4 ms·

Note that all 5 of the letters written to the SEC in response to the proposal can be found here [0] [0]: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbz

• davidgerard 10y ago
  The one to read is from Jorge Stolfi, professor of computer science and knowledgeable cryptocurrency critic: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-2.htm https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx20163...
  • aminok 10y ago
    The individual spent years smearing cryptocurrency, insisting it had no future, was a ponzi, etc, because he was/is ideologically opposed to its undermining of authoritarian government control. He has publicly said he thinks a "totally free" society would be a "nightmare". It was his ideological disposition to authoritarianism that motivated his anti-Bitcoin writings. He attacked Bitcoin for the purpose of making a failure outcome for it more likely. His letter to the SEC is a perfect example of that.
    • Isomatik 10y ago
      This is the SEC, their entire reason for existing is to regulate transactions between USD and the rest of the world. If you want to transact on the blockchain directly, you are absolutely free to do so, but if you want a situation where law enforcement backs you up when something goes wrong, the US govt has been pretty clear that they are not interested in recognizing transactions as legally enforcable if they can't know where the money's coming from or where it's going for about 15 years now.
• Animats 10y ago
  Three of the letters indicate concerns about the insecurity of the uninsured Winkelvoss trust. They're probably right.