[HN Gopher] Square buys $170M worth of bitcoins
___________________________________________________________________
Square buys $170M worth of bitcoins
Author : undefined1
Score : 65 points
Date : 2021-02-23 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| cecida wrote:
| I've reached the consensus that any company investing in Bitcoin
| doesn't actually care about the future of the planet.
| RIMR wrote:
| I view it more along the lines of business owners being more
| and more willing to take company funds to the casino.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| In most casino games you can't really influence you chances
| of winning
| missedthecue wrote:
| How would this be different from saying that anyone who drives
| an SUV or plays computationally intense computer games doesn't
| care about the future of the planet?
|
| If it isn't different, is it really that much of an insightful
| statement beyond _" people tend to do what they think is their
| own personal self interest"_?
| rscho wrote:
| There's a gradation in carelessness and selfishness,
| though...
| wmf wrote:
| You can choose to drive an electric car or a gas car.
| Likewise you can choose to use PoS coins or PoW coins.
| pavlov wrote:
| Personally I agree. It's a signal that a company is run by
| people whose values are fundamentally different than mine.
|
| I've bought a Tesla in the past and was mostly happy with it,
| but I'll never get another one. (I'm sure they won't miss my
| business, as Musk's antics are presumably gaining them many
| enthusiastic customers. Still, buying elsewhere is the only
| power we customers have.)
| totheloop wrote:
| Hacker News discussions always mention Bitcoin's energy
| usage, but fail to consider a couple points about this: for
| example, the 2nd-largest cryptocurrency, Ethereum, is moving
| to a model that will use a fraction of the electricity it
| currently does, and that mining is a far smaller pressure to
| migrate the renewable grid than other industrial uses of
| energy. It is, basically, an unconsidered meme. I suggest you
| do some research on the topic; the Tesla you drive (I drive
| an EV, too) needs a renewable grid, too.
| totheloop wrote:
| This is the first company for whom you've reached this
| conclusion...and Bitcoin was the forcing function? Never heard
| of BP or Shell?
| bottled_poe wrote:
| I feel they also underestimate the ability for governments to
| ban cryptocurrency completely.
| offby37years wrote:
| Here is a great example of the power of misinformation at work
| folks.
| hahahahe wrote:
| So they're buying bitcoins with the money generated from their
| payment business. This is far worse than any toys Zuckerberg ever
| bought for Facebook (except for Libre).
| mancerayder wrote:
| Aren't a lot of companies buying BTC as a way to help their
| perception of growth, given BTC is going up? Square is a payment
| system, sure, but a bunch of non payment system companies are
| doing the same.
|
| If companies invest in BTC instead of growing themselves and
| hiring people, isn't that bad for the economy?
| federona wrote:
| So very strange to invest so heavily in Bitcoin a highly
| volatile crypto at its peak. Not to mention an old generation
| crypto with dubious value on the face of 3rd generation crypto
| that does not damage the environment and does not have the same
| scaling issues. It's like considering some old tech as which
| has dubious value just because it was invented first. Like
| overvaluing a gas car when an electric exists and is the wave
| of the future. What do these companies know that we plebs
| don't.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > So very strange to invest so heavily in Bitcoin a highly
| volatile crypto at its peak.
|
| Doenst seem like that's the case here at all, Square buys
| lots of Bitcoin as they offer it via CASH. Also, they didn't
| buy at the peak if they expect it to go higher in value,
| which Jack of all the billionaire class knows why and how it
| will.
|
| > Not to mention an old generation crypto with dubious value
| on the face of 3rd generation crypto that does not damage the
| environment and does not have the same scaling issues. It's
| like considering some old tech as which has dubious value
| just because it was invented first.
|
| Ok, this is starting to make sense now...
|
| > Like overvaluing a gas car when an electric exists and is
| the wave of the future. What do these companies know that we
| plebs don't.
|
| Horrible analogy, but it's an opportunity to explain relative
| value theory I understand cars better than most here by a
| large margin, short of being an engineer, as in designed
| stuff for OEMs, I've done just about everything you can do in
| the auto industry, including Motorpsorts. In both ICE and EV
| programs, btw.
|
| And teh fatc that you will never understand why pristine a
| Toyota 2000GT, or Ferrari 250 GT California will be coveted
| whether it's driven or not shows what a shallow understanding
| of the analogy that you're trying to describe is.
|
| Value and worth are relative concepts, and while I KNOW
| bitcoin's utility is superior to fiat in every conceivable
| way as I helped built solutions with this tech that fiat
| could not do, that led to monumental legislation and
| reversals of laws that we all deal with every day it
| underscores that utility is relative to it's users. Square
| has lots of fiat, it lost value on its stock today, in a DCA
| model I bet their BTC holdings is still in double if not
| triple digit returns given how early they got in in the high
| hundereds if I recall correctly. And Jack was playing with
| this tech pretty early, he never gave any dates buy its safe
| to say he was in before the 2013's rally that made all the
| non-tech people take even care.
|
| So, what dubious value are you talking about here? It made
| their earnings hold value when the OVERTLY manipulated stock
| price dipped this week.
| thebean11 wrote:
| > at its peak
|
| All time high yes, but we don't know that this is a peak
| wmf wrote:
| But these companies don't know it's not the peak either.
| Buying the dip, as the kids say, is more defensible.
| noneeeed wrote:
| As always I feel rather behind the times with crypto. What
| are the third generation ones? Does etherium count as second
| gen?
| joshspankit wrote:
| ETH can certainly be called second gen. NFTs have ETH
| contracts underneath.
| joshspankit wrote:
| > At it's peak
|
| They said the same thing at $100.
|
| If BTC was USD$1m per, that would make a satoshi one US cent.
| _To me_ that makes 1m the hard psychological limit, not 50k
| or 100k.
| federona wrote:
| I don't mean real peak, I simply mean cyclic peak. It will
| fall and rise higher, but why buy on high when it's going
| to go back to low which is almost guaranteed with something
| like crypto.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| You can do a much much more deep fundamental analysis than a
| simple checking {if price_at_ATH then..}. Many of the
| companies have likely done such deeper analysis.
| chemmail wrote:
| I wonder why it took so long, Dorsey has always been in bed with
| Blockstream
| natas wrote:
| pump and dump
| schmorptron wrote:
| I was really confused for a bit about what a video game developer
| wanted to do with bitcoin, turns out it's a different Square.
| [deleted]
| rcavezza wrote:
| I'm not sure I've ever seen a one sentence news story before.
| sschueller wrote:
| I wonder if companies are viewing bitcoin in a similar way as
| currencies? I don't know how common this is in the US but in
| Europe specifically Switzerland larger companies buy and hold
| Euros and Dollars to deal with currency fluctuations.
|
| Maybe its just speculating that bitcoin will bring in money. It
| worked for Tesla.
| federona wrote:
| Is it easy to convert a billion for a hundred million of btc to
| cash as it is to buy a stock? I don't think this is it or usd
| or euro.
| electriclove wrote:
| I'm surprised to see so much negativity in regards to these
| headlines about Bitcoin. I expect to see more and more companies
| doing the same and diversifying their holdings partially away
| from the USD.
| notJim wrote:
| What is the actual purpose of buying BTC? Tesla also bought some
| recently, IIRC. I assume that large publicly-traded companies
| aren't doing this for the memes, and it seems tangential to their
| actual businesses. Do they also trade other equities/assets?
| missedthecue wrote:
| I can't make heads or tails of it either. Some people have been
| speculating that it's because they want to take payments in
| BTC, but I don't see building massive positions in it helps
| them facilitate that.
| pvarangot wrote:
| I think there's two purposes:
|
| - They have cash, and want to cover against inflation
|
| - They want to eventually accept payments or provide
| withdrawals or pay salaries or bonuses in crypto, and they need
| to stock up to be able to have or provide liquidity
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Investment. Any large company has a stack of cash on hand, this
| is just required for operations. Traditionally many of them
| have been putting that cash into government bonds. Lately when
| many bonds have negative yields, it becomes more and more
| stupid to hold money in bonds for every year of guaranteed lost
| money in them.
| endisneigh wrote:
| If it ends up that 40 years from now quantum computing can beat
| all present-day encryption methods, would the bitcoin price
| instantly just go to zero? Is there anyway to retroactively make
| it more secure with tomorrow's cryptography?
|
| EDIT: I only ask this because if the world becomes more and more
| dependent on the blockchain and quantum computing becomes an
| existential threat, the existence of blockchain-breaking
| computation could potentially result in a global catastrophe. I
| compare quantum computing in this scenario to a device that can
| just magically take money away from you without your knowledge.
| Given that this obviously hasn't happened yet, I'm curious what
| mitigation strategies exist now. Thanks everyone for your
| replies.
|
| disclaimer: I believe it's just a matter of time before all
| current (2021) encryption is broken. whether that happens in 2060
| or 3000 obviously is TBD, but it's a matter of _when_ not _if_
| IMHO.
| dylkil wrote:
| yes, you can fork the network to use a new hashing algorithm
| kube-system wrote:
| I would hate to be a scientist working on quantum computing
| when there is so much wealth to be threatened by their success.
| Sounds like a quick way to meet the mafia.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I think the threat would be less from billionaires and big
| companies. Their fortunes get disrupted, accumulated and lost
| all the time. If such a threat to those researchers exists,
| it is likely from intelligence agencies around the world.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Vitalik Buterin himself said sha256 is likely not hackable by
| quantum computing, certainly not any time soon. If it is then
| consensus or a fork is needed to change the security.
| bottled_poe wrote:
| Wow not a crypto founder himself. He wouldn't have a conflict
| of interest would he?
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Vitalik is not only extremely smart, has many times
| demonstrated his abilities, but has also shown himself to
| be incredibly honest and straight-forward kind of guy when
| it comes to public utterances. Can you find even a couple
| of times when he has misled or lied to the public, even a
| bout a small thing? He comments on technical issues and
| engineering problems, things he knows a thing or two about.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Just because he developed ethereum doesn't mean he has any
| idea what is going on in quantum computing. Whatever we've
| seen out of the private sector in terms of quantum computing
| is a total joke in the context of black budget NSA programs.
|
| Nobody knows except the people doing it.
| wmf wrote:
| The whole field of quantum computer science would like a
| word. It's possible to predict what quantum computers will
| and won't be able to do.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Quantum computing is not incalculable. Solving sha256 by
| traditional means would need the energy of the sun. Quantum
| will only further the goal by so much. And Vitalik didnt
| just invent ethereum he was/is a cryptography expert who
| wrote many publications.
| svachalek wrote:
| Quantum is not just faster, it changes the problem from
| being sub-exponential to logarithmic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
| chemmail wrote:
| Quantum computing gives near infinite parallelization. It does
| not solve/break serialized equations/problems.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| They would just switch to another algorithm. Sad for all the
| miners who bought ASICs, doesn't change a thing for all users
| and investors. It would just be a hard-fork. It would not be
| the first one, and it would very likely be quite a consensual
| one, since no user wants their transactions to be unsecured.
|
| I really wish people would research a bit more before posting
| these questions here. The quantum computing argument has been
| asked a thousands times before, it was first seen shortly after
| the bitcoin paper was published, it has been answered and re-
| answered and re-answered so many times, everywhere. And yet
| here we are filling the internet with more and more copies...
| Retric wrote:
| The issue is the private keys become vulnerable not just the
| hashing algorithm. If 3/4th of Bitcoins are in lost wallets
| in 1,000 years those instantly flood the market once someone
| can discover them from the old public keys. You can't
| distinguish between someone that's kept a wallet inactive for
| all this time and someone discovering a private key.
|
| Which means you need to fork early and abandon any wallets
| that don't do a transaction with the new system. That's not
| the kind of transition that works with just the miners
| involved.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| You can trivially distinguish those transactions from real
| ones. In fact so trivial that you could do it in one if
| clause #define
| LATEST_BLOCK_BEFORE_EMERGENCE_OF_QC 76283747 #
| fill in number when that happens if
| (block_height>LATEST_BLOCK_BEFORE_EMERGENCE_OF_QC) {
| # Treat transaction as invalid if it still uses SHA256
| }
|
| You know transactions are timestamped through the medium of
| being included in a block, right?
| Retric wrote:
| You don't understand, this has nothing to do with SHA256
| for mining after crypto. You need to sign a transaction
| with a private key. Quantum crypto makes all current
| private keys public.
|
| This means you need to pick some date where everyone with
| a private key needs to create a new key under a new
| system. Then _before_ quantum crypto is available they
| need to make this transaction from their old wallet using
| an old key to a new wallet with a new secure private key.
| And they need to do this before quantum crypto is
| available.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Yes? That's exactly what they'll do.
| Retric wrote:
| How and when? People are working on quantum crypto right
| now and as far as anyone know someone could literally
| break Bitcoin tomorrow February 24th 2020. It seems
| unlikely, but the same could be said for every day until
| it happens.
| jude- wrote:
| Yes -- the network could soft-fork to require post-quantum
| transaction signatures. Naively, you could make it so that each
| transaction would put the hash of its parties' post-quantum
| signatures in an OP_RETURN output, and distribute both the
| transaction and the post-quantum signatures to the network.
| Miners would package the transactions into blocks, and
| separately validate them with the associated post-quantum
| signatures and distribute them as ancillary block data (e.g.
| the coinbase transaction could contain a Merkle tree root that
| authenticates all the block's extra post-quantum signature
| data).
| reidjs wrote:
| If that happens I'm pretty sure we have much larger problems
| than someone stealing your bitcoins
| RIMR wrote:
| Strong encryption turning into weak encryption is a severe
| problem, but it's a manageable and resolvable one also. The
| ease of exploiting quantum encryption-breaking might not be
| comparable to exploiting a public ledger of trust like the
| blockchain.
|
| If BTC has a multi-trillion-dollar market cap, and quantum
| exploitation occurs, the only thing that backs the currency
| (trust) vanishes, and the values quickly drops to zero.
|
| If we are reliant on BTC for global finances in the future,
| as many are proposing, this could result in a global
| depression.
|
| This might be the single biggest problem quantum computing
| could bring us, short of the "talking to alternate universes"
| theoretical use cases some people are talking about (that
| probably won't happen).
|
| Encrypted data can be re-encrypted to be quantum-secure. The
| vulnerability is temporary
|
| A compromised blockchain dies forever. A brand new quantum-
| secure blockchain would need to be invented.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Look up the term "fork" in the context of cryptocurrencies.
| It will answer all your questions and you will save
| yourself a lot of brain cycles.
| echelon wrote:
| If crypto is broken, any fork could be broken too.
|
| It's a question of how much time a new algorithm buys.
| dzader wrote:
| when*
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Presumably there could be another fork like there was with BTC
| vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
| nickysielicki wrote:
| If the discrete logarithm problem turns out to be not so
| difficult, the entire concept of proof of work is
| meaningless. There is no patch or fork that can possibly fix
| that.
| darawk wrote:
| Proof of work does not depend on the DLP. It depends on
| SHA.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| PoW is just a filter to prevent denial of service
| attacks, to ensure that if you're a bad actor, you'll
| waste electricity to send bogus messages.
|
| But if the DLP is easy, then anyone can fabricate proper
| ECDSA sigs, and you're not wasting electricity to send
| _bogus_ messages, you 're wasting electricity to send
| valid messages.
|
| The point I was trying to make is that there is no
| migration path from ECDSA. You can't fork bitcoin if the
| DLP is easy. It's just game over. Proof of work becomes
| irrelevant.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| That's just not correct. There are plenty of crypto
| algorithms already, including hash functions, that are
| designed to be resistant/resilient against a functional
| quantum computer. A PoW scheme can use any (well, at the
| very least many) of them.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
| Vecr wrote:
| No, only the signatures would be at risk, and the fix would be
| quite simple. Create a new address type that's quantum-secure,
| then have everyone move their coin over. After practical breaks
| start happening, disable the old signature type.
| arcticfox wrote:
| In short, yes it's possible to secure, but it'd be a project.
| Like securing everything else against QC
|
| https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
| RIMR wrote:
| If Bitcoin doesn't destroy itself somehow, quantum computing
| will be the destruction of the modern blockchain. Quantum
| Bitcoins might be possible, but developing a quantum blockchain
| before traditional Bitcoin can be exploited by the same tech is
| highly unlikely, so any Bitcoins today will almost certainly
| never become quantum Bitcoins.
|
| I don't think there is any feasible way you could ever convert
| the Bitcoin blockchain into a quantum variant, even if you set
| a hard sunset date before any exploitation could occur. You
| would have to start from the ground up and completely reinvent
| the wheel.
| tomerico wrote:
| Bitcoin is vulnerable in two ways:
|
| 1. The oldest (and largest) wallets directly stored their
| public key on the blockchain. This would mean that attackers
| could transfer money away from these wallets (many of them are
| dormant).
|
| 2. Relatively early, the blockchain shifted to only storing the
| hash of the public key, which seems less susceptible to a
| quantum computing attack. The risk in these wallets is that
| once you want to transfer bitcoins out, you need to temporarily
| publish your public key - this key is not stored on the
| blockchain, but might be stored by future attackers. In
| addition, at some point getting your private key will be so
| fast that the moment you publish a transaction request you'll
| many fake requests asking to transfer to another wallet.
|
| The solution is likely a soft fork - new addresses that are
| quantum resistant (similar to how in the past Bitcoin moved
| away from public key address into hash). The trick is that this
| needs to be deployed before attacks exist, and people need to
| transfer their Bitcoin into the new wallets.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > 1. The oldest (and largest) wallets directly stored their
| public key on the blockchain. This would mean that attackers
| could transfer money away from these wallets (many of them
| are dormant).
|
| That doesn't mean the Public key has ever been exposed online
| and therefore not true. Look up cold storage best practices,
| I'm not going to line it out for you but what you said is
| entirely false and built on a flawed premise.
|
| > 2. Relatively early, the blockchain shifted to only storing
| the hash of the public key, which seems less susceptible to a
| quantum computing attack. The risk in these wallets is that
| once you want to transfer bitcoins out, you need to
| temporarily publish your public key - this key is not stored
| on the blockchain, but might be stored by future attackers.
| In addition, at some point getting your private key will be
| so fast that the moment you publish a transaction request
| you'll many fake requests asking to transfer to another
| wallet.
|
| You started it off with a valid observation, but then led
| into a non-sequitur, what does that have to do with Bitcoin's
| vulnerability if as we just said 1 is not true if done
| correctly.
|
| > The trick is that this needs to be deployed before attacks
| exist, and people need to transfer their Bitcoin into the new
| wallets.
|
| While I agree security on mainchain is an issue, we should
| dhave had taproot long ago, and mixing by default by now as
| tx fees get more and more expensive--all you're doing is
| mixing it with other adddresses to make the sum
| indistinguishable from it's source and that cost adds up as
| the netowrk gets more expensive to operate on.
|
| But also your premise is at odds with the fact that most of
| the traffic will be done on LN moving forward, and the
| bitcoin (token) will locked out of the network's mainchain
| (Bitcoin) to operate on LN and thus does not require your
| 'solution.'
|
| In short, these are non-concerns.
|
| Note how I didn't downvote you, and instead I challenged your
| arguments in order for others to benefit from this
| conversation, instead of being a child and downvoting simply
| because I disagree with your points.
|
| Edit: HAHA!
| RIMR wrote:
| What are they going to do with $160M worth of bitcoins?
| lallysingh wrote:
| Probably some BTC-related payment experiments.
| nikolay wrote:
| HODL!
|
| Edit: Don't you have a sense of humor?!
| belval wrote:
| HN as a community does not have a high tolerance for short
| reddit-like replies that could be considered funny. The
| general opinion being that it lowers the overall quality of
| the discussion.
| nikolay wrote:
| Well, sometimes a short reply like "HODL!" hodls (!)
| paragraphs of meaning.
| eroded wrote:
| Have fun staying poor.
| RIMR wrote:
| If I had a Bitcoin for every time some crypto-gambler
| dropped this line on the Internet, I would have more than
| the maximum number of Bitcoins that will ever be minted.
|
| Everyone has a story about how Bitcoin could have made
| them a billionaire. Only like 2 people actually got that
| rich.
|
| You folks are playing the lottery. If you win, good for
| you, but everyone not gambling is still doing better than
| everyone gambling.
| [deleted]
| belval wrote:
| I am puzzled by the meaning of your reply, what does HN
| guidelines have to do with my personal wealth?
|
| Unless you mean HN has a website will "stay poor" due to
| a lack of users in which case I highly recommend reading
| up on YCombinator and its founders.
| TylerE wrote:
| Well, in a few months they'll have $100m of bitcoins. Maybe
| $50m.
| eroded wrote:
| Lol!
| tryptophan wrote:
| Waste their investor's money.
| [deleted]
| nikolay wrote:
| Copycats. I guess, their business isn't doing so great if they
| try to speculate with their cash instead of beating competition,
| which is growing daily!
