News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by bogomipz on Friday March 10, 2017 @06:10PM (#13842956)
I am not sure why you put the word currency in quotes. There have also been many state issued currencies that have done similar - see Thai Baht, Argentine Peso, Russian Ruble, Venezuelan Bolivar etc.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by nradov on Friday March 10, 2017 @09:27PM (#13843828)
Volatility isn't the issue. Bitcoin isn't technically a currency because it can't currently be used directly to pay public debts or taxes in any nation state. Bitcoin is just another commodity like copper or crude oil.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by programmarchy on Saturday March 11, 2017 @01:45AM (#13844553)
You're describing fiat currency, a subset of currency. Historically, a nation state is not a prerequisite for currencies to exist.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by dragonwriter on Saturday March 11, 2017 @01:57AM (#13844579)
Actually, GP is discussing legal tender, which is not the same thing as fiat currency. Commodity (both specie or representational) currencies have historically been legal tender, in addition to fiat money (which is the modern norm for legal tender.)
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by bogomipz on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:03AM (#13845616)
Agreed, I actually checked investoepdia and a government issue seems to be part of the agreed upon "modern" definition it seems.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by npongratz on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:52AM (#13845784)
Not a public debt or tax, and it's noted that this doesn't "legitimize" Bitcoin in the minds of the authorities, but looks like Norwegian prosecutors recently demanded the penalty for one criminal act to be partially paid in Bitcoin:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/pay-up-in-bitcoins-norway-pro...

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by Natanael_L on Saturday March 11, 2017 @11:14AM (#13845876)
Has happened in USA too in at least one civil case, with a contract denominated in Bitcoin
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by bogomipz on Friday March 10, 2017 @10:31PM (#13844057)
I understand the quoting now, thanks. I agree with you that its not technically a currency since it's not issued and circulated by a government but I disagree with the OP that it is not ready to be a "store of value" because of a single volatility event.

There are many who would argue it is a good store of value since it can't be manipulated by the issuing state's monetary policy or susceptible to the poor fiscal management of the issuing state.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by blunte on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:53AM (#13845786)
There have been many volatility events. Given that governments have the ability to practically outlaw it if they choose, that makes it quite risky as a store of value.

Several of the major volatility events in the past of bitcoin were related to Chinese government announcements or rumors regarding regulation/legality.

Sure one can transfer bitcoin without governmental approval (or against restriction), but that annoying need to convert to and from fiat in order to trade for other goods and services means that the governments still have a great deal of influence over bitcoin.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by bogomipz on Saturday March 11, 2017 @01:53PM (#13846605)
>"There have been many volatility events."

Sure but I was speaking to the OPs assertion that this particular event is proof that it is not suitable as a store of value.

>"Several of the major volatility events in the past of bitcoin were related to Chinese government announcements or rumors regarding regulation/legality."

Right but this is to be expected given that China recently has been the largest market for Bitcoin by volume no? [1]

>" but that annoying need to convert to and from fiat in order to trade for other goods and services means that the governments still have a great deal of influence over bitcoin"

Is that any more annoying or any more inconvenient than having your hard-earned savings devalued by your government?

[1]http://www.coindesk.com/estimating-data-china-real-bitcoin-t...

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by blunte on Saturday March 11, 2017 @04:32PM (#13847374)
> Is that any more annoying or any more inconvenient than having your hard-earned savings devalued by your government?

I wouldn't recommend holding fiat currency as savings, except for perhaps 2-3 months of salary equivalent in case of emergencies. The rest should be stored in other assets based on your risk profile.

But it is currently a fact of life that we must exchange our cryptocurrency for fiat if we want to buy goods and services most places. While the number of merchants accepting bitcoin is growing, it's still quite small compared to the number of merchants who take local currency.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by moomin on Saturday March 11, 2017 @11:20AM (#13845910)
Just to expand on the point: there's two models of currency: fiat and commodity. Commodity money is obviously linked to an existing commodity, and suffers from massive swings since there's no way to insulate it from "news". BitCoin, of course, isn't backed by a commodity, so the natural thing is to assume it's a commodity in an of itself. The "mining" terminology supports this view, obviously. As a commodity, it most closely resembles Gold, in that its value doesn't seem closely correlated to the value one can extract from it through industrial use.

Fiat money has its plusses, though. Directly related to the fact that governments _can_ manipulate them is the possibility of reputational currencies. Here, a state has managed its fluctuations and taken actions when prompted for sufficiently often that "news" affects them much less than commodities, since the markets assume the state will act well before it becomes an issue (this also damps good news, since to a certain effect the good news was "expected").

A good study in this phenomenon, and how to break it, is what's happened to Britain since the referendum. It has lost a lot of value, obviously, but also its volatility has gone sky-high.

Going back to OP's point, a well-managed fiat currency can be a better store of value than any commodity. Entertainingly, Sterling has lost a similar amount of value to BitCoin, but it took much longer and is regarded as a disaster. Although, like BitCoin, you'll be able to find fans swearing the exact opposite.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by kolinko on Saturday March 11, 2017 @07:41AM (#13845263)
You have to tell that to the European Court of Justice:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/european-court-justice-ruling-bitco...

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by srssays on Friday March 10, 2017 @06:49PM (#13843155)
Pound sterling...
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by dmoy on Friday March 10, 2017 @07:54PM (#13843453)
Woah wait when did the pound lose 25% of its value due to a SEC ruling?
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by srssays on Friday March 10, 2017 @08:08PM (#13843515)
There were two separate events, adding up to 25%. The first happened instantly as the Brexit result became known. The second happened on Oct 7 at the opening of trading when there was nobody around who wanted to buy...

I find that Bitcoins are an effective hedge against conventional wisdom.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by guiambros on Friday March 10, 2017 @09:24PM (#13843814)
I wouldn't call Brexit a "minor ruling".
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by arthurcolle on Friday March 10, 2017 @08:11PM (#13843525)
Read about Soros breaking the Bank of England sometime, it's great stuff. Black Wednesday I think is the name of the event in popular culture
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by Blahah on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:37AM (#13845730)
Great stuff in the sense that one person can directly profit to the tune of a billion dollars, by manipulating currency markets, at the cost of the taxpayers of an entire nation. So, not great stuff at all.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by shitgoose on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:35PM (#13848784)
He did not manipulate pound. UK government manipulated it by locking the exchange rate that did not reflect the fundamentals. Pound was doomed, Soros just profited from the crash. So, yes, great stuff - government should pay for its stupidity. Unfortunately they pay with our money...
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by Blahah on Monday March 13, 2017 @09:34AM (#13857650)
He shorted the pound enough to move the market significantly, and his buyback strategy deliberately prevented any stabilisation. The crash wouldn't have happened or at least wouldn't have been as bad without his involvement.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by shitgoose on Monday March 13, 2017 @06:34PM (#13863155)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oET45GzMI

a good overview of the origins of the crisis. how politicians for their own shortsighted gains made one poor decision after another and led the country into financial crisis.

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by alexeldeib on Friday March 10, 2017 @08:11PM (#13843524)
Could be a reference to Brexit? The pound suffered pretty severely after the referendum.
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by conanbatt on Saturday March 11, 2017 @12:44AM (#13844424)
To be fair, sec ruling is a much smaller measure than country-wide referendum on economicy policy