‘Bitcoin is dead,’ says prominent fintech exec - Yahoo

JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"

As a bitcoin user (miner, hodler, investor) you have all the power - simply due to the nature of markets and open-source software. Core/Blockstream, and their owners at AXA, can try to manipulate the market and the software for a while, by paying off devs who prefer tiny blocks, or censoring the news, or conducting endless meetings - but in the end, you know that they have no real control over you, because endless meetings are bullshit, and code and markets are everything.
Bitcoin volume, adoption, blocksize and price have been rising steadily for the past 7 years. And they will continue to do so - with or without the cooperation of Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners - because just like publicly held corporations always tend to "maximize shareholder value, publicly held cryptocurrencies always tend to "maximize coinholder value".
How much of a position does AXA have in JPMorgan?
AXA currently holds about $94 million in JPMorgan stock.
Admittedly this is not a whole lot, when you consider that the total of JPMorgan's outstanding shares is currently around USD 3.657 billion.
But still it does provide a suggestive indication of how these big financial firms are all in bed with each other. Plus the leaders of these big financial firms also tend to hang out which each other professionally and socially, and are motivated to protect the overall system of "the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" which allows them to rule the world.
How does JPMorgan use paper GLD and SLV ETFs to suppress the price of physical gold and silver?
As many people know, whistleblower Andrew Maguire exposed the massive criminal scandal where JPMorgan has been fraudulently manipulating gold and silver prices for years.
JPMorgan does this via the SLV and GLD ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).
The reason they do it is in order to artificially suppress the price of gold and silver using "naked short-selling":
How exactly does JPMorgan manage to commit this kind of massive fraud?
It's easy!
There's actually about 100x more "phantom" or fake silver and gold in existence (in the form of "paper" certificates - SLV and GLD ETFs) - versus actual "physical" gold and silver that you can take delivery on and hold in your hand.
That means that if everyone holding fake/paper SLV & GLD ETF certificates were to suddenly demand "physical delivery" at the same moment, then only 1% of those people would receive actual physical silver and gold - and the rest would get the "equivalent" in dollars. This is all well-known, and clearly spelled out in the fine print of the GLD and SLV ETF contracts.
(This is similar to "fractional reserve" where almost no banks have enough actual money to cover all deposits. This means that if everyone showed up at the bank on the same day and demanded their money, the bank would go bankrupt.)
So, in order to fraudulently suppress the price of gold and silver (and, in turn, prevent the USDollar from crashing), JPMorgan functions as a kind of "bear whale", dumping "phantom" gold and silver on the market in the form of worthless "paper" SLV and GLD ETF certificates, "whenever the need arises" - ie, whenever the US Dollar price starts to drop "too much", and/or whenever the gold and silver prices start to rise "too much".
(This is similar to the "plunge protection team" liquidity providers, who are well-known for preventing stock market crashes, by throwing around their endlessly printed supply of "fantasy fiat", buying up stocks to artificially prevent their prices from crashing. This endless money-printing and market manipulation actually destroys one of the main purposes of capitalism - which is to facilitate "price discovery" in order to reward successful companies and punish unsuccessful ones, to make sure that they actually deliver the goods and services that people need in the real world.)
Is there an ELI5 example of how "naked short selling" works in the real world?
Yes there is!
The following example was originally developed by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne - who, as many people know, is very passionate about using Bitcoin not only as cash, but also to settle stock trades - because his company Overstock got burned when Wall Street illegally attacked it using naked short selling:
Here's how naked short-selling works: Imagine you travel to a small foreign island on vacation. Instead of going to an exchange office in your hotel to turn your dollars into Island Rubles, the country instead gives you a small printing press and makes you a deal: Print as many Island Rubles as you like, then on the way out of the country you can settle your account. So you take your printing press, print out gigantic quantities of Rubles and start buying goods and services. Before long, the cash you’ve churned out floods the market, and the currency's value plummets. Do this long enough and you'll crack the currency entirely; the loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of one American dollar the day you arrived now costs less than a cent.
With prices completely depressed, you keep printing money and buy everything of value - homes, cars, priceless works of art. You then load it all into a cargo ship and head home. On the way out of the country, you have to settle your account with the currency office. But the Island Rubles you printed are now worthless, so it takes just a handful of U.S. dollars to settle your debt. Arriving home with your cargo ship, you sell all the island riches you bought at a discount and make a fortune.
Why isn't anybody stopping JPMorgan from using "naked short selling" to fraudulently suppress gold and silver prices?
Because "certain people" benefit!
Of course, this "naked short selling" (selling a "phantom" asset which doesn't actually exist in order to suppress the price of the "real" asset) is actually illegal - but JPMorgan is allowed to get away with it, because suppressing the gold and silver price helps prop up the United States and world's major "fantasy fiat" financial institutions - which would be bankrupt without this kind of "artificial life support."
How does suppressing the gold and silver price help governments and banks?
If gold and silver (and Bitcoin!) rose to their actual "fair market value", then the US dollar (and most other national "fiat" currencies) would crash - and many major financial institutions would be exposed as bankrupt. Also, many "derivatives contracts" would default - and only a tiny percentage of defaults would destroy most major financial companies' balance sheets. (For example, see Deutsche Bank - which is may become "the next Lehman", due to having around around $80 trillion in dangerous derivatives exposure.)
So, major financial firms like JPMorgan are highly motivated to prevent a "real" (honest) market from existing for "counterparty-free" assets such as physical gold and silver (and Bitcoin!)
So, JPMorgan fraudulently manipulate the precious-metals market, by flooding it with 100x more "phantom" "silver" and "gold" in the form of worthless GLD and SLV ETF certificates.
Basically, JPMorgan is doing the "dirty work" to keep the US government and its "too-big-to-fail" banks and other financial institutions afloat, on "artificial life support".
Otherwise, without this GLD & SLV ETF "naked short selling" involving market manipulation and fraud, the US government - and most major US financial institutions, as well as many major overseas financial institutions, and most central banks - would all be exposed as bankrupt, once traders and investors discovered the real price of gold and silver.
So, what does this have to do with AXA and Bitcoin?
Just like JPMorgan wants to suppress the price of gold and silver to prop up the USDollar, it is reasonable to assume that AXA and other major financial players probably also want to suppress the price of Bitcoin for the same reasons - in order to postpone the inevitable day when the so-called "assets" on their balance sheets (denominated in US Dollars and other "fantasy fiat" currencies, as well as derivatives) are exposed as being worthless.
Actually, only the motives are the same, while the means would be quite different - ie, certain governments or banks might want to suppress the Bitcoin price - but they wouldn't be able to use "naked short selling" to do it.
As we know, this is because with Bitcoin, people can now simply demand "cryptographic proof" of how many bitcoins are really out there - instead of just "trusting" some auditor claiming there is so much gold and silver in a vault - or "trusting" that a gold bar isn't actually filled with worthless tungsten (which happens to have about the same "molecular weight" as gold, so these kinds of counterfeit gold bars have been a serious problem).
(And, by the way: hopefully it should also be impossible to do "fractional reserve" using "level 2" sidechains such as the Lightning Network - although that still remains to be seen. =)
So, even though it should not be possible to flood the market with "phantom" Bitcoins (since people can always demand "cryptographic proof of reserves"), AXA could instead use a totally different tactic to suppress the price: by suppressing Bitcoin trading volume - explained further below.
Does AXA does actually have the motives to be suppressing the Bitcoin price - right now?
Yes, they do!
As described above, the only thing which gives giant banking and finance companies like JPMorgan and AXA the appearance of solvency is massive accounting fraud and market manipulation.
They use the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" (ie, debt-backed "currency", endlessly printed out of thin air) - and the never-ending carrousel of the worldwide derivatives casino, currently worth around 1.2 quadrillion dollars - to "paper over" their losses, and to prevent anyone from discovering that most major insurance firms like AXA - and most major banks - would already be considered bankrupt, if you counted only their real assets. (This is known as "mark-to-market" - which they hate to do. They much prefer to do "mark-to-model" which some people call "mark-to-fantasy" - ie, fraudulent accounting based on "phantom" assets" and rampant market manipulation.)
So, it is public knowledge that nearly all "too-big-to-fail" financial companies like AXA (and JPMorgan) would be considered bankrupt if their fraudulent accounting practices were exposed - which rely on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" and the "never-ending carrousel of the derivatives casino" to maintain the façade of solvency:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
Does AXA actually have the means to to be suppressing the Bitcoin price... right now?
Yes, they do!
For example, AXA could decide to support economically ignorant devs like Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream), and the other Core devs who support Blockstream's "roadmap" based on tiny blocks.
Wait - isn't AXA already doing precisely that?
Yes, they are!
As we all know, AXA has invested tens of millions of dollars in Blockstream, and Blockstream is indeed fighting tooth and nail against bigger blocks for Bitcoin.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
So, how would artificially tiny blocks artificially suppress the Bitcoin price?
This is pretty much based on common sense - plus it's also been formalized and roughly quantified in concepts involving networking and economics, such as "Metcalfe's Law".
Metcalfe's Law says pretty much what you'd expect it to say - ie: the more people that use a system, the more valuable that system is.
More precisely: the value of a system is proportional to the square of the number of users in that system - which also makes sense, since when there are N users in a system, the number of connections between them is N*(N - 1)2 which is "on the order of" N squared.
In fact, Metcalfe's Law has been shown to hold for various types of networks and markets - including faxes, internet, national currencies, etc.
Does Metcalfe's Law apply to Bitcoin?
Yes, it does!
The past 7 years of data also indicates - as predicted - that Metcalfe's Law also does indeed apply to Bitcoin as well.
Graphs show that during the 5 years before Blockstream got involved with trying to artificially suppress the Bitcoin price via their policy of artificially tiny blocks, Bitcoin prices were roughly in proportion to the square of the (actual) Bitcoin blocksizes.
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
During all those years, actual blocksizes were still low enough to not bump into the artificial "ceiling" of the artificial 1 MB "max blocksize" limit - which, remember, was only there as a temporary anti-spam measure, so it was deliberately set to be much higher than any actual blocksize, and everyone knew that this limit would be removed well before actual blocksizes started getting close to that 1 MB "max blocksize" limit.
But now that Bitcoin volume can't go up due to hitting the artificial "max blocksize" 1 MB limit (unless perhaps some people do bigger-value transactions), Bitcoin price also can't go up either:
Bitcoin's market price is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
So what does this all have to do with that meeting in Silicon Valley this weekend, between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners?
This latest episode in the never-ending saga of the "Bitcoin blocksize debates" is yet another centralized, non-transparent, invite-only stalling non-scaling, no-industry-invited, no-solutions-allowed, "friendly" meeting being held this weekend - at the very last moment when Blockstream/Core failed to comply with the expiration date for their previous stalling non-scaling non-agreement:
The Fed/FOMC holds meetings to decide on money supply. Core/Blockstream & Chinese miners now hold meetings to decide on money velocity. Both are centralized decision-making. Both are the wrong approach.
So, on the expiration date of the HK stalling / non-scaling non-agreement, Viacoin scammer u/btcdrak calls a meeting with no customer-facing businesses invited (just Chinese miners & Core/Blockstream), and no solutions/agreements allowed, and no transparency (just a transcript from u/kanzure). WTF!?
This disastrous, desperate meeting is the latest example of how Bitcoin's so-called "governance" is being hijacked by some anonymous scammer named u/btcdrak who created a shitcoin called Viacoin and who's a subcontractor for Blockstream - calling yet another last-minute stalling / non-scaling meeting on the expiration date of Core/Blockstream's previous last-minute stalling / non-scaling non-agreement - and this non-scaling meeting is invite-only for Chinese miners and Core/Blockstream (with no actual Bitcoin businesses invited) - and economic idiot u/maaku7 who also brought us yet another shitcoin called Freicoin is now telling us that no actual solutions will be provided because no actual agreements will be allowed - and this invite-only no-industry no-solutions / no-agreements non-event will be manually transcribed by some guy named u/kanzure who hates u/Peter__R (note: u/Peter__R gave us actual solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited and massive on-chain scaling via XThin) - and as usual this invite-only non-scaling no-solutions / no-agreements no-industry invite-only non-event is being paid for by some fantasy fiat finance firm AXA whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group which will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds.**
What is the purpose of this meeting?
The "organizers" and other people involved - u/btcdrak and u/maaku7 - say that this is just a "friendly" meeting - and it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting.
What good is a meeting if no agreements or solutions can some out of it?
Good question!
A meeting where solutions are explicitly prohibited is actually perfect for Blockstream's goals - because currently the status quo "max blocksize" is 1 MB, and they want to keep it that way.
So, they want to leverage the "inertia" to maintain the status quo - while pretending to do something, and getting friendly with the miners (and possibly making them other "offers" or "inducements").
So this meeting is just another stalling tactic, like all the previous ones.
Only now, after the community has seen this over and over, Blockstream has finally had to publicly admit that it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting - which makes it very obvious to everyone that this whole meeting is just an empty gesture.
So, why is this never-ending shit-show still going on?
Mainly due to inertia on the part of many users, and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream devs.
Currently there is a vocal group of 57 devs and wannabe devs who are associated with Core/Blockstream - who refuse to remove the obsolete, temporary anti-spam measure (or "kludge") which historically restricted Bitcoin throughput to a 1 MB "max blocksize".
Somehow (via a combination of media manipulation, domain squatting, censorship, staged international Bitcoin stalling "scaling" meetings and congresses, fraudulent non-agreements, and other dishonest pressure tactics) they've managed to convince everyone that they can somehow dictate to everyone else how Bitcoin governance should be done.
vampireban wants you to believe that "a lot of people voted" and "there is consensus" for Core's "roadmap". But he really means only 57 people voted. And most of them aren't devs and/or don't understand markets. Satoshi designed Bitcoin for the economic majority to vote - not just 57 people.
Meanwhile, pretty much everyone else in Bitcoin - ie, everyone who's not involved with Blockstream - knows that Bitcoin can and should have bigger blocks by now, to enable increased adoption, volume, and price, as shown by the following points:
(1) Most miners, and investors, and Satoshi himself, all expected Bitcoin to have much bigger blocks by now - but these facts are censored on most of the media controlled by Core/Blockstream-associated devs and their friends:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
(2) Research has repeatedly shown that 4 MB blocks would work fine with people's existing hardware and bandwidth - such as the Cornell study, plus empirical studies in the field done by jtoomim:
(3) Even leading Bitcoin figures such as Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos have publicly stated that 2 MB blocks would work fine (in their rare moments of honesty, before they somehow became corrupted):
theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system"
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
So... What can we do now to stop giant financial institutions like AXA from artificially suppressing Bitcoin adoption, volume and price?
It's not as hard as it might seem - but it might (initially) be a slow process!
First of all, more and more people can simply avoid using crippled code with an artificially tiny "max blocksize" limit of 1 MB produced by teams of dishonest developers like Core/Blockstream who are getting paid off by AXA.
Other, more powerful Bitcoin code is available - such as Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic:
In addition, proposals for massive on-chain scaling have also been proposed, implemented, and tested - such as Xthin:
Hasn't the market already rejected other solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic?
Actually, no!
If you only read r\bitcoin, you might not hear about lots of these promising new innovations - or you might hear people proclaiming that they're "dead".
But that forum r\bitcoin is not reliable, because it routinely censors any discussion of on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, eg:
The most upvoted thread right now on r\bitcoin (part 4 of 5 on Xthin), is default-sorted to show the most downvoted comments first. This shows that r\bitcoin is anti-democratic, anti-Reddit - and anti-Bitcoin.
So, due to the combination of inertia (people tend to be lazy and cautious about upgrading their software, until they absolutely have to) and censorship, some people claim or believe that solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic have "already" been rejected by the community.
But actually, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited are already running seamlessly on the Bitcoin network - and once they reach a certain predefined safe "activation threshold", the network will simply switch over to use them, upgrading from the artificially restrictive Bitcoin Core code:
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
So what is the actual point of this weekend's meeting between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese Miners?
It's mainly just for show, and ultimately a meaningless distraction - the result of desperation and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream.
As mentioned above, real upgrades to Bitcoin like Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have already been implemented and tested and are already running on the Bitcoin network - and the overall Bitcoin itself can and probably will switch over to them, regardless of any meaningless "meetings" and delaying tactics.
Is it inevitable for Bitcoin to move to bigger blocks?
Yes, for three reasons:
(1) As mentioned above, studies show that the underlying hardware and bandwidth will already easily support actual blocksizes of 2 MB, and probably 4 MB - and everyone actually agrees on this point, including die-hard supporters of tiny blocks such as Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell u/nullc, and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos.
(2) The essential thing about a publicly held company is that it always seeks to maximize shareholder value - and, in a similar fashion, a publicly held cryptocurrency also always seeks to maximize "coinholder" value.
(3) Even if Core/Blockstream continues to refuse to budge, the cat is already out of the bag - they can't put the toothpaste of open-source code back into the tube. Some people might sell their bitcoins for other cryptocurrencies which have better scaling - but a better solution would probably be to wait for a "spinoff" to happen. A "spinoff" is a special kind of "hard fork" where the existing ledger is preserved, so your coins remain spendable on both forks, and you can trade your coins on markets, depending on which fork you prefer.
