4 ms·

And now we have come full circle. The government does indeed permit wildcatting or prospecting, but it requires that all investors are accredited. The same is t

And now we have come full circle. The government does indeed permit wildcatting or prospecting, but it requires that all investors are accredited. The same is true for TON and other bitcoins -- the govt is not trying to forbid them, but merely require the normal level of investor vetting that is in place across the rest of the economy.

centimeter 6y ago
“Other bitcoins” doesn’t parse - did you mean “other shitcoins”? Bitcoin is a specific product, and shitcoins are a disjoint category. The government only requires people to be accredited for "ICO"s, not currency/utility "coins" like Bitcoin or Ethereum. As an aside, I believe the “accredited investor” category is mostly a subsidy of rich people. Exclude peasants from investing in the good high-return stuff and you can demand higher capital premiums.
- mokus 6y ago
  Kleenex is a specific product too, but is often used as a generic term. “Bitcoin” might not be commonly used that way but it parses just fine to me.
  - abstractbarista 6y ago
    Buggy parser; you wouldn't call paper towels or wet wipes Kleenex, right? Because that's what you're insinuating by calling other cryptocurrencies 'Bitcoin'.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Yes. And I call my vaccum a hoover and my adhesive sticky-backed plastic Sellotape.
    - anyfoo 6y ago
      If someone told me to pass the Kleenex where only paper towels are, my hypothetical self with hypothetical knowledge about the intricacies of paper products, I would probably roll my eyes and internally go “those aren’t Kleenex at all, they’re not even tissues, don’t they know the difference between long fiber and short fiber cellulose based paper products GAWD!” But in an effort to not seem insufferable, and because I know exactly what they meant, I would just pass the paper towel.
  - wuliwong 6y ago
    Your logic is flawed. Just because you can find an example of a specific product name being used as a generic term does not prove that a different specific product can be used that way. In the case of Bitcoin, it most certainly will create confusion if attempt to refer to a generic group cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin.
    - wuliwong 6y ago
      lol, soooo what was wrong with this comment? Downvoters, you think that someone will know you mean the generic class of cryptocurrency if you refer specifically to Bitcoin??
- tptacek 6y ago
  Bait: cryptocurrencies should be allowed just like wildcatting, a "legitimate business". Switch: securities regulation is unjust.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    Those are both true, but unrelated. It's not a "bait and switch" when the comment thread changes tack.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      No, you didn't even acknowledge the existence of securities regulation in your original comment, even though the whole premise of it was that things like Grams are, like "wildcatting", legitimate businesses. Only after you were challenged about the existence of securities regulation did you reveal your real position, which is that you believe those regulations lack validity. That latter argument is, of course, your real point. You could have made it directly. Why didn't you? Why did you instead pretend that it was obvious that Grams should be lawful, because "wildcatting" is?
      - centimeter 6y ago
        I was responding to the analogy about gold mining in my original comment. Why would I randomly bring up securities regulation? I think you might have lost the thread a bit.
- prostoalex 6y ago
  The legislature is in place after the wild decades portrayed in the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street". In an indiscriminate freewheeling environment very few peasants got the good high-return stuff, but many had their savings wiped out by slick salesmen with promises of quick riches.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > the wild decades portrayed in the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street" Basing your legal theory on fiction movies is not a great move.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      The parent referenced a time period. They did not base a legal theory on a work of fiction.
pochamago 6y ago
Requiring accreditation has always seemed like a well intentioned policy that mostly locks in inequality, so I guess I'm opposed to the government's ruling whichever way you slice it here.
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  There’s a piece by Matt Levine of Bloomberg’s “Money Stuff” on this. You might find it interesting: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earning-the-right-to-get-swindled https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...

centimeter 6y ago

“Other bitcoins” doesn’t parse - did you mean “other shitcoins”? Bitcoin is a specific product, and shitcoins are a disjoint category. The government only requires people to be accredited for "ICO"s, not currency/utility "coins" like Bitcoin or Ethereum. As an aside, I believe the “accredited investor” category is mostly a subsidy of rich people. Exclude peasants from investing in the good high-return stuff and you can demand higher capital premiums.

mokus 6y ago
Kleenex is a specific product too, but is often used as a generic term. “Bitcoin” might not be commonly used that way but it parses just fine to me.
- abstractbarista 6y ago
  Buggy parser; you wouldn't call paper towels or wet wipes Kleenex, right? Because that's what you're insinuating by calling other cryptocurrencies 'Bitcoin'.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Yes. And I call my vaccum a hoover and my adhesive sticky-backed plastic Sellotape.
  - anyfoo 6y ago
    If someone told me to pass the Kleenex where only paper towels are, my hypothetical self with hypothetical knowledge about the intricacies of paper products, I would probably roll my eyes and internally go “those aren’t Kleenex at all, they’re not even tissues, don’t they know the difference between long fiber and short fiber cellulose based paper products GAWD!” But in an effort to not seem insufferable, and because I know exactly what they meant, I would just pass the paper towel.
- wuliwong 6y ago
  Your logic is flawed. Just because you can find an example of a specific product name being used as a generic term does not prove that a different specific product can be used that way. In the case of Bitcoin, it most certainly will create confusion if attempt to refer to a generic group cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin.
  - wuliwong 6y ago
    lol, soooo what was wrong with this comment? Downvoters, you think that someone will know you mean the generic class of cryptocurrency if you refer specifically to Bitcoin??
tptacek 6y ago
Bait: cryptocurrencies should be allowed just like wildcatting, a "legitimate business". Switch: securities regulation is unjust.
- centimeter 6y ago
  Those are both true, but unrelated. It's not a "bait and switch" when the comment thread changes tack.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    No, you didn't even acknowledge the existence of securities regulation in your original comment, even though the whole premise of it was that things like Grams are, like "wildcatting", legitimate businesses. Only after you were challenged about the existence of securities regulation did you reveal your real position, which is that you believe those regulations lack validity. That latter argument is, of course, your real point. You could have made it directly. Why didn't you? Why did you instead pretend that it was obvious that Grams should be lawful, because "wildcatting" is?
    - centimeter 6y ago
      I was responding to the analogy about gold mining in my original comment. Why would I randomly bring up securities regulation? I think you might have lost the thread a bit.
prostoalex 6y ago
The legislature is in place after the wild decades portrayed in the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street". In an indiscriminate freewheeling environment very few peasants got the good high-return stuff, but many had their savings wiped out by slick salesmen with promises of quick riches.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > the wild decades portrayed in the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street" Basing your legal theory on fiction movies is not a great move.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    The parent referenced a time period. They did not base a legal theory on a work of fiction.

pochamago 6y ago

Requiring accreditation has always seemed like a well intentioned policy that mostly locks in inequality, so I guess I'm opposed to the government's ruling whichever way you slice it here.

wrkronmiller 6y ago
There’s a piece by Matt Levine of Bloomberg’s “Money Stuff” on this. You might find it interesting: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earning-the-right-to-get-swindled https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...