting elected officials and candidates on both sides of the aisle who want to get things done and keep tech jobs in America.”
Crypto lobbyists and industry-friendly Democrats are working to shore up support for the big House crypto bill ahead of next week. In addition to Nickel, they include Reps. Ritchie Torres of New York and Ro Khanna of California.
“The advice I’m giving to Democrats is this: We cannot hand this issue to Republicans,” Nickel said.
Ah, prices is going up enough again to draw the B-Team haters with recycled FUD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vt-Freeheel
That would be a good point - if I had said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by stalefish3169
He was clearly listed on the link of Dem leadership I posted. But again, how is 11 of 13 Senate Democrats in leadership positions, 38 of 50 Senators voting with him, not Biden’s Party supporting him?
Jong in disbelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Weak diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by stalefish3169
Not about Bitcoin, but might as well be:
Attachment 493901
https://marginalrevolution.com/margi...re-not-popular
So that leaves ‘gamblers’ and ‘sharps’ to invest.
Oh, and also ‘rubes’ who think they’re saving.
There are of course all sorts of real world prediction markets. Things like sports betting, bond markets, options & futures markets, Forex, etc. People bet on elections in Europe without too many problems. The U.S. CFTC wants to ban political event contracts. I don't know, maybe there's a reason to hedge against a future Biden/Trump election outcome. OTOH, maybe there's a case for banning election markets to prevent those markets from becoming self-fulfilling. That isn't, one side or the other, the case Jong is making,Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
In any case, the article explains why there are not many natural prediction markets. A natural bitcoin market does exist, however. I do not buy lottery tickets, gamble on sports or horses. I have no intention of buying Bitcoin ETF’s. But I find it absurd bureaucrats and Jongs think they can deny me the right to decide for myself whether I want to do any of those things.
Jong knows all.
So you disagree and think ‘savers’ use prediction markets?Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
Or you disagree with the premise that the Bitcoin market is negative sum?
Savers do use natural prediction markets. Bitcoin is not negative sum because bitcoin provides utility. The fact that fiat and stablecoins provide more utility does not mean there's no bitcoin utility. Jong's framing misses the point of the article, entirely.
Imna start paying jong 200$ a month for life advice
Maybe give it to MV. I’m sure whatever he’s saying sounds brilliant (in his own mind).Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
Don’t just stand there obsessed with me…go…thwart something!
I pay jong for life charts
Point of order: lots of negative sum games provide utility. Often less than the costs to keep the game running.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Sure, agreed. The bitcoin argument however is it only trades because more investors want to buy it. That there's no intrinsic value. There are lots of speculative investments like that, so that alone doesn't make bitcoin a zero sum scheme. I suspect there's a price at which even its most ardent detractors would buy in. If bitcoin were to approach zero, for example, wouldn't most people take a flyer and buy for pennies on the dollar? Or pennies on the bitcoin?
I was pretty sure most people already had that chance. Why would it be more attractive for $.10 on the way down than on the way up?
"Only has value because people say it has value" is my literal definition of "no intrinsic value." Is there some other way to interpret that? It kinda sounds like these phrases need to be redefined to make that work.
LeeLau laid out the argument for BTC as a negative sum Ponzi game a couple years ago. I don't see any changes since.
"Only has value because people say it has value" is also the literal definition of "money."
BTC 15 yrs in at/near ath and jono(jong?) says it has no value.
Maybe I need life charts from him as well.
It would be worth 0$ if it had no value fyi.
Of course. But it has nothing to do with whether the "game" produces a net surplus of utility.
If it had utility (you can’t keep switching terms, intrinsic value is another thing entirely) it wouldn’t matter whether it was at zero or $100k. Taking a flyer and pennies on the dollar speaks to greater fools rather than any particular utility, or even intrinsic value.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Point of order: using the term 'game' and 'intrinsic value' is meant to describe other peoples' opinions, not my own. I'm arguing there's a natural market for bitcoin, not unlike markets for other commodities or currencies, and that the market sets the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen