Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
ftfy.

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Speaking of lies, Solitaire didn't say prohibit, but regulate. We regulate all sorts of things in society, pretty effectively too.
 
wareyin said:
Speaking of lies, Solitaire didn't say prohibit, but regulate. We regulate all sorts of things in society, pretty effectively too.
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read Solitaire's post. It clearly quotes an article which says "Obviously the U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening"
 
psionl0 said:
ftfy.

Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Prohibition in the sense of strictly enforcing laws against rug pulls and similar would benefit crypto though.

This whole practice of social media influencers doing a "project" of a coin or NFT scheme, keeping a bunch of coins and then when they hype it up they sell it needs to go. The Coffeezilla investigation of Logan Paul's cryptozoo was fascinating and really should result in a criminal indictment but generally not...

This is, of course, barely connected to bitcoin. Almost all of the scams right now seem to be more involving eth. Bitcoin scams tend to be cumbersome. Anyone could probably hatch a rugpull by programing a coin and sending like 10K to random shady influencers to tweet about it...
 
Suddenly said:
Prohibition in the sense of strictly enforcing laws against rug pulls and similar would benefit crypto though.
Click to expand...
The article was titled :"[URL="https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-america-should-ban-crypto-regulation-economy-finance-china-england-trading-currency-securities-commodity-gamble-11675287477]Why America Should Ban Crypto by Charlie Munger[/URL]".

Even if existing laws are inadequate for preventing fraudulent marketing of cryptos, do you really want to gain more legitimacy for cryptos? I'm sure that a lot of posters here wouldn't want that. As for me, I would rather see how the technological developments progress without it being driven underground by stifling regulation.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
The article was titled :"[URL="https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-america-should-ban-crypto-regulation-economy-finance-china-england-trading-currency-securities-commodity-gamble-11675287477]Why America Should Ban Crypto by Charlie Munger[/URL]".
Click to expand...

Headlines are written by the editor, not the author of the article, so it doesn't matter what's in the headline. What matters is what's actually written in the article.
 
lomiller said:
Headlines are written by the editor, not the author of the article, so it doesn't matter what's in the headline. What matters is what's actually written in the article.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?

Have you even read the link?
 
psionl0 said:
Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?

Have you even read the link?
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on making up claims on behalf of other people? If it's really that difficult to argue against they things they are actually saying maybe you should reconsider your own position instead of trying to invent claims to argue against.
 
psionl0 said:
ftfy - not that this had anything to do with your made-up contents of a link.
Click to expand...

You are making stuff up, again. Anyone can look at my post and easily see I took no position at all about the contents of the article.
 
lomiller said:
You are making stuff up, again. Anyone can look at my post and easily see I took no position at all about the contents of the article.
Click to expand...
Yes you did. You claimed that "it doesn't matter what's in the headline".

You clearly believed that the headline didn't accurately represented the contents of the article or you wouldn't have made such an otherwise superfluous statement - unless it was to falsely imply that I was misrepresenting the contents.
 
psionl0 said:
Yes you did. You claimed that "it doesn't matter what's in the headline".
Click to expand...
Again, headlines are not written by the author of the article so you can't use them as an accurate reflection of what's in the article. I'm just educating you on this fact and have take no position at all on the article.

You on the other hand are actively trying to debate it's contents. Others have correctly appealed to the contents of the article, and you haven't been able to rebut them. I presume at this point it's because you can't.
 
psionl0 said:
Buying into a new crypto is risky but that is not a reason to ban their marketing. Prohibition doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

Note: I'm asking about attempts to ban things in the financial sector, not Prohibition (which actually did work, but that's for another thread).

Are you claiming that the article doesn't discuss banning cryptos?
Click to expand...


The article discusses both banning and regulation. For example:-
Such wretched excess has gone on because there is a gap in regulation.
Click to expand...


Solitaire asked about regulating 'slow gambling', not banning it. So your reply is off-base.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
How?
Click to expand...

This seems obtuse.

Scams being rampant in any market tends to discourage participation in that market.

It isn't hard to imagine a stock market with similar issues. If it were easy and effectively legal to blatantly scam the market there would be a problem with liquidity and many would dismiss the concept of publicly traded stock as a scam or at least of negative social value.
 
Suddenly said:
This seems obtuse.

Scams being rampant in any market tends to discourage participation in that market.

It isn't hard to imagine a stock market with similar issues. If it were easy and effectively legal to blatantly scam the market there would be a problem with liquidity and many would dismiss the concept of publicly traded stock as a scam or at least of negative social value.
Click to expand...

Negative social value, sure. But stocks like Gamestop and the deli that added "blockchain" to it's name and saw stock prices rocket suggest that these markets can be large. As I've said earlier. Scams such as self trading to create volume and drive prices higher are a feature, not a bug. These sorts of "markets" don't require the ability to read and understand SEC filings. An advantage for the gamblers that don't have or need that background because it puts them on an even footing with value type investors that look for present value of future cash flows.. And people love to gamble.
 
For deaf ears.

Bitcoin and crypto generally are set for a massive decline along with stocks. About now.
This is a purely technical view.
 
After dropping below 20k last week, BTC has climbed to about 22.5k with the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley and Signature banks Signature holds a lot of crypto VC funds. Gold has gone back up as well.
 
marting said:
After dropping below 20k last week, BTC has climbed to about 22.5k with the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley and Signature banks Signature holds a lot of crypto VC funds. Gold has gone back up as well.
Click to expand...
Bitcoin has shot to 47% dominance, with other cryptos languishing.
Bitcoin maximalists will be crowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom