China Declares Initial Coin Offerings Illegal

[EE_]

Ethereum, Bitcoin Crash After China Declares Initial Coin Offerings Illegal
by Tyler Durden
Sep 4, 2017 7:43 AM

Ethereum and bitcoin are crashing this morning, after China confirmed its recent threat of an ICO crackdown (reported here last Monday) when the central bank said on Monday that initial coin offerings are illegal and disrupt financial markets, according to statement on China’s central bank website. The PBOC also asked all related fundraising activity to be halted immediately, issuing the strongest regulatory challenge so far to the controversial if surging market for digital token sales.

The crackdown was announced in a statement on the PBOC's website in which the central bank said that it had completed investigations into ICOs, and will strictly punish offerings in the future while penalizing legal violations in ones already completed. The regulator said that organizations or individuals that completed initial coin offerings should return the money raised, in move "to protect investors’ rights and properly handle risks," though it didn’t specify how the money would be paid back to investors.

Taking the recent SEC crackdown on Initial Coin Offerings several steps further, the PBOC also said digital token financing and trading platforms are prohibited from doing conversions of coins with fiat currencies. Digital tokens can’t be used as currency on the market and banks are forbidden from offering services to initial coin offerings, and are also also banned from offering pricing and information services on coins. Most importantly was the PBOC's determination that "digital token can’t be used as currency on the market" and its warning that "China will strictly punish over sustained offerings and law violations in completed ones."

The central bank’s Monday directive made no mention of cryptocurrencies such as ether or bitcoin. Bitcoin tumbled over 8%, the most since July on a closing basis, to $4,480. Ethereum was down more than 11% Monday, to just above $310, after trading nearly $400 last week.

“This is somewhat in step with, maybe not to the same extent, what we’re starting to see in other jurisdictions - the short story is we all know regulations are coming,” Jehan Chu, managing partner at Kenetic Capital in Hong Kong, which invests in and advises on token sales, told Bloomberg. “China, due to its size and as one of the most speculative IPO markets, needed to take a firmer action.”

As described previously, ICOs are controversial digital token sales that have seen unchecked growth over the past year, raising $1.6 billion and surpassed traditional venture capital raising pathways. They have been deemed a threat to China’s financial market stability as authorities struggle to tame financing channels that sprawl beyond the traditional banking system. Widely seen as a way to sidestep venture capital funds and investment banks, they have also increasingly captured the attention of central banks that see in the fledgling trend a threat to their reign.

While hardly the world's biggest coin offering market, China accounts for about a quarter of the blockchain based capital raising activity YTD: there were at least 43 ICO platforms in China as of July 18, according to a report by the National Committee of Experts on the Internet Financial Security Technology. Sixty-five ICO projects had been completed, the committee said, raising 2.6 billion yuan ($398 million).

Incidentally, just as we speculated in late July, when the SEC announced its own crackdown on initial coin offerings, a move we deemed would be beneficial in the long run for weeding out the various criminal and ponzi schemes that have proliferated in the unregulated market, so today's move by China is seen by some as favorable for blockchain dynamics:

“This is a positive move given the rapid proliferation of low quality and possibly fraudulent coin sales promising the moon,” said Emad Mostaque, London-based co-chief investment officer at Capricorn Fund Managers Ltd. “There is tremendous value in the model but we need to see more separation of high quality, ethical offerings versus those seeking to circumvent securities law for a quick buck.”

Indeed, the SEC signaled greater scrutiny of the sector when it warned that ICOs may be considered securities, though it stopped short of suggesting a broader clampdown. The regulator reaffirmed its focus on protecting investors, however, and said issuers must register the deals with the government unless they have a valid excuse. The vast amount of money amassed in a short span of time has also attracted cyber criminals, with an estimated 10 percent of money intended for ICOs looted away by scams such as phishing this year, according to Chainalysis, a New York-based firm that analyzes transactions and provides anti-money laundering software.

