The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[DublinHead54]

I disagree. Clearly they're far from the same thing - its not a physically settled product - but its relevant to the entire sector.


Sorry for your troubles - but all I can say is that you re-read my previous post. In short, regulation can be good and it can also be very bad - it depends on the specifics. Perhaps you think its ok to accept any old regulation that's applied. That's not my position.


I didnt suggest either/or. Other than that, I disagree - market size helps.


It has every relevance but I don't mind if you don't answer. To my mind, it clarifies plenty based on previous discussion.

Why is it relevant? If anything it is a bad thing, institutions can now access price exposure to BTC without having to interact with the Crypto ecosystem.

I really don't understand how my investment strategy in BTC has any relevance to a discussion on the weaknesses of the cryptocurrency market infrastructure? If anything from our discussions I have a lot more knowledge on the market infrastructure of both real markets and BTC than you do.

Regulation can be good it can be bad....get off the fence! We are speaking about a particular type of regulation that has been put in place in financial markets to stop market manipulation, you either think it is good or you don't?

 

[tecate]

If anything it is a bad thing, institutions can now access price exposure to BTC without having to interact with the Crypto ecosystem.

It's not ideal but it's a case of stepping stones. You yourself have told us that market infrastructure is weak. It allows participants to filter into the sector.

If anything from our discussions I have a lot more knowledge on the market infrastructure of both real markets and BTC than you do.

That's wonderful.

Regulation can be good it can be bad....get off the fence! We are speaking about a particular type of regulation that has been put in place in financial markets to stop market manipulation, you either think it is good or you don't?

What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.
I am not going to suggest that every individual regulation is good because it's simply not true.

 

[DublinHead54]

It's not ideal but it's a case of stepping stones. You yourself have told us that market infrastructure is weak. It allows participants to filter into the sector.

That's wonderful.

What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.
I am not going to suggest that every individual regulation is good because it's simply not true.

You are ignoring the question......do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation? It is a simple question.

 

[tecate]

You are ignoring the question......do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation? It is a simple question.

Firstly, I've answered you question. I've stated that regulation can be good and regulation can be bad. Unlike you, I'd be inclined to examine each individual regulation on its specific merits. That's where this nonsense stops. As I have suggested twice already, you're determined to find a point of conflict.

 

[DublinHead54]

Firstly, I've answered you question. I've stated that regulation can be good and regulation can be bad. Unlike you, I'd be inclined to examine each individual regulation on its specific merits. That's where this nonsense stops. As I have suggested twice already, you're determined to find a point of conflict.

Tecate, you didn't answer the question, you just dodged it. It is impossible to have a rational discourse with you on the topic, either you pull a 'time will tell' or middle of the road answer like regulation is good and regulation is bad. It is laughable that a few hours earlier you were posting that regulation destroys innovation. I just don't think you clearly understand the market dynamics.

I am out.

 

[WolfeTone]

There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price),

Surely its the regulation of exchanges that you are talking about here? I would have absolutely no issue with exchanges being regulated to the same extent as financial markets. If I'm understanding you correctly, that is not regulation of bitcoin just regulation of the exchanges and the market participants.

 

[tecate]

It is impossible to have a rational discourse with you on the topic,

Take a look in the mirror - from the guy that has set out with the objective of conflict and nothing else.

either you pull a 'time will tell' or middle of the road answer like regulation is good and regulation is bad.

Another guy who one minute says I'm not answering his questions and in the next breath, confirms that he feels that I am answering his questions but he doesn't like the answers.

It is laughable that a few hours earlier you were posting that regulation destroys innovation.

I've never claimed to be any expert on regulation, development, financial markets or anything else unlike yourself. Here you are misrepresenting what I said. Secondly, for the guy that tells us he's an expert, if he knows so much, how is it he doesn't know that regulation has the potential to stymie innovation is a view expressed repeatedly by a range of commentators in the sector?

Other than that, more double standards. The (inaccurate) suggestion I'm not answering his questions - yet my questions are not relevant. During the course of these discussions you've claimed to be more amenable to bitcoin than other naysayers here - you've then claimed to be 'neutra'l' and capable of being objective unlike the rest of us. Yet, where have you recognised any positives in the bitcoin proposition? My question to you (why you invested in bitcoin) was entirely relevant on that basis.

 

[DublinHead54]

Surely its the regulation of exchanges that you are talking about here? I would have absolutely no issue with exchanges being regulated to the same extent as financial markets. If I'm understanding you correctly, that is not regulation of bitcoin just regulation of the exchanges and the market participants.

I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges. For reference, my the below is the original point I made, and that comment in my opinion has not been disproven or any evidence provided that the market getting larger will stop it. My honest opinion is that without regulation of the participants that fraud and other issues such as market manipulation will ever be eradicated.

"This is true and the solution for longer-established markets to stop manipulation is through additional centralized control implemented via regulation. As bitcoin is unregulated and the barrier to entry for establishing an exchange is much lower, manipulation is rife or even just stability of the market is lesser. There was the whole Bitfinex saga of (creating USDT and dubious accounting to manipulate the price), and also more recently the algos reacitng to an April Fools joke causing a spike.

So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated it will need to find other means to stop manipulation."

 

[WolfeTone]

I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges.

So if Bitcoin is to remain unregulated

I think you are combing regulation of markets and exchanges with regulation of bitcoin? As you say, bitcoin is unregulated...I dont see any need for any change in that score. If market participants are going to buy and sell across exchanges, then why not regulate the exchanges, I don't see any issue there. Apologies if I am misconstruing your overall point.

 

[Leo]

Tecate, you didn't answer the question, you just dodged it.

I'm afraid that is tecate's well worn pattern when faced with a question they either can't or don't want to answer!

 

[DublinHead54]

I think you are combing regulation of markets and exchanges with regulation of bitcoin? As you say, bitcoin is unregulated...I dont see any need for any change in that score. If market participants are going to buy and sell across exchanges, then why not regulate the exchanges, I don't see any issue there. Apologies if I am misconstruing your overall point.

I should say 'Bitcoin Market'

 

[Firefly]

What the hell is your problem? You're determined to find conflict.

I don't detect any conflict in Dublinbay12's post, s/he's merely saying to get of the fence and s/he's correct.

The conflict I do detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....

Time and again you resort to personal attacks when someone challenges your wishy-washy arguments and/or your dodging of questions.

For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383
"do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?"

Why can't you answer the question???

 

[WolfeTone]

I should say 'Bitcoin Market'

Sorry, still not getting it...are you are talking about regulating peer-to-peer transfers? Or market buying and selling? Or both? I can see advantages to regulating exchanges such as Coinbase for sure.
I'm not sure how you would regulate peer-to-peer transfers, and in all honesty, I do not see how such transfers lead to price manipulation in any sort of grand scale. Albeit, I am open to correction and willing to learn.

 

[tecate]

I'm afraid that is tecate's well worn pattern when faced with a question they either can't or don't want to answer!

As agreed upon by a quorum of bitcoin naysayers. That stands up alright.

I have only been talking about the regulation of the infrastructure i.e. the exchanges.

These have been ongoing discussions on the topic as a whole. My question is entirely relevant given the tact you're taking here.

I don't detect any conflict in Dublinbay12's post, s/he's merely saying to get of the fence and s/he's correct.

conflict of interest much Firefly? He's in no way right. Only an utter moron would suggest that ANY regulation is good. I've acknowledged that regulation can be good and it can be bad. There are many well regarded people in the industry that hold that view.

The conflict I do detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....

See above.

The conflict I do detect comes from you (as usual) with: "What the hell is your problem?". Pot / kettle.....

Maybe dust off the dictionary and figure out the meaning of the word 'objectivity' - it's very much lacking.

For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383
"do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?"

You're a spokesman for dublinbay12 now?

For the record, Dublinbay12 asked and clarified in post #383]
Why can't you answer the question???

I did answer the question.

 

[Leo]

As agreed upon by a quorum of bitcoin naysayers. That stands up alright.

It's clear to anyone reading these pages. Can you tell me now how I can send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection yet?

 

[tecate]

It's clear to anyone reading these pages.

That we have a gaggle of bitcoin naysayers getting frustrated and reaching a contrived quorum? Yes, I believe it is clear, Leo.

Can you tell me now how I can send bitcoin via satellite without the need for an internet connection yet?

Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.

 

[Firefly]

He's in no way right.

Only an utter moron would suggest that ANY regulation is good. I've acknowledged that regulation can be good and it can be bad.

I can same that some bacteria are good and some are bad, but that doesn't tell us anything. It's non-specific and wishy-washy

I did answer the question.

I beg to differ....you were asked a specific question, which I see you have conveniently removed from my quote. But here it is again:

"Do you think the crypto market needs the type of regulation that is in place in financial markets that prevents fraud / market manipulation?"

Where have you answered this question?

 

[Firefly]

Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.

Says the Almighty!!!!

 

[Leo]

Your question was answered back when you had question privileges. You no longer have that privilege.

No, just like your evading Dublinbay12's questions that might expose your lack of understanding, you responded to my question many times, but you have continued to refuse to back up your claim and answer the question.

 

[tecate]

I can same that some bacteria are good and some are bad, but that doesn't tell us anything. It's non-specific and wishy-washy

You can state that and I wouldn't jump down your throat.
I was asked for an example and I gave one. Other than that, I'm not going to say something that's untrue. It's completely moronic what you're going on with here. Are you seriously suggesting that ALL regulations can be assumed to be good!? No wonder your gaggle of bitcoin naysayers don't get bitcoin!

Says the Almighty!!!!

Ah, I see. I have to consent to this nonsense in your wayward opinion? I don't firefly - why don't you join @Leo - I won't be answering any of your questions going forward.

No, just like your evading Dublinbay12's questions that might expose your lack of understanding, you responded to my question many times, but you have continued to refuse to back up your claim and answer the question.

I don't care what you're obsessed with Leo. I've told you many times - I vehemently disagree - and that's where it stops.