7 ms·

Meanwhile, no ones talking before how JPMOrgan Chase said crypto was fake, not money, would close accounts of people using it to wire money to Coinbase? https:

Meanwhile, no ones talking before how JPMOrgan Chase said crypto was fake, not money, would close accounts of people using it to wire money to Coinbase? https://www.ccn.com/crypto-startup-jp-morgan-chase-closed-our-account-with-no-explanation/ https://www.ccn.com/crypto-startup-jp-morgan-chase-closed-ou... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/jpmorgan-chase-bank-of-america-bar-bitcoin-buys-with-a-credit-card.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/jpmorgan-chase-bank-of-ameri... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/bitcoin-fraud-jp-morgan-cryptocurrency-drug-dealers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/bitcoin-f... And countless more if you modify your Google search w/ anything previous to 12/31/19.

alfiedotwtf 6y ago
... and then you win
- WJW 6y ago
  More like, "and then you find yourself paying money to the establishment you were trying to overthrow" in this case. It's a big stretch to say that bitcoin has "won" (or is winning) in any big way against the big banks ATM.
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > More like, "and then you find yourself paying money to the establishment you were trying to overthrow" in this case. It's a big stretch to say that bitcoin has "won" (or is winning) in any big way against the big banks ATM. Agreed, this! While positive on the face of things as it could keep Dorsey and the Winklevii content as they won't to keeping operating in obfuscated ways to conduct in the 'traditional banking system,' and lets them focus on more pertinent matters. It still doesn't solve what we were all after when we started this: we want to be unbanked by becoming the Bank ourselves. Although I disagree with your retort: JP Morgan and Jamie can say and do whatever he wants, positive or negative; we ate his lunch a long time ago and he failed to realize how much more of it was taken since then. This doesn't seem more than a petty concession to prolong his relevance to me, they have filed more patents for 'blockchain tech' than any other corp in the US to date. Take it form someone who on-boarded a significant amount of people into Bitcoin (that were not tech savvy at all) using Visa and MC channels only to have them taken away arbitrarily: this is not a solution, its a stall tactic. And a costly diversion at a time we should be innovating more than ever, cashless payments are the new norm now due to COVID. We have a superior network/product, let us not be reduced to thinking or appealing to what 'traditional thinking or conventional wisdom' will yield, because if we do then we lost the vision we were after.
    - paulgb 6y ago
      > We have a superior network/product Not meaning to troll here, but I can't let these claims go. In what way is Bitcoin superior as a payment network to what we already have? Transaction costs are higher, the transaction throughput is (significantly) capped. Lightning Network was supposed to be the savior and has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember. There may be niche cases where censorship-resistance is worth the cost and complexity of using Bitcoin, but the vast majority of transactions do not need this.
      - Melting_Harps 6y ago
        Name one other Network, be it payment or otherise, that has had less downtime than Bitcoin's in the last 10 years. Just one. TX costs have been less than they have for several years now; I personally just made a 3sat/byte tx and it cleared the mempool in less than a hour: I would have one lower but that was the least I could make it. And that was with a sub $1 tx I just wanted to play with to test what it was leading up the halvening. Try doing that with VISA or MC and not have to pay absurd fees for the 'privilege.' 1MB blocksize is a feature, not a bug. I won't explain why, but I'll answer any questions you may have about why that is, if you want. LN already has use cases, but I agree it was sold as a panacea just 'around the corner,' but the truth is the mainnet network remains uncongested and operational. So it achieved its primary purpose, the rest will come in time and Lightening Labs got more funding from Dorsey so I'm confident progress remains as it has been: unannounced and to very little fanfare unless you work on it. Lastly, let's not forget how you can literately move $Billions [1] for pennies with no middle men, or the need to have to be some high net-worth oligarch or Arab Shriek to get a bank to do so. > ...but the vast majority of transactions do not need this. It's almost like many of you want to be survailed with this kind of thinking, it almost makes me not want to blame the NSA for doing what they have. I won't even attempt to change your mind about that, but let just say that good OPSEC is perhaps more valuable than it ever has been in our interconnected, digital Life and I only see it being more with time. Data has been the new currency for how long and you still can't see writing on the wall? 1: https://bitcoinnews.com/news/1-1-billion-transaction-among-the-largest-bitcoin-transaction-in-history-sent-for-just-68-cents-in-fees/ https://bitcoinnews.com/news/1-1-billion-transaction-among-t...
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If all the people holding bitcoins become multi-millionaires in real terms over 20 years I'm sure they'll manage to cope with the philosophical loss somehow. There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment; but if it turns out to be a once-in-a-generation style success then it seems to be on the right path. The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016.
    - Melting_Harps 6y ago
      >If all the people holding bitcoins become multi-millionaires in real terms over 20 years I'm sure they'll manage to cope with the philosophical loss somehow. Given when you entered, some did. Many spent it trying to build what we have today. The former may have given into your reasoning, the latter however did very little to change their behaviour and only their attention-seeking acts changed: look at Amir for example. > There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment... Based on what, 2017's absurdly inflated ATH and the ICO scams that made no sense to anyone who actually understood this tech and instead cashed out only to buy back in? Yeah, perhaps to those not capable of seeing any of that it might be a bad position... > The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016. Gold is a relic and an arbitrary thing that has no significance when Money is not only fiat but digital, and can now be programmed to be be defacto finite. I was a PM guy before I got into BTC, and I can tell you right now had I the good sense to trust my gut to trade my metal for BTC back then I'd be in a much loftier position in Life, and yet... no regrets as it taught me many valuable lessons and have me greater insight into Life than people 2-3 times my age. Specifically, that arguments about 'intrinsic worth' be it by Austrian economists (or there opponents) are really just rehashed fallacies and ideas only relevant to the clergy of Salamanca (who the Austrian's stole their ideas from) and their concepts of 16th Century thinking and Market dynamics. The 21st Century requires far more nuanced thinking, tools and I just hope we have Fiat to carry us until we become multi-planetary. Modern Capitalism, which is to say State-corporate controlled, is doing away with many myths, and revealing some basic truths; not least of which that Money has and will always be an abstraction. It's just so damn scary when you understand the implications of that statement and all that it entails when trust is lost in such a system.
jcims 6y ago
What's your point? JPMC isn't trading bitcoin, they are offering banking services to crypto exchanges. As long as the latter can demonstrate they are operating with appropriate regulations and risk management, it's just like providing banking services to any other company.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  Whose to say they won't 180 their decision and all known bitcoin accounts and affiliated companies are removed from their banking services, amounts seized, etc Plus the whole message of centralization vs decentralized of crypto. But yeah, "appropriate regulations and risk management" for whom, YOU the customer, or THEM the Bank? JP Morgan is not your friend if you deal in Crypto. The market tide is swinging that they have to play to compete but they are overall 100% hostile. Same as HSBC.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    They usually do this when they suspect there's money laundering going on, usually due to drug dealing. which, you know, DOES happen on Bitcoin exchanges.
    - npongratz 6y ago
      Of course. And it happens on an even larger scale in the legacy fiat banking system [0], but when caught, "offenders" continue conducting business as usual after they pay a small tribute. [0] One of many examples: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121212 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...
      - techntoke 6y ago
        They aid criminals knowingly, and just get a slap on the wrist when they get caught: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-ba...
dustingetz 6y ago
Mega-corps are a semi-lattice of people, not one person. The only things coordinating all these people are money and values.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Mega-corps still have CEO's. Sure, there's also the board/shareholders, but they rarely step in.
purple_ferret 6y ago
>Don’t ask me to short it. It could be at $20,000 before this happens, but it will eventually blow up,” he said. “Honestly, I am just shocked that anyone can’t see it for what it is $20,000 before it crashes? Sounds like he was right tbh
- ric2b 6y ago
  Only if you take "blow up" to mean "it will go to 20k and then back down to several k per", which I'm pretty sure was not what he meant. He meant it'd go to zero (or pennies).
djyaz1200 6y ago
I'd suggest that JPM and other companies typically go through the 5 stages of loss when encountering a disruptive technology. Denial, bargaining, anger, depression, acceptance. I'd guess this stage is bargaining. Their past statements were denial.
nerdponx 6y ago
Sounds more like KYC policy than anything.

alfiedotwtf 6y ago

... and then you win

WJW 6y ago
More like, "and then you find yourself paying money to the establishment you were trying to overthrow" in this case. It's a big stretch to say that bitcoin has "won" (or is winning) in any big way against the big banks ATM.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > More like, "and then you find yourself paying money to the establishment you were trying to overthrow" in this case. It's a big stretch to say that bitcoin has "won" (or is winning) in any big way against the big banks ATM. Agreed, this! While positive on the face of things as it could keep Dorsey and the Winklevii content as they won't to keeping operating in obfuscated ways to conduct in the 'traditional banking system,' and lets them focus on more pertinent matters. It still doesn't solve what we were all after when we started this: we want to be unbanked by becoming the Bank ourselves. Although I disagree with your retort: JP Morgan and Jamie can say and do whatever he wants, positive or negative; we ate his lunch a long time ago and he failed to realize how much more of it was taken since then. This doesn't seem more than a petty concession to prolong his relevance to me, they have filed more patents for 'blockchain tech' than any other corp in the US to date. Take it form someone who on-boarded a significant amount of people into Bitcoin (that were not tech savvy at all) using Visa and MC channels only to have them taken away arbitrarily: this is not a solution, its a stall tactic. And a costly diversion at a time we should be innovating more than ever, cashless payments are the new norm now due to COVID. We have a superior network/product, let us not be reduced to thinking or appealing to what 'traditional thinking or conventional wisdom' will yield, because if we do then we lost the vision we were after.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    > We have a superior network/product Not meaning to troll here, but I can't let these claims go. In what way is Bitcoin superior as a payment network to what we already have? Transaction costs are higher, the transaction throughput is (significantly) capped. Lightning Network was supposed to be the savior and has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember. There may be niche cases where censorship-resistance is worth the cost and complexity of using Bitcoin, but the vast majority of transactions do not need this.
    - Melting_Harps 6y ago
      Name one other Network, be it payment or otherise, that has had less downtime than Bitcoin's in the last 10 years. Just one. TX costs have been less than they have for several years now; I personally just made a 3sat/byte tx and it cleared the mempool in less than a hour: I would have one lower but that was the least I could make it. And that was with a sub $1 tx I just wanted to play with to test what it was leading up the halvening. Try doing that with VISA or MC and not have to pay absurd fees for the 'privilege.' 1MB blocksize is a feature, not a bug. I won't explain why, but I'll answer any questions you may have about why that is, if you want. LN already has use cases, but I agree it was sold as a panacea just 'around the corner,' but the truth is the mainnet network remains uncongested and operational. So it achieved its primary purpose, the rest will come in time and Lightening Labs got more funding from Dorsey so I'm confident progress remains as it has been: unannounced and to very little fanfare unless you work on it. Lastly, let's not forget how you can literately move $Billions [1] for pennies with no middle men, or the need to have to be some high net-worth oligarch or Arab Shriek to get a bank to do so. > ...but the vast majority of transactions do not need this. It's almost like many of you want to be survailed with this kind of thinking, it almost makes me not want to blame the NSA for doing what they have. I won't even attempt to change your mind about that, but let just say that good OPSEC is perhaps more valuable than it ever has been in our interconnected, digital Life and I only see it being more with time. Data has been the new currency for how long and you still can't see writing on the wall? 1: https://bitcoinnews.com/news/1-1-billion-transaction-among-the-largest-bitcoin-transaction-in-history-sent-for-just-68-cents-in-fees/ https://bitcoinnews.com/news/1-1-billion-transaction-among-t...
- roenxi 6y ago
  If all the people holding bitcoins become multi-millionaires in real terms over 20 years I'm sure they'll manage to cope with the philosophical loss somehow. There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment; but if it turns out to be a once-in-a-generation style success then it seems to be on the right path. The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016.
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    >If all the people holding bitcoins become multi-millionaires in real terms over 20 years I'm sure they'll manage to cope with the philosophical loss somehow. Given when you entered, some did. Many spent it trying to build what we have today. The former may have given into your reasoning, the latter however did very little to change their behaviour and only their attention-seeking acts changed: look at Amir for example. > There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment... Based on what, 2017's absurdly inflated ATH and the ICO scams that made no sense to anyone who actually understood this tech and instead cashed out only to buy back in? Yeah, perhaps to those not capable of seeing any of that it might be a bad position... > The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016. Gold is a relic and an arbitrary thing that has no significance when Money is not only fiat but digital, and can now be programmed to be be defacto finite. I was a PM guy before I got into BTC, and I can tell you right now had I the good sense to trust my gut to trade my metal for BTC back then I'd be in a much loftier position in Life, and yet... no regrets as it taught me many valuable lessons and have me greater insight into Life than people 2-3 times my age. Specifically, that arguments about 'intrinsic worth' be it by Austrian economists (or there opponents) are really just rehashed fallacies and ideas only relevant to the clergy of Salamanca (who the Austrian's stole their ideas from) and their concepts of 16th Century thinking and Market dynamics. The 21st Century requires far more nuanced thinking, tools and I just hope we have Fiat to carry us until we become multi-planetary. Modern Capitalism, which is to say State-corporate controlled, is doing away with many myths, and revealing some basic truths; not least of which that Money has and will always be an abstraction. It's just so damn scary when you understand the implications of that statement and all that it entails when trust is lost in such a system.

jcims 6y ago

What's your point? JPMC isn't trading bitcoin, they are offering banking services to crypto exchanges. As long as the latter can demonstrate they are operating with appropriate regulations and risk management, it's just like providing banking services to any other company.

rootsudo 6y ago
Whose to say they won't 180 their decision and all known bitcoin accounts and affiliated companies are removed from their banking services, amounts seized, etc Plus the whole message of centralization vs decentralized of crypto. But yeah, "appropriate regulations and risk management" for whom, YOU the customer, or THEM the Bank? JP Morgan is not your friend if you deal in Crypto. The market tide is swinging that they have to play to compete but they are overall 100% hostile. Same as HSBC.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  They usually do this when they suspect there's money laundering going on, usually due to drug dealing. which, you know, DOES happen on Bitcoin exchanges.
  - npongratz 6y ago
    Of course. And it happens on an even larger scale in the legacy fiat banking system [0], but when caught, "offenders" continue conducting business as usual after they pay a small tribute. [0] One of many examples: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121212 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...
    - techntoke 6y ago
      They aid criminals knowingly, and just get a slap on the wrist when they get caught: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-ba...

dustingetz 6y ago

Mega-corps are a semi-lattice of people, not one person. The only things coordinating all these people are money and values.

ric2b 6y ago
Mega-corps still have CEO's. Sure, there's also the board/shareholders, but they rarely step in.

purple_ferret 6y ago

>Don’t ask me to short it. It could be at $20,000 before this happens, but it will eventually blow up,” he said. “Honestly, I am just shocked that anyone can’t see it for what it is $20,000 before it crashes? Sounds like he was right tbh

ric2b 6y ago
Only if you take "blow up" to mean "it will go to 20k and then back down to several k per", which I'm pretty sure was not what he meant. He meant it'd go to zero (or pennies).

djyaz1200 6y ago

I'd suggest that JPM and other companies typically go through the 5 stages of loss when encountering a disruptive technology. Denial, bargaining, anger, depression, acceptance. I'd guess this stage is bargaining. Their past statements were denial.

nerdponx 6y ago

Sounds more like KYC policy than anything.