Further information on "spinoff technology" can be found here:
An excellent discussion of the economic advantages of using a "spinoff" to keep the original ledger (and merely upgrade the ledger-appending software), can be found here:
And today, based on new information learned from Ethereum's recent successful "hardfork split", people are already starting to talk about the specific details involved in implementing a "spinoff" or "hardfork split" for Bitcoin to support bigger blocks - eg, changing the PoW, getting exchanges to support trading on both sides of the fork, upgrading wallets, preventing replay attacks, etc:
We now know the miners aren't going to do anything. We now know that a minority fork can survive. Why are we not forking right now?
So - whether it's via a hardfork upgrade, or a hardfork split or "spinoff" - it is probably inevitable that Bitcoin will eventually move to bigger blocks (within the underlying hardware and bandwidth constraints of course - which would currently support 2-4 MB blocksizes).
Why are bigger blocks inevitable for Bitcoin?
Because that's how markets always have and always will behave - and there's nothing that Blockstream/Core or AXA can do to stop this - no matter how many pointless stalling scaling meetings they conduct, and no matter how many non-agreements they sign and then break.
Endless centralized meetings and dishonest agreements are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is decentralized markets and open-source code. Users and markets decide on what code to install, and what size blocks to accept. Bitcoin adoption, volume - and price - will continue to grow, with or without the cooperation of the dishonest devs from Core/Blockstream, or misguided miners - or banksters at "fantasy fiat" financial firms like JPMorgan or AXA.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BITCOIN Has NEVER Done THIS BEFORE!! NEW All Time High STILL Possible for 2019!? The Chinese Ponzi Scheme Responsible For Bitcoin's ... Did CEO Of Quadriga Fake His Own Death For $180 Million? Bitcoin This week: CFTC Subpoenas Major Crypto Exchanges, Coinrail Hacked, Bitcoin Prices And More Quadriga: What Happened to Gerald Cotten with Nathaniel Rich

The blog received 4,500 reactions and 22 comments on Medium. It was also published on Medium’s blog channel The Startup, which has over 380,000 subscribers. Arthur Hayes, the former Deutsche Bank and Citi trader who is the CEO and co-founder of BitMEX, spoke to Yahoo Finance UK at a recent event in London to address the allegations. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted his disapproval of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong steering his company away from corporate activism.. Armstrong wrote in an open letter published Sunday that Coinbase had “an apolitical culture,” and that the exchange would not engage in “broader societal issues” or entertain employee discussions about it.; After the letter, Armstrong circulated a company ... The local Bitcoin price fell by a fifth after the justice minister's comments. January 26 th Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck says that around 523 million of the exchange's NEM coins were sent to another account around 3 a.m. local time. The stolen coins were worth about 58 billion yen at the time of detection, or roughly $534.8 ... Coinfloor, the U.K.’s longest-running cryptocurrency exchange, plans to delist ethereum and bitcoin cash next month to focus solely on bitcoin. Most bitcoin enthusiasts will have read the recent comments made by TransferWise CEO Taavet Hinrikus. According to him, Bitcoin is “dead, and the experiment is over”. Quite a strange statement, considering Bitcoin has been trucking along despite all of the adversity faced so far. Is this another case of lack – or willingness – to understand what Bitcoin is all about? Also read ...

[index] [34467] [50089] [29380] [31180] [40096] [18916] [26168] [7499] [45240] [7761]

BITCOIN Has NEVER Done THIS BEFORE!! NEW All Time High STILL Possible for 2019!?

Close. This video is unavailable. His comments followed those of Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter and Square, on the future of Bitcoin. Although Wozniak was not sure that this would ever become a reality, he seemed truly hopeful during ... It was an honor to have a genuine talk with Peter Schiff, CEO and founder of Schiff Gold. Feel free to leave a comment down below with your opinions of our talk. Thank you all so much for watching ... In December 2018 Gerald Cotten, the CEO of Canadian crypto exchange Quadriga, was on his honeymoon in India with his new wife. While there Gerald fell sick and a few days later died from ... Death of CEO sends bitcoin exchange into chaos - Duration: 2:50. CBC News 134,890 views. 2:50 . Why You're Not Getting Paid The Streaming Money You Earned (And How To Get It) SF MusicTech 2014 ...