China will likely eventually allow token sales, according to Chu of Kenetic Capital, however only on approved platforms, and may even vet projects individually. “I think they will allow the sale of tokens in a format which they deem safe and more measured,” he said.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-04/ethereum-bitcoin-crash-after-china-declares-initial-coin-offerings-illegal

[Cebu_4_2]

Wow, BC hit 4970!

[singular_me]

Wow, BC hit 4970!

with the NSA that created the cyprtocurrencies and the ghost of bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto... eventually something will go very bad

am listening right now....... Brian Eha, Author of "How Money Got Free: Bitcoin and the Fight for the Future of Finance, joins the program to discuss the history of Bitcoin: A tale of corruption, intrigue, money, and power. His book is believed to be the most comprehensive and most researched depiction of Bitcoin's history and origins. While many aspects of Bitcoin's history is still a mystery, Eha manages to answer many of the questions that readers have on the mysterious beginnings of the world's first cryptocurrency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymO4aZikS5I&t=1269s

[Ares]

with the NSA that created the cyprtocurrencies and the ghost of bitcoin founder, Satoshi Nakamoto... eventually something will go very bad

am listening right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymO4aZikS5I&t=1269s

More bullshit accusations. Come back when you can substantiate anything that you say or claim with actual EVIDENCE.

[crimethink]

More bullshit accusations. Come back when you can substantiate anything that you say or claim with actual EVIDENCE.

The Elders of Zion would be slipping badly if they provided us with prima facie evidence.

But the circumstantial evidence is strong:

https://news.bitcoin.com/rothschild-investment-corporation-becomes-bitcoin-stakeholder/

http://fortune.com/2017/02/28/ethereum-jpmorgan-microsoft-alliance/

https://www.coindesk.com/citi-bitcoin-banks-remittances-wont-disrupt/

It's clear (((they))) don't view Bitcoin, Ethereum, et. al., as any sort of threat. And they would be a threat if they were truly as free and anonymous as claimed.

[singular_me]

who can believe this. who can choose such a name while having nothing to do with the real entity? That is actually funny

---------------------

There were also rumors that Rothschild Investment Corporation was related to the Rothschild family. In various social media posts, people thought there was some kind of conspiracy or deal that Rothchild himself made for gaining shares of bitcoin. The conspiracy theorists believe the Illuminati and lizard rulers may be colluding to sabotage bitcoin.

This turned out to be false, as the company has no relationship to the Rothschild family other than possessing its namesake. The tweets below should say “Rothschild Investment Corporation,” and not just Rothschild the person. The reason for confusion is clear, because the name is relatively common. Looks like the Illuminati are still waiting for their chance to enter the market.




https://news.bitcoin.com/rothschild-investment-corporation-becomes-bitcoin-stakeholder/
.

[crimethink]

who can believe this. who can choose such a name while having nothing to do with the real entity? That is actually funny

If this "Rothschild Investment Corporation" was truly not related to the Rothschilds™, the latter would have a huge trademark dilution case against them.

[singular_me]

actually I was kinda disappointed by the podcast above, nothing really exciting until the end of the first half. Maybe I will listen tomorrow to the 2nd half

The white paper on cryptocurrencies was **written** (by the NSA) 12 years (!!!) before the elusive Anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto appeared on the scene to introduce his bitcoin, until then **nobody** knew who he was ... sorry but that is fishy. I posted the NSA white paper's link last week on the boards. I didnt read it myself and rely on those who did. Read it ares and let us know then.

Bitcoin, the NSA, and who originated cryptocurrencies Video – The Daily Economist
here is another one: skip to 20mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-VXrcHpHo0




More bullshit accusations. Come back when you can substantiate anything that you say or claim with actual EVIDENCE.

[singular_me]

elementary my dear watson


If this "Rothschild Investment Corporation" was truly not related to the Rothschilds™, the latter would have a huge trademark dilution case against them.

[Ares]

The white paper on cryptocurrencies was **written** (by the NSA) 12 years (!!!) before the elusive Anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto appeared on the scene to introduce his bitcoin, until then **nobody** knew who he was ... sorry but that is fishy. I posted the NSA white paper's link last week on the boards. I didnt read it myself and rely on those who did. Read it ares and let us know then.

Like I told you before NO IT WASN'T. You can't even compare the NSA whitepaper to the Bitcoin Whitepaper. One is incorporating the current banking system (NSA) while the other completely decentralizes it and removes the current banking system from the equation as a trusted party.

[Ares]

The Elders of Zion would be slipping badly if they provided us with prima facie evidence.

But the circumstantial evidence is strong:

https://news.bitcoin.com/rothschild-investment-corporation-becomes-bitcoin-stakeholder/

http://fortune.com/2017/02/28/ethereum-jpmorgan-microsoft-alliance/

https://www.coindesk.com/citi-bitcoin-banks-remittances-wont-disrupt/

It's clear (((they))) don't view Bitcoin, Ethereum, et. al., as any sort of threat. And they would be a threat if they were truly as free and anonymous as claimed.

Not really, as they operate in the shadows. Publish one set of statistics while short selling the private side to keep the price depressed and floating away from you. Gold and Silver should be well above current market valuations but without a clear trusted unbiased third party to audit their books we'll never know the true holdings of banks / governments / investment trusts to get an accurate market capitalization.

Now with Bitcoin, all coins are technically public as they never leave the blockchain. Say for example ROTChild (Not a misspelling) buys 10,000 BTC. They'll either move the coins to their own wallet, or leave it at the trust. We can see the funds that are in that wallet. It's publicly available. So if for example that investment trust sees short sale of 20,000 BTC but they only have 15,000 BTC in their entire wallet, we'll know they're full of shit and it's a false sale to drive the price down.

If we had that type of clarity in banking, gold, silver, ETF's etc. The price of gold and silver would be a hell of a lot different today.

[crimethink]

Not really, as they operate in the shadows. Publish one set of statistics while short selling the private side to keep the price depressed and floating away from you. Gold and Silver should be well above current market valuations but without a clear trusted unbiased third party to audit their books we'll never know the true holdings of banks / governments / investment trusts to get an accurate market capitalization.

Now with Bitcoin, all coins are technically public as they never leave the blockchain. Say for example ROTChild (Not a misspelling) buys 10,000 BTC. They'll either move the coins to their own wallet, or leave it at the trust. We can see the funds that are in that wallet. It's publicly available. So if for example that investment trust sees short sale of 20,000 BTC but they only have 15,000 BTC in their entire wallet, we'll know they're full of shit and it's a false sale to drive the price down.

If we had that type of clarity in banking, gold, silver, ETF's etc. The price of gold and silver would be a hell of a lot different today.

Like with gold and silver, the banksters will simply CO-OPT Bitcoin/Ethererum/Etc. If they weren't "co-opted" (created) by them, or, specifically, their government tools, from the start.

I stand by my position that if the banksters - or their purchased assets in "governments" - considered Bitcoin, etc. threats, they would be declaring their use/trade/purchase felonies...and they certainly wouldn't be actively or intrincically promoting them. And as we discussed earlier, a blockchain ID is not anonymous if accessed on a compromised computer (that's anything with an Intel or AMD processor and/or Windows, iOS, or Linux OS). One mistake and the NSA, et. al. have a correlation of you with that blockchain ID.

[Ares]

Like with gold and silver, the banksters will simply CO-OPT Bitcoin/Ethererum/Etc. If they weren't "co-opted" (created) by them, or, specifically, their government tools, from the start.

I stand by my position that if the banksters - or their purchased assets in "governments" - considered Bitcoin, etc. threats, they would be declaring their use/trade/purchase felonies...and they certainly wouldn't be actively or intrincically promoting them. And as we discussed earlier, a blockchain ID is not anonymous if accessed on a compromised computer (that's anything with an Intel or AMD processor and/or Windows, iOS, or Linux OS). One mistake and the NSA, et. al. have a correlation of you with that blockchain ID.