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| qeternity wrote:
| Square pays $170m for $160m worth of Bitcoin
| DenisM wrote:
| My guess they are rolling out btc payments and bought some amount
| to cover transaction delays or rollbacks.
| oafertino wrote:
| This feels like the most rational reason - the other would
| reason would be trading BTC with shareholder money so let's
| hope you're right.
| hntrader wrote:
| Isn't it a conflict of interest for Dorsey to make such a market
| moving purchase, as an agent of Square, in an asset that he is
| personally invested in? I guess we'll have to wait and see the
| rationale of the purchase. If it's to facilitate payments on
| their platform, then no biggie.
| really3452 wrote:
| CEO's do this all the time with the US dollar and no one blinks
| an eye.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| This would be more akin to the BP CEO buying oil futures and
| then announcing output cuts.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Nope
| TheBlight wrote:
| Meh 170m isn't really that market moving for bitcoin these
| days.
| hntrader wrote:
| It's not just the direct market impact from the size of the
| trade, but the signal to the market of yet another big
| company getting involved which causes others to initiate a
| trade.
| joshspankit wrote:
| Came here because of this exact point.
|
| We're going hockey-stick! (At least for a little bit)
| jozen wrote:
| Maybe. Definitely not illegal though.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > Isn't it a conflict of interest for Dorsey to make such a
| market moving purchase, as an agent of Square, in an asset that
| he is personally invested in? I guess we'll have to wait and
| see the rationale of the purchase. If it's to facilitate
| payments on their platform, then no biggie.
|
| No, and Jack is a big proponent of Bitcoin and has offered
| buying/selling via CASH. He has been saying he's maxed out cash
| app's buying service since it's inception in 2018ish (?) with
| no repercussions.
|
| Furthermore, their purchase/holdings could represent the amount
| outstanding Square has to have as reserves after daily
| operations--Square is CASH's parent company, which allows for
| the buying and selling of Bitcoin, not some IOU like Paypal.
|
| I think they may be finally rolling out Bitcoin acceptances via
| the Square POS system, ideally with LN (something Jack has
| financed in the past). Something I wish we had during the
| pandemic to allow small businesses to invest in and convert to
| just keep the lights on, instead most got wiped out from
| dealing with fiat and may never come back again. .
|
| I just hope you guys on HN start to realize the 2 biggest names
| in Fintech are already Bitcoiners, Jack has been for some time
| but Elon (who was arguably more important than Thiel, who also
| has Bitcoin investments, in making Paypal) has only recently
| made it public, but was also at one time regarded as potential
| person for who was 'Satoshi' for a reason. IN addition to the
| Worlds richest person, or was until the Tesla stock dip this
| week.
|
| The SEC should have gone after Citadel, Melvin, Robinhood,
| etc... instead they had what even one politician said was
| 'political theater,' but they didn't and instead they go after
| things that change the status quo, which this may be... or
| until the status quo has adopted it in a way that it's
| beneficial to them, and while it we (bitcoiners) would be
| remiss to say we built this architecture for them, we knew one
| day they would of out of self-interest join.
|
| That's where are now. I'm not entirely convinced it's not them
| lowering the price to get a better buy in position, both
| Microstrategy and Tesla have enough to make the market move in
| that direction. I'm just thankful they did and I got to buy
| more on the way down.
|
| I actually wonder if Coinbase offers this as a service, as in
| you pay Coinbase XX million for services rendered and they
| start dumping coins on the market to help its high net worth
| buyers buy billions worth of bitcoin via OTC at a lower price.
| But this is just unsubstantiated conjecture on my part, though
| not entirely impossible. Then blame Kraken as plausible
| deniability and rinse and repeat.
|
| Edit: typical HN downvote brigade... I expected more from this
| place, and felt that people would challenge the idea, not the
| message/messenger.
| rtx wrote:
| Taking shareholders for a ride. Scamming people at two companies.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-23 23:02 UTC)