Merged: Bitcoin - Part 3

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by Samson

The algorithm I find foolproof says sell bitcoin now.
27831

Only you find it foolproof because you ignore every time it's wrong. BTC has only gone up since you posted this. Over 30k now.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Only you find it foolproof because you ignore every time it's wrong. BTC has only gone up since you posted this. Over 30k now.

At some point in time - it may be weeks, months or years - it's likely that the price will drop below 27831.

At that point in time Samson will claim that the algorithm worked

[marting]

Originally Posted by The Don

IMO for retail investors it's a myth. Any model simple enough for an individual to construct (and run) will have already been considered, maybe used, and discarded my financial institutions who can afford the biggest brains and the most powerful computers.

Yep.

For years now major C++ conferences have been sponsered by quant trading firms. And they hire a high percentage of newly minted math/stats PhDs. Combine historic movements with breaking news keyword correlations and you have TA from 50 years ago on steroids.

[novaphile]

Let's see if I can make one of these posts...

At some time in the future Bitcoin will go up or down or stay the same, and this is because my technical analysis algorithm says: "Frammin at the jim-jam, frippin at the crotz."

How did I do?

[gnome]

How's that transition to Proof-of-Stake going for Bitcoin? Just checking in.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by gnome

How's that transition to Proof-of-Stake going for Bitcoin? Just checking in.

Was bitcoin doing that? I only recall Ethereum having any real effort to do that. They did switch and it lowered their energy consumption 99%

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by The Don

At some point in time - it may be weeks, months or years - it's likely that the price will drop below 27831.

At that point in time Samson will claim that the algorithm worked

You've reverse-engineered his entire system! You must have spies in his lab.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Was bitcoin doing that? I only recall Ethereum having any real effort to do that. They did switch and it lowered their energy consumption 99%

At one point I was told that the high energy cost of proof-of-work was not an ethical challenge to participating in the bitcoin market, because they might switch to proof of stake.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by gnome

At one point I was told that the high energy cost of proof-of-work was not an ethical challenge to participating in the bitcoin market, because they might switch to proof of stake.

Well both are ethical challenges. Proof of work is an ethical challenge because of the energy consumption. Proof of stake is an ethical challenge because the people with the most money (well, the most coins) effectively get to make the decisions.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Well both are ethical challenges. Proof of work is an ethical challenge because of the energy consumption. Proof of stake is an ethical challenge because the people with the most money (well, the most coins) effectively get to make the decisions.

In the case of Bitcoin, my interest in contemplating the second problem is dwarfed by my aversion to the first problem.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by gnome

How's that transition to Proof-of-Stake going for Bitcoin? Just checking in.

No POS fork has been created (that I know of) and as of yet, the developers show little inclination to switch over to a POS system.

You can read more about this in this MIT article: https://www.technologyreview.com/202...-cant-bitcoin/

[Samson]

Let's hope Michael Saylor enjoyed the two minutes his rat poison was in the money, wheeeee, here we go again.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by psionl0

No POS fork has been created (that I know of) and as of yet, the developers show little inclination to switch over to a POS system.

You can read more about this in this MIT article: https://www.technologyreview.com/202...-cant-bitcoin/

Well then I must say it's a hard no for me. How is participation defensible?

[dann]

Quote:

John Oliver discusses cryptocurrency, three of the biggest crypto companies to collapse over the past year, and what to do when your office is giving off “crime vibes”.
Cryptocurrencies II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO on YouTube, April 24, 2023)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[marting]

Proof of work is the thing that most clearly distinguishes bitcoin as a commodity and not an investment. At least in the classical sense. Just like gold and silver are commodities. Proof of stake, where potential rewards kick in only if you "stake" your coin is much closer to an investment. And, in the USA, the SEC regulations should come into play. And they are expensive. Will be interesting to see how ETH is handled by the SEC after the "merge."

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by marting

Proof of work is the thing that most clearly distinguishes bitcoin
as a commodity and not an investment. At least in the classical sense.
Just like gold and silver are commodities.

I've got to quibble a bit over this.

I define a commodity as a useful or valuable thing, such as a raw material
or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper
or coffee. Heck I even consider water a commodity even though it falls from
the sky on a regular basis.

As I've said before you can only exchange bitcoins for other things
but you cannot turn a bitcoin into anything other than itself. It only
exists as information on a computer, hence ephemeral in nature.

I think of it as unique item, much like artwork produced by an artist.
Much like the Banksy Safe.

Hm.

The rich don't go some much for the cheese as much as they go for the rats.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

I've got to quibble a bit over this.
I define a commodity as a useful or valuable thing, such as a raw material
or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper
or coffee. Heck I even consider water a commodity even though it falls from
the sky on a regular basis.

Well, both the US SEC and CFTC define bitcoin as a commodity. The CFTC currently also includes other crypto coins as commodities while the SEC does not.

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/f...basics0218.pdf

Quote:

Is Bitcoin a commodity?
Yes, virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, have been determined to be commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/28/ar...-or-securities

Quote:

The CFTC’s viewpoint diverges from another major U.S. government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which views most crypto assets (aside from Bitcoin) as securities.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

I define a commodity as a useful or valuable thing, such as a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee. Heck I even consider water a commodity even though it falls from the sky on a regular basis.

If you want to get more technical then a more official definition of commodity would be:

Quote:

A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. A commodity thus usually refers to a raw material used to manufacture finished goods. A product, on the other hand, is the finished good sold to consumers.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp

Clearly, cryptos are not a "raw material" so commodity is not the most apt description of bitcoin.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by marting

Well, both the US SEC and CFTC define bitcoin as a commodity. The CFTC currently also includes other crypto coins as commodities while the SEC does not.

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/f...basics0218.pdf

Officials tend to define something in a way that is most favourable to the tax man.

Originally Posted by marting

Quote:

The CFTC’s viewpoint diverges from another major U.S. government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which views most crypto assets (aside from Bitcoin) as securities.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/28/ar...-or-securities

Here, a more technical definition of a security would be as follows:

Quote:

A security, in a financial context, is a certificate or other financial instrument that has monetary value and can be traded. *

Securities are generally classified as either equity securities, such as stocks and debt securities, such as bonds and debentures.

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/de...curity-finance

The key aspect of a security seems to be that it is guaranteed that you can exchange it for another class of asset or for debt reduction. Some cryptos may have such a "guarantee" but bitcoin doesn't.

I think that "digital asset" is the best way to describe cryptos.

[Checkmite]

You can buy and sell Bitcoins from exchanges for dollars, which is enough to satisfy the exchange criteria for a security. Obviously the speculative "value" of most cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, is expressed as its exchange rate for dollars for exactly that reason.

Defining Bitcoin as a commodity makes far less sense. Every other commodity you can name is a resource - that is, it actually has use independent of its monetary value. You can either consume it directly in whatever way it is consumed, or use it to make other things. Corn is a commodity. Oil is a commodity. You can speculate on commodities or even use them like securities, like gold, but gold is still also consumed to make other things like computers and photography chemicals.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, has no use outside of what it can speculatively be exchanged for in dollars. You can't "make" Bitcoin into anything other than smaller fractions of Bitcoin, and you can't "consume" Bitcoin even some purely digital way, all you can do is trade it to someone else.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

You can buy and sell Bitcoins from exchanges for dollars, which is enough to satisfy the exchange criteria for a security.

Actually no. At least in the USA. Neither the CFTC nor the SEC consider bitcoin a security and both consider it a commodity. The SEC doesn't regulate commodities. If it did, you couldn't sell them even privately unless there were SEC mandated disclosure filings that apply to all securities that aren't exempted such as having a limitied number of owners and such. You can't, for instance, advertise a security for sale to the public unless the filings exist. Not true for commodities. You want to sell Oz's of silver. No problem. Advertise all you wish. SEC could care less. They are commodities. The CFTC regulates exchanges that buy/sell commodities. Same with bitcoin as both the SEC and CFTC consider bitcoins commodities. SEC doesn't care if I advertise corn or silver for sale as long as I'm not an exchange and even then only the CFTC regulates it. Now bitcoin miners that issue stock (ownership shares) are different. Those are securities. If they are widely held w/o a registration exemption the SEC will come down on them.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by marting

Actually no. At least in the USA. Neither the CFTC nor the SEC consider bitcoin a security and both consider it a commodity.

Yes I know that. I was adding to the conversation on the sensibility of that (or lack thereof, in my opinion). Bitcoin seems to be the lone commodity that couldn't even theoretically be used for anything besides trading and exchanging for dollars.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Yes I know that. I was adding to the conversation on the sensibility of that (or lack thereof, in my opinion). Bitcoin seems to be the lone commodity that couldn't even theoretically be used for anything besides trading and exchanging for dollars.

Yes, it's value is purely what people are willing to buy and setl it for. That it is "mined" and with a limited total that can be mined, apparently makes it appealing to traders. Further, since it has no base usage, there is also no basis to say it is overpriced or underpriced. Also, it has features other commodities don't. It can be moved cross border easily unlike, say, gold. This makes it valuable for people avoiding (or ignoring) capital control laws. Ideal as a medium of exchange for black market goods/services. Or just those that like to gamble.

There probably hasn't been as hyped a market as crypto in general and bitcoin is the original crypto.

I pretty much share the view of Molly White, a techie that is highly skeptical of crypto's use case but is somewhat open to being proven wrong. She tracks the general frauds that are widespread in the space.

Bitcoin's advantage is that so far it has escaped the rampant frauds in the general crypto community. Not that that means it has some fundamental value but it is more dependable as a rapid exchange of value or gambling mechanism.

https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/

[Samson]

Imagine crypto being a tech company. Market cap about like Google Amazon Apple and so on.
Of course there is a difference, everyone uses Google apple and Amazon.
Why would crypto, that no one puts actual cash into, do better. There will be an Era of market cap stability about 1 trillion, no headway, and boredom. The parasites will get real jobs or jump from windows. Just forecasting.

[Samson]

TA phobes should be amused by this, not a mention of underlying value

https://www.tradingview.com/news/new...rabolic-rally/

I personally think Elliot is functionally random, so no help.
I suggest for other technical reasons shorting crypto about here

27000

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Samson

TA phobes should be amused by this, not a mention of underlying value

Bitcoin has no underlying value. There's nothing to mention

Quote:

https://www.tradingview.com/news/new...rabolic-rally/

I personally think Elliot is functionally random, so no help.
I suggest for other technical reasons shorting crypto about here

27000

In mid April it was up at 30k. It's already been through 27k - in both directions.

[marting]

Michael Lewis is best known for Moneyball and The Big Short. His next book in on Crypto and specifically, SBF and FTX. He was on this long before FTX's collapse which will make the book more interesting.

Going Infinite, The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon

In this podcast where he announces the title, he has a conversation with Molly White, a crypto skeptic. A good chunk of it is about Bitcoin and various, evolving, use cases of its proponents.

https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/agai...c-proven-right

[Samson]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Bitcoin has no underlying value. There's nothing to mention


In mid April it was up at 30k. It's already been through 27k - in both directions.

Shorting at 27k is validated when the out of money, 27490 is surpassed by in money 26500. This is simple math.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by Samson

Shorting at 27k is validated when the out of money frabblegrabble, 27490 is surpassed by in money jibber-jabber 26500. This is simple math.

FTFY.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by novaphile

FTFY.

I am curious at the motivation to ridicule people who predict markets. It would never cross my mind to do so, quite the opposite, but I can't deny it is a thing on this forum to do so.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am curious at the motivation to ridicule people who predict markets. It would never cross my mind to do so, quite the opposite, but I can't deny it is a thing on this forum to do so.

You have spent years running a poor second to a stopped clock with the accuracy of your predictions.

That might not justify people ridiculing you but it is a powerful motive.

[Samson]

Having banked plenty from the last trade (Turing, 400 dollars out of money 1000 in money) I think short is good here, 27900.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

Shorting at 27k is validated when the out of money, 27490 is surpassed by in money 26500. This is simple math.

Originally Posted by Samson

Having banked plenty from the last trade (Turing, 400 dollars out of money 1000 in money) I think short is good here, 27900.

The hell?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

The hell?

Usual gibberish....

[DuvalHMFIC]

Darn, I thought I was in the Buttcoin thread. I guess I misclicked.

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not a lawyer. Is it bad when you tell your compliance officer you're doing crimes in email that the SEC has?

Quote:

SEC sues Binance and CEO Changpeng Zhao for U.S. securities violations
The defendants showed a “blatant disregard” of federal law, the SEC alleged in its complaint.

One senior executive allegedly told a compliance officer that the company was operating as a f------ “unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...ions-rcna87744

[Puppycow]

I hope the SEC tears them a new bunghole.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Darn, I thought I was in the Buttcoin thread. I guess I misclicked.

I'm afraid you will have to find something else for your butt.

[marting]

Sounds like Binance was doing similar things as FTX. Separate trading firm with access to customer money. Unlike FTX, they haven't (yet) made bad trades that depleted their assets and thus sensitive to a bank run. If Alameda hadn't made a bunch of bad trades, they wouldn't have been caught comingling FTX funds. I'll bet they were doing wash trading. Let's dig up the SEC complaint.

https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation...pr2023-101.pdf

Well, lookie here:

Quote:

12. But Defendants failed to implement on the Binance.US Platform the trade surveillance or manipulative trading controls BAM Trading and BAM Management touted to investors. Thus, Defendants failed to satisfy basic requirements of registered exchanges—to have rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and the capacity to carry out that purpose. The supposed controls were virtually non-existent, and those that did exist did not monitor for or protect against “wash trading” or self-dealing, which was occurring on the Binance.US Platform.

[Puppycow]

If anyone else is wondering what wash trading means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wash_trade

If you own two different shell companies, or actual companies for that matter, you can have one of them sell to the other at inflated prices to make it appear that the value of the commodity or security being traded is higher than it actually is.