Like China declaring ICO's illegal? It won't be much longer before the SEC likely does the same thing here in the states. It completely sidelines the big banks, as well as SEC "regulation".

Wait until BTC's market cap reaches the Trillion dollar range, they don't consider it a threat yet and are likely attempting to figure out a way to co-op it.

[crimethink]

Like China declaring ICO's illegal? It won't be much longer before the SEC likely does the same thing here in the states. It completely sidelines the big banks, as well as SEC "regulation".

Wait until BTC's market cap reaches the Trillion dollar range, they don't consider it a threat yet and are likely attempting to figure out a way to co-op it.

This isn't China, nor did China outlaw use of cryptocurrencies. When the "Federal" Reserve or Federal regime ban them, we can talk.

SEC considers Bitcoin, etc. to be just another moneychanging tool (a "security"):

http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-security-equity-sec-2017-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Bitcoin will be tolerated indefinitely, and likely be incorporated into the Babylon Banking System. Same as with gold and silver. The banksters had their tool decriminalize private possession of gold over 40 years ago, since they don't regard it as a threat. The only restrictions are on fraudulently calling them (Liberty) "Dollars." Put almost anything else on them, and the rounds circulate freely.

[PatColo]

BC permabull (((David 'GULP' Seaman))); let a dinjoo assuage your fragile, eggshell goy fears! :D 9 mins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1W5vQAeMfA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1W5vQAeMfA

[singular_me]

comparing the white papers: the NSA white paper link which you refute was on some university website (.edu) that does not do into conspiracies. Do you think they just wrote NSA on it?

but why is this white paper published 12 years before that of the elusive Anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto? Why are the media nor any bitcoin adept not talking about it?


Like I told you before NO IT WASN'T. You can't even compare the NSA whitepaper to the Bitcoin Whitepaper. One is incorporating the current banking system (NSA) while the other completely decentralizes it and removes the current banking system from the equation as a trusted party.

[Ares]

comparing the white papers: the NSA white paper link which you refute was on some university website (.edu) that does not do into conspiracies. Do you think they just wrote NSA on it?

No as they have no reason too. But if it makes you feel better, you can download a copy from American law Review. http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol46/iss4/2/


but why is this white paper published 12 years before that of the elusive Anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto? Why are the media nor any bitcoin adept not talking about it?

Same reason why there is a patent office. Humans have a funny tendency of inventing things roughly at the same time. If you developed code you can see that. I just started a couple of years ago and I think I have some great idea. I start looking for it, and low and behold it's already there. Or I publish something and someone accuses me of "borrowing" their code, and what saved me in the last accusation was that I published my work a full 2 months before the other author. There was literally a line of code that gave the other guy the idea that I borrowed his that matched his line for line character for character. The more I develop I see that we (humans that is) invent things close to the same time, likely unexplainable of why or how that happens.

Why they aren't talking about it? Easy if you read through the papers (NSA and Bitcoin) you would see that you can't even compare the 2. 1 is centralized with a ledger that is updated by a bank, while the other is a blockchain (ledger) that is updated by a decentralized network of machines with a proof of work algorithm that incentivizes parties with a reward per block.

[Ares]

This isn't China, nor did China outlaw use of cryptocurrencies. When the "Federal" Reserve or Federal regime ban them, we can talk.

Nope it certainly isn't. But China is certainly controlled by the same (((people))) we are. China was a big party in the ICO field if I read the details correctly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with the Federal Reserve is as you've noticed in other countries (Venezuela as a recent example) they do not have the capability of banning them. Their goal has always been to get more people to "bank" with them. If they ban alternatives (they no longer fear gold/silver as you rightly pointed out because they fully control them) they risk losing people to crypto's entirely. While not making a definitive decision they buy themselves time.


SEC considers Bitcoin, etc. to be just another moneychanging tool (a "security"):

http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-price-security-equity-sec-2017-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Bitcoin will be tolerated indefinitely, and likely be incorporated into the Babylon Banking System. Same as with gold and silver. The banksters had their tool decriminalize private possession of gold over 40 years ago, since they don't regard it as a threat. The only restrictions are on fraudulently calling them (Liberty) "Dollars." Put almost anything else on them, and the rounds circulate freely.

Time will tell.

[Neuro]

Humans have a funny tendency of inventing things roughly at the same time.

Exactly and the reason for that is that inventions build on previous inventions, like the telephone was invented simultaneously at least at three different locations, the three previous inventions preceding it was the telegraph, microphone and loudspeaker, when all these were in place after the invention of copper wire for conducting electricity it became natural that inventors would put them together.

This simple concept is something Goldie hasn't been able to wrap her head around, because she believes technology comes from outer space, instead of engineers.

[madfranks]

I do think that if cryptos get big enough, governments and central banks will move to outlaw them completely. They're still just a drop in the bucket though, and looking at the big picture not a threat at all to the established fiat/central bank systems of the world. Also, don't forget that governments and government agencies tend to move and react very slowly, so even if they do eventually recognize cryptos as a threat to them, it'll take them a long time to react anyway.

[singular_me]

unexplainable... cosmic synchronicity it is called, I am sure Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenic fields can explain it (look for his videos) ... but I dont think it may be the case here because too much mystery surrounds the elusive bitcoin founder... my intuition.

Kinda bizarre though, most people on here would see the worst conspiracy theories in almost everything today but bitcoin's intriguing background gets an ok :)

12 years are plenty of time to improve an application for the NSA. I am not entirely satisfied with the current mainstream explanation and I am going to dig a little bit more. I also think that quantum computers will crack/hack any system, they are almost here...



No as they have no reason too. But if it makes you feel better, you can download a copy from American law Review. http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol46/iss4/2/

Same reason why there is a patent office. Humans have a funny tendency of inventing things roughly at the same time. If you developed code you can see that. I just started a couple of years ago and I think I have some great idea. I start looking for it, and low and behold it's already there. Or I publish something and someone accuses me of "borrowing" their code, and what saved me in the last accusation was that I published my work a full 2 months before the other author. There was literally a line of code that gave the other guy the idea that I borrowed his that matched his line for line character for character. The more I develop I see that we (humans that is) invent things close to the same time, likely unexplainable of why or how that happens.

Why they aren't talking about it? Easy if you read through the papers (NSA and Bitcoin) you would see that you can't even compare the 2. 1 is centralized with a ledger that is updated by a bank, while the other is a blockchain (ledger) that is updated by a decentralized network of machines with a proof of work algorithm that incentivizes parties with a reward per block.

[Ares]

unexplainable... cosmic synchronicity it is called, I am sure Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenic fields can explain it (look for his videos) ... but I dont think it may be the case here because too much mystery surrounds the elusive bitcoin founder... my intuition.

Kinda bizarre though, most people on here would see the worst conspiracy theories in almost everything today but bitcoin's intriguing background gets an ok :)

12 years are plenty of time to improve an application for the NSA. I am not entirely satisfied with the current mainstream explanation and I am going to dig a little bit more. I also think that quantum computers will crack/hack any system, they are almost here...

Quantum computers are not magic and still have to obey the rules of cryptography. So the likelihood of them being able to crack Bitcoin are very unlikely as I pointed out on another thread here:

As far as a Quantum computer being able to crack SHA256, unlikely.

1) quantum computers, if ever they come into existence with a lot of qubits (which I personally doubt, but ok), can TOTALLY CRACK the current public key systems based on prime factorization (RSA, Diffie-Hellmann) or based upon discrete logarithms in groups (elliptic curve crypto). The algorithm to do so is known, it is Shor's algorithm. By TOTALLY I mean totally: just ANY key can be cracked in a matter of milliseconds, on the condition that the quantum computer has more qubits than (a few times) the key length. If such a quantum computer exists, there is simply no difficulty in cracking the key, it doesn't take "days" or anything because the difficulty goes LOGARITHMIC with Shor's algorithm.

2) however, for hash functions, and symmetric crypto like AES-256, it can be shown that a quantum computer can AT BEST use Grover's algorithm to crack it. Grover's algorithm doesn't crack entirely a hash function, but essentially HALVES ITS BIT STRENGTH. So a SHA-256 hash (with 256 bits) would not require 2^256 trials like on a classical computer, but "only" 2^128 trials on a quantum computer, which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE to do practically. Most people think that quantum computers will, if ever they exist, run much slower than classical machines, so 2^128 trials on a quantum machine will be much harder to solve than 2^128 trials on a classical machine.

[Joshua01]

Is my one British sovereign and my mercury dime worth more today than it was yesterday?

[Ares]

Is my one British sovereign and my mercury dime worth more today than it was yesterday?

Considering the decades long sideways action of metals, it's probably worth the same in fiat. :)

[crimethink]

Quantum computers are not magic and still have to obey the rules of cryptography. So the likelihood of them being able to crack Bitcoin are very unlikely as I pointed out on another thread here:

As far as a Quantum computer being able to crack SHA256, unlikely.

1) quantum computers, if ever they come into existence with a lot of qubits (which I personally doubt, but ok), can TOTALLY CRACK the current public key systems based on prime factorization (RSA, Diffie-Hellmann) or based upon discrete logarithms in groups (elliptic curve crypto). The algorithm to do so is known, it is Shor's algorithm. By TOTALLY I mean totally: just ANY key can be cracked in a matter of milliseconds, on the condition that the quantum computer has more qubits than (a few times) the key length. If such a quantum computer exists, there is simply no difficulty in cracking the key, it doesn't take "days" or anything because the difficulty goes LOGARITHMIC with Shor's algorithm.

2) however, for hash functions, and symmetric crypto like AES-256, it can be shown that a quantum computer can AT BEST use Grover's algorithm to crack it. Grover's algorithm doesn't crack entirely a hash function, but essentially HALVES ITS BIT STRENGTH. So a SHA-256 hash (with 256 bits) would not require 2^256 trials like on a classical computer, but "only" 2^128 trials on a quantum computer, which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE to do practically. Most people think that quantum computers will, if ever they exist, run much slower than classical machines, so 2^128 trials on a quantum machine will be much harder to solve than 2^128 trials on a classical machine.

You write about probabilities, the abstract, a field that Jews have dominated for centuries (because they have a problem with reality). But the reality is that probabilities are not solid facts. Are encryption methods - or any algorithm - crackable? The probabilities say that it would take such and such inconceivable number to succeed. But it might also take five minutes. Especially if there are variables that are not known (e.g., deliberate vulnerabilities or mathematical dynamics not known to the outsider).

Quantum computing uses a model that is truly inconceivable to all but the Mind of God. Quantum superposition...no human mind, no matter how intelligent, can truly grasp that.* What will these "not magical"** computers be able to do? We don't know until they are fired up and used on a wide scale.

Statistics is not a science, but a faith. Humans don't have the faculties to "prove them scientifically" except on a relatively feeble level.




* Jewish physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

** less than a century ago, my laptop here would be considered magic by the most intelligent of souls. Even Tesla would be awed.

[singular_me]

Molyneux is not a fav of mine but something to chew on.. risks of biblical proportions as he sums it up. Either or, the collapse is in the cards, but bitcoin will accelerate it. I call it the price of bullishness/golden calf. Manias are destroyers. Wealth cannot be created nor destroyed but merely change hands. Value is not stretchable.

Stephan Molyneux describes the 'hidden dangers' of Bitcoin, one of which is the US trust based service sector about $3.4 TRILLION YEARLY! US bank fees alone generate $250 BILLION/year, global payment related revenue exceed $300 BILLION/year.... So if the Bitcoin price continues rising at the same pace, the transition to Bitcoin would cause an economic systemic shock, and possible entire collapse of the world economy. That is one risk... but there are several



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXBwcedQuQ0