Remember Bitcoin?
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Stealing an unregulated chicken is still theft, trading a chicken for drugs is still drug trafficking, telling someone you'll house their chickens, then craigslisting them, is still a breach of contract (dependent on where you both live, I suppose).
Stealing an unregulated chicken is theft, but failing to keep records on your unregulated chickens is not a crime; and if one day the coop is empty, it's your word against theirs about how many chickens were there.Sure, but in the case of chickens that hold a record of all the transactions they've been through, that should be trivial to prove. I'm not really arguing either side here, my point is just that people need to realize that "unregulated currency" is about as meaningful as "all-natural".
-
@fire2k said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?
Once again, they didn't. They died from malnourishment, environmental pollution, child labour, work exploitation, slavekeeping, polio, polio again, rat feces, heroin (sold as medicine, remember?) and a million other things now thankfully prevented by state laws.
Just like in the anarchist's paradise, North Korea. Just because you can't be bothered to blow your nose without a law doesn't mean the rest of the world can't figure it out.
-
@boomzilla said:
So...there are no laws about private property? Unauthorized computer access? The original stupid statement about this subtrhead was about suing, which isn't criminal law and at least in the US, isn't as dependent on statutes as criminal law. There's also the straw man about what people think a crypto currency not backed by a nation state means. What if we were talking about Canadian Tire Money? What if we were talking about cases of soda or cartons of cigarettes or bottles of detergent? Hey, you can't prosecute them or sue them for stealing that stuff because it's not regulated as currency! Haha! Suck on that, SEC!
Sure, but that's not the sort of activity that the Mt.Gox and other exchanges are being accused of. Nobody is claiming that Mt.Gox installed a trojan that steals everyone's private key. (Although that would be difficult to prove and tricky to prosecute as well) What is more likely going on is that they maintained an unsecure currency exchange that allows other people to steal private keys with impunity. And THAT is sort of thing that is only stopped in normal financial instutions due to regulator action.
For example, let's say you walk into your bank tomorrow and the teller tells you "I'm sorry, your money's gone. Sucks to be you." Obviously, your first instinct would be to sue to get the money back. But, unless the bank actually stole the money from you and has it sitting in a vault somewhere, your case for damages would have to rely on the bank's violation of its fiduciary duties. Duties that are delineated through regulation. And are so delineated precisely because a couple hundred years ago, it was a regular occurrence for people to walk into a bank and have that exact scenario happen.
And yes, civil suits are not as dependent on statutes as criminal law. But they are still dependent on *something*, which in this case would be a judge ruling in equity. Just how likely do you think a judge is to rule in the favor of someone who deliberately chose to use an unregulated currency when the lack of regulations comes around to bite him in the ass?
-
@fire2k said:
Secondly spoons are what you'd call actual property. It physically exists. If somebody breaks into your American house and steals your spoon collection that would be something that has misc. precendents in history. Now if you shipped all you spoons to Japan in order to let leverage brokers keep them for them in order to trade them on an international spoon market, regulation would be way harder, since you would have to deal with the japanese government (also your metaphor is getting both stupid and kind of racist now).
Well, analogies only go so far, but at least you've sussed out that this stuff isn't outside of the Law of Man just because some yahoo on the tubes says it's "unregulaged."
-
@Snooder said:
But, unless the bank actually stole the money from you and has it sitting in a vault somewhere, your case for damages would have to rely on the bank's violation of its fiduciary duties. Duties that are delineated through regulation. And are so delineated precisely because a couple hundred years ago, it was a regular occurrence for people to walk into a bank and have that exact scenario happen.
Yes, banks are regulated up the wazoo, and fiduciary duty is very explicit there, but that doesn't mean that fiduciary duty can't exist in other contexts and that there isn't some legitimate reason to assign some to Mt.Gox.
-
@boomzilla said:
@fire2k said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?
Once again, they didn't. They died from malnourishment, environmental pollution, child labour, work exploitation, slavekeeping, polio, polio again, rat feces, heroin (sold as medicine, remember?) and a million other things now thankfully prevented by state laws.
Just like in the anarchist's paradise, North Korea. Just because you can't be bothered to blow your nose without a law doesn't mean the rest of the world can't figure it out.
Is that supposed to be a subtle way of shouting "communist!"? How very American.
I ask again, how is that chemical spill treating you?
@boomzilla said:
@fire2k said:
Secondly spoons are what you'd call actual property. It
physically exists. If somebody breaks into your American house and
steals your spoon collection that would be something that has misc.
precendents in history. Now if you shipped all you spoons to Japan in
order to let leverage brokers keep them for them in order to trade them
on an international spoon market, regulation would be way harder, since
you would have to deal with the japanese government (also your metaphor
is getting both stupid and kind of racist now).Well, analogies only go so far, but at least you've sussed out that this
stuff isn't outside of the Law of Man just because some yahoo on the
tubes says it's "unregulaged."It might as well be. If Japan (or America) decides that unlicensed currencies are actually illegal for example (and there has been much speculation by experts that would point to it - you can't just up and mint your own coin-based economy, so why would digital be any different?) you get to eat shit.
And even if you are technically right - if Mt. Gox was killed by external thieves instead of internal corruption then there will be no insolvency mass, and you get zip nilch.This whole process will be an insane she-bang of law enforcement fuck-ups, injunctions, endless revisions that hopefully will make people think twice about investing money into the gold rush.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But you didn't answer the question I asked. The question you answered is "how did people survive without the state?". 100 years ago we didn't have the alphabet soup of government agencies that we have now, protecting us from ourselves wasn't seen as an issue, and protecting us from each other was left to state and local laws. So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?
I DID answer that question. I said "They didn't".Before the FDA came about, people DIED of botulism because canners were too lazy to check their products. Babies got fed sawdust in their baby formula. Before the SEC, people lost their savings and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.
I get your point about leaving regulation up to state and local laws. And that worked, mostly back in the 19th century. The problem is that we are no longer in the 19th century. With the 20th century came the advent of cars, and a vastly increased interstate traffic. States, by definition, don't have jurisdiction over what happens in other states. And a lot of the federal agencies and laws were created to fix that problem. For example, the SEC was created primarily because banks in one state, say North Carolina, could incorporate in one with looser laws, say Delaware, and then commit fraud against customers in a third state, say California. Or, what happens if we have a company selling meat in Chicago that ships tainted meat to a grocery in New Jersey? New Jersey can't arrest the guy in Chicago, and Illinois can't arrest him because he didn't commit a crime in Illinois.
This sort of thing wasn't a problem in the 19th century because the chances of it happening where pretty small. But in the 20th century and today, pretty much every single person deals with that sort of thing on a daily basis. Hell, we're corresponding right now across state lines.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
But, unless the bank actually stole the money from you and has it sitting in a vault somewhere, your case for damages would have to rely on the bank's violation of its fiduciary duties. Duties that are delineated through regulation. And are so delineated precisely because a couple hundred years ago, it was a regular occurrence for people to walk into a bank and have that exact scenario happen.
Yes, banks are regulated up the wazoo, and fiduciary duty is very explicit there, but that doesn't mean that fiduciary duty can't exist in other contexts and that there isn't some legitimate reason to assign some to Mt.Gox.
Fiduciary duty, by its definition, has to rely on some legal basis. For this sort of thing, having regulations as the legal basis is better because they are explicit and easy to argue. When you have to start stretching to use some existing fidicuary obligation from another context to fit one that it wasn't originally intended to cover, you run the risk of losing the case to a better argument from a more eloquent lawyer even if the facts themselves are the same.
See, anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason. When people say "you can't sue" they don't mean "you don't have a cause of action" what they mean is "your cause of action is unlikely to win." And when we have people participating in an unregulated currency trading scheme, with the deliberate intention and desire to circumvent existing regulation, that cause of action is unlikely to win.
-
@fire2k said:
@boomzilla said:
Just like in the anarchist's paradise, North Korea. Just because you can't be bothered to blow your nose without a law doesn't mean the rest of the world can't figure it out.
Is that supposed to be a subtle way of shouting "communist!"? How very American.
Is that your way of shouting, "fuck America!"? Being subtle with communists is always a mistake.
@fire2k said:
I ask again, how is that chemical spill treating you?
I just wiped up the salt with a wet sponge, so it's all taken care of.
@fire2k said:
It might as well be. If Japan (or America) decides that unlicensed currencies are actually illegal for example (and there has been much speculation by experts that would point to it - you can't just up and mint your own coin-based economy, so why would digital be any different?) you get to eat shit.
Yeah, that could certainly happen. But it's not really relevant to the issue being debated. It might be interesting to talk about though, as I know at least China has said that bitcoin is illegal. There may be others, but I haven't been paying attention.
@fire2k said:
And even if you are technically right - if Mt. Gox was killed by external thieves instead of internal corruption then there will be no insolvency mass, and you get zip nilch.
There's always negligence. I don't know enough about Mt.Gox to say if there was, but that's certainly a legitimate reason for suing (see my comments about fiduciary duty upthread). And the existence of there being anything left worth suing over is also not the point here.
-
@Snooder said:
Before the SEC,
people lost their savingsthe government regulated the shit out of international trade and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.FTFY. Obviously, there were many causes, but I'd definitely rate international trade war above stock market crash. And Hoover's (mainly the trade war stuff) and FDR's nonsense sure prolonged it all.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Before the SEC,
people lost their savingsthe government regulated the shit out of international trade and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.FTFY. Obviously, there were many causes, but I'd definitely rate international trade war above stock market crash. And Hoover's (mainly the trade war stuff) and FDR's nonsense sure prolonged it all.
Yeah, no. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the stock market crash of '29. Unregulated securities trading did.
-
@Snooder said:
See, anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason. When people say "you can't sue" they don't mean "you don't have a cause of action" what they mean is "your cause of action is unlikely to win." And when we have people participating in an unregulated currency trading scheme, with the deliberate intention and desire to circumvent existing regulation, that cause of action is unlikely to win.
Whatever. They're actually being sued for fraud right now, which to my non-legal mind overlaps with their fiduciary duty based on whatever agreements transpired between Mt.Gox and their customers. And in the actual filings:
Common questions for the Classes include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following...whether Mr. Gox’s conduct constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty...
...59. Mt. Gox’s deceptive, unlawful, and unfair conduct occurred in the course of consumers contracting for the exchange of currency and therefore occurred in the course of conduct involving trade and commerce.
...Mt. Gox’s duty arose from the legal and industry standards discussed above and its financial relationship with Plaintiff’s and the Classes.
...FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)So...we'll see, I guess.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Before the SEC,
people lost their savingsthe government regulated the shit out of international trade and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.FTFY. Obviously, there were many causes, but I'd definitely rate international trade war above stock market crash. And Hoover's (mainly the trade war stuff) and FDR's nonsense sure prolonged it all.
Yeah, no. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the stock market crash of '29. Unregulated securities trading did.No shit. That's not even a plausible straw man. Go back and re-read the post.
-
@Snooder said:
So you grudgingly admit that there really was life before the alphabet soup agencies were established, but that bad things occasionally happened to people. And now that we have the SEC, FDA, and other agencies, nothing bad ever happens to anyone. Do I have that right?I DID answer that question. I said "They didn't".
Before the FDA came about, people DIED of botulism because canners were too lazy to check their products. Babies got fed sawdust in their baby formula. Before the SEC, people lost their savings and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@Snooder said:
So you grudgingly admit that there really was life beforeI DID answer that question. I said "They didn't".
Before the FDA came about, people DIED of botulism because canners were too lazy to check their products. Babies got fed sawdust in their baby formula. Before the SEC, people lost their savings and the entire country was plunged into the Great Depression.
the alphabet soup agenciespolice departments were established, but that bad things occasionally happened to people. And now that we havethe SEC, FDA, and other agenciesa working police system, nothing bad ever happens to anyone. Do I have that right?
Do you see how dumb that statement is? Why would you even say that? It doesn't prove anything, doesn't advance your point. It's a shoddy rhetorical tool that's easily seen through by anyone not blinded by bias. When you're done smugly slapping yourself on the back and congratulating yourself, please re-read what I wrote and come back to the discourse with something real to say.
-
I have nothing real to say to someone who claims to lean libertarian but apparently never met a regulation he didn't like.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I have nothing real to say to someone who claims to lean libertarian but apparently never met a regulation he didn't like.
There's a difference between being a libertarian and being delusional.Yes, I think that less regulation in financial markets is a good thing (relative to say the levels of the 70s. right now is a pretty good sweet spot). But I'm not dumb enough or delusional enough to imagine that it comes without costs or risks. And I'm certainly not blatantly hypocritical enough to complain when those costs hit me as a result of my choice to support less regulation.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, without any irony or hyperbole, that all federal "alphabet soup" agencies are bad, worthless and have no redeeming purpose whatsoever. And yet, I'll bet that if your daughter got stomach poisoning from improperly canned spam, you'd the first person demanding that the company "pay" in some nebulous and similarly ill-judged fashion. People like you give libertarians a bad name and tarr us all as unrealistic idiots with no conception of real world practicality.
-
@Snooder said:
Yes, I think that less regulation in financial markets is a good thing (relative to say the levels of the 70s. right now is a pretty good sweet spot). But I'm not dumb enough or delusional enough to imagine that it comes without costs or risks. And I'm certainly not blatantly hypocritical enough to complain when those costs hit me as a result of my choice to support less regulation.
This is because you aren't paying attention. Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank come to mind.
@Snooder said:
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, without any irony or hyperbole, that all federal "alphabet soup" agencies are bad, worthless and have no redeeming purpose whatsoever. And yet, I'll bet that if your daughter got stomach poisoning from improperly canned spam, you'd the first person demanding that the company "pay" in some nebulous and similarly ill-judged fashion. People like you give libertarians a bad name and tarr us all as unrealistic idiots with no conception of real world practicality.
Why do we need an alphabet soup of agencies to make them pay for that stuff? People who call themselves libertarians and then can't imagine anything but government solutions are deluding themselves or trying to delude the rest of us.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@flabdablet said:
The libertarian program relies heavily on the idea that people, if left to their own devices and freed from the nanny state, would just work things out between themselves. Which kind of ignores the to-me obvious fact that the "nanny" state is exactly and precisely the outcome of millions of people collectively having done and continuing to do that very thing.
So how did people survive before the nanny state was invented?Poorly, in caves and small tribes-- that is, before there were "millions of people" living together in cities and states. The nanny state goes back a little bit further than I think you think.
Bonus: the code is inscribed on a huge black dildo. Oh, that Hammurabi! Such playful shenanigans!
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink?
With radium and lead everywhere because people thought it was healthy and it sold really well.
There appears to be correlation between increased government regulation and a population's health and happiness, but then again inmates in a prison, by definition quite regulated, are also pretty healthy even if extraordinarily unhappy, so that's not a correlation I wish to take to its logical extreme, hypothetically or in reality. Might as well put us all into tubes, fed intravenously, and living imaginary lives in a VR.
I think that's a movie...?
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So you grudgingly admit that there really was life before the alphabet soup agencies were established, but that bad things occasionally happened to people. And now that we have the SEC, FDA, and other agencies, nothing bad ever happens to anyone. Do I have that right?
No. Do you accept that there are things between "life" and "death"? I mean obviously I am here so there's an unbroken line of once-living ancestors there, like duh. But there's this thing called "less" and "more", i.e. "less death" and "more quality of life".
So no, you don't have it right, and I'm mystified by why you would deny the positive influences that regulation can have. Or as you might call it: "restricting freedom", but I don't really mind that one does not have the freedom to put sawdust in baby food and bread (as shitty roman bakers did, which was fixed by, oh, regulation). Sorry man.
@Snooder said:
you run the risk of losing the case to a better argument from a more eloquent lawyer even if the facts themselves are the same.
That happens anyway, though, so nothing special about stretching the law.
@boomzilla said:
I know at least China has said that bitcoin is illegal
I think China is quick to make anything illegal that even hints at challenging the Authority Of The Government. Which is stupid. And that'll be my libertarian statement of the day. Excuse me, I have to go hug a tree, and glare at someone with a tie and suit.
@boomzilla said:
There's always negligence.
Oh, you're going for the "a private service was promised and not delivered" angle? That might work, but IANAL (except in the privacy of my own home).
-
@Snooder said:
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, without any irony or hyperbole, that all federal "alphabet soup" agencies are bad, worthless and have no redeeming purpose whatsoever.
This is actually a sign of progress. Now that you've acknowledged the possibility that you're reading additional things into what I wrote, let's address the assumption of yours that I am a libertarian. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not in favor of limited liability for corporations (they should have the same as partnerships) and that I don't think they should be treated as persons legally. Does that sound libertarian to you?
-
@dhromed said:
IANAL (except in the privacy of my own home).
Most people only anal in the privacy of their own home.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Does that sound libertarian to you?
It sounds "I am not a pidgeon, but a person with a variety of ideas" to me.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
It may surprise you to learn that I'm not in favor of limited liability for corporations (they should have the same as partnerships) and that I don't think they should be treated as persons legally. Does that sound libertarian to you?
I suspect there are both pro and con arguments for this that are consistent with libertarian philosophy. I don't have enough data yet for a prime computation.
-
@boomzilla said:
I suspect there are both pro and con arguments for this that are consistent with libertarian philosophy. I don't have enough data yet for a prime computation.
I do have enough data in my brain memory to put forth the hypothesis that you make too many of these almost I guess maybe vague statements.
I'll never have the energy to trudge through the archives, though.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
I suspect there are both pro and con arguments for this that are consistent with libertarian philosophy. I don't have enough data yet for a prime computation.
I do have enough data in my brain memory to put forth the hypothesis that you make too many of these almost I guess maybe vague statements.
I'll never have the energy to trudge through the archives, though.
It's possibly true, but then answers in life tend to be pretty vague. And people are very fond of projecting their own preferences onto something bigger (like a political philosophy) than themselves.
I'll share with you (because that's the kind of guy I am) my least favorite topic where people try to apply libertarianism to an issue and fail: abortion. The logic usually goes something like, "As a libertarian, you must be against the government telling women that they cannot do this procedure to their bodies." And that's not wrong, but it makes assumptions. Libertarians are generally for things like laws against murder, and so if a person believes that a fetus is a human life, it would be consistent for him to be against another person using force to kill the unborn human. So, a libertarian can be either for or against legal abortion and still be consistent with libertarianism.
PC's statement about legal treatment of corporations is a bit technical, not very simple and even a bit vague. For instance, when he says they shouldn't be treated as people, does that mean that the government should be able to censor them? That would mean that individuals would not be able to express certain rights when they freely associate together as a corporation. That's troublesome, and probably not very libertarian. OTOH, I'm sure we could come up with some things that are more outrageous grants of whatever from governments to corporations that flow from "being treated as people."
So, yeah, I'm going to stick by my insufficient data statement.
-
@boomzilla said:
Why do we need an alphabet soup of agencies to make them pay for that stuff? People who call themselves libertarians and then can't imagine anything but government solutions are deluding themselves or trying to delude the rest of us.
If you have a better way of fixing the problem of interstate transportation of perishable goods that doesn't involve the federal government, I'll be happy to hear it. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that the government is the only way to fix the problem. Or even the best way. What I am saying is it IS a workable solution that currently exists, and unless you have a specific and useful alternative in mind, simply saying "government is evil, federal agencies are bad" without acknowledging either the problem or the need for a solution is misguided at best, and actively detrimental at worst. And nobody has espoused any concrete replacement for government action yet, other than some mystical appeal to the "Law of Man."
-
@fire2k said:
And nonpasteurised milk. Say hello to brucellosis.@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?Once again, they didn't. They died from malnourishment, environmental pollution, child labour, work exploitation, slavekeeping, polio, polio again, rat feces, heroin (sold as medicine, remember?) and a million other things now thankfully prevented by state laws.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
There is no spoon.I was going to say that in the minds of devout Church of Government members, "unregulated" means that laws against fraud and the like don't apply either, but El_Heffe seems to have made my point for me
@El_Heffe said:Is it really so hard to understand that "illegal to steal" is completely meaningless without enforcement. And meaningful enforcement is impossible without extensive, complex regulation that covers every possible situation.
It's as if we don't already have tons of laws about property or unauthorized access / use of computer systems, etc. We couldn't possibly get by with just the mountains of laws and regulations that already apply to the actions without micromanaging every aspect of a thing. ZOMG, what if the perpetrator hates bitcoin. We'll need a hatecrime statute, too.
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
-
@boomzilla said:
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, or maybe you're just too stupid to understand the concept of hypocrisy. The issue is not too many or too few rregulations, or anything such thing. I just think the hypocrisy of the bitcoin retards is amusing and a good indication of what morons they are..When you say that you want something that is completely unregulated and completely free from any interference by the evil government, that's fine. You pay your money, you take your chances. But when you go running to the government (i.e., the courts) because things didn't turn out the way you want, that's hypocrisy. Much like the CEO of Exxon who has been extremely critical of people opposed to fracking because of the environmental problems it causes, but who is now suing to stop fracking near his home.
-
@AndyCanfield said:
"Flexcoin solves nearly every problem that exists with the Bitcoin currency today."
Every problem except having all your money stolen.Where you keep your money determines who can steal from you. Keep it in a bank, and the bank, and the government, can steal from you. Keep it in a pile of dirty laundry, and the washer woman can steal from you. Keep it in your pocket, and a beggar can steal from you.
Keep it on the Internet, and hackers all over the world can steal from you.
This is known as globalization.
-
@El_Heffe said:
Much like the CEO of Exxon who has been extremely critical of people opposed to fracking because of the environmental problems it causes, but who is now suing to stop fracking near his home.
Sounds like someone needs a chemical plant nearby. Maybe some fat rendering too.
-
@Snooder said:
If you have a better way of fixing the problem of interstate transportation of perishable goods that doesn't involve the federal government, I'll be happy to hear it.
Eh...use a truck? Seriously, you lost me with this jump.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@boomzilla said:
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, or maybe you're just too stupid to understand the concept of hypocrisy.No, although it's possible I took hyperbole the wrong way.
@El_Heffe said:
When you say that you want something that is completely unregulated and completely free from any interference by the evil government, that's fine. You pay your money, you take your chances. But when you go running to the government (i.e., the courts) because things didn't turn out the way you want, that's hypocrisy.
No, that's just an over general statement that ignores reality. Unless you think the bitcoin crazies were excited because bitcoins being unregulated meant that you could murder someone over them and there would be no legal repercussions.
@El_Heffe said:
Much like the CEO of Exxon who has been extremely critical of people opposed to fracking because of the environmental problems it causes, but who is now suing to stop fracking near his home.
I heard about this the other day, and it sounded ridiculous. So I read up, and apparently the issue is that there was some agreement or whatever that the companies were a party to that they're now violating. It had to do with using local water or disposing water locally. I don't remember, but the bottom line is that people who represent the issue like you just did are being careless and wrong, even though it is kind of humorous.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
If you have a better way of fixing the problem of interstate transportation of perishable goods that doesn't involve the federal government, I'll be happy to hear it.
Eh...use a truck? Seriously, you lost me with this jump.
Let's recap. You asked "Why do we need an alphabet soup of agencies to make them pay for that stuff?" This was in response to my specific example of the difficulty of prosecuting people for selling bad food to someone in a different state. The problem in this context is how to punish someone for selling food that has spoiled when his victim doesn't live in the same state.I apologize if the logical link doesn't seem clear to you. I keep making the mistake of assuming that just because you talk like you know about this subject, you actually know what you are talking about. See, the way the federal system works is that courts in one state do not have jurisdiction over citizens in another state. There is some reciprocity involved, but as a practical matter, it's just not possible to enforce judgements on people and property that aren't physically present where the state government can reach them. I'm simplifying the jurisdictional issues a bit, but in order to bring a true cross-state suit, you pretty much have to bring it in federal court. And in order to sue in federal court, you need a federal cause of action. In
state court, you can sue on a common law basis without need for a statutorily defined cause of action. In federal court, you need a specific federal statute to sue under. Otherwise, you risk having the federal government infringe upon the
states' right of jurisdiction over most common law causes of action. Which means a federal regulation, and a federal agency to oversee the enforcement of that regulation.With me so far? Now, with that understood, do you see why having goods moving from one state to another that are likely to harm people is a problem? As is the case with food that quickly goes bad and WILL cause serious illness when it does. And do you see why federal agencies exist to address that problem? And thus why it is hypocritical to criticize the existence of the agencies while still tacitly assuming protection that the agencies represent?
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
If you have a better way of fixing the problem of interstate transportation of perishable goods that doesn't involve the federal government, I'll be happy to hear it.
Eh...use a truck? Seriously, you lost me with this jump.
Let's recap. You asked "Why do we need an alphabet soup of agencies to make them pay for that stuff?" This was in response to my specific example of the difficulty of prosecuting people for selling bad food to someone in a different state. The problem in this context is how to punish someone for selling food that has spoiled when his victim doesn't live in the same state.I apologize if the logical link doesn't seem clear to you. I keep making the mistake of assuming that just because you talk like you know about this subject, you actually know what you are talking about.
Yes, I know what I'm talking about. The problem was your vague statement and unstated assumptions. I do that a lot, too, and then have to come back and fill in the blanks.
@Snooder said:
See, the way the federal system works is that courts in one state do not have jurisdiction over citizens in another state. There is some reciprocity involved, but as a practical matter, it's just not possible to enforce judgements on people and property that aren't physically present where the state government can reach them. I'm simplifying the jurisdictional issues a bit, but in order to bring a true cross-state suit, you pretty much have to bring it in federal court. And in order to sue in federal court, you need a federal cause of action. In
state court, you can sue on a common law basis without need for a statutorily defined cause of action. In federal court, you need a specific federal statute to sue under. Otherwise, you risk having the federal government infringe upon the
states' right of jurisdiction over most common law causes of action. Which means a federal regulation, and a federal agency to oversee the enforcement of that regulation.With me so far? Now, with that understood, do you see why having goods moving from one state to another that are likely to harm people is a problem? As is the case with food that quickly goes bad and WILL cause serious illness when it does. And do you see why federal agencies exist to address that problem? And thus why it is hypocritical to criticize the existence of the agencies while still tacitly assuming protection that the agencies represent?
I agree with most of this. It is obviously a proper role for the Feds to mediate disputes that cross states. And obviously the alphabet soup is the solution that's present. But that's the entirety of your argument for it. You can't imagine that there are possibilities beyond your experience, let alone imagination.
It's not hypocritical at all to say that there's probably a better way while benefiting from the current system. I don't even have a reasonable way to opt out of it. Hypocrisy is a charge that gets thrown around a lot, but mostly incorrectly, and especially the way you just did.
-
@boomzilla said:
I agree with most of this. It is obviously a proper role for the Feds to mediate disputes that cross states. And obviously the alphabet soup is the solution that's present.
Oh good, we're on the same page now.
@boomzilla said:It's not hypocritical at all to say that there's probably a better way while benefiting from the current system. I don't even have a reasonable way to opt out of it. Hypocrisy is a charge that gets thrown around a lot, but mostly incorrectly, and especially the way you just did.
That's not what I said was hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with saying that the agencies can be improved, or suggesting better methods for managing these issues. That's the kind of libertarian that I would characterise myself.What is wrong, and what I've been continually arguing against, is pretending that these issues don't exist. Or arguing very loudly that the mechanisms for managing these issues are compete shit, have no reason to exist and should be thrown out entirely (without supplying a workable alternative); then relying on those same mechanisms when shit hits the fan and the complainer needs help. The latter behavior is very much hypocritical, and is what I was responding to in this specific thread.
-
Newsweek tracked down Satoshi whatsisass. He collects model trains. And it was never a pseudonym in the first place, although Satoshi uses a different name day-to-day.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
It's not hypocritical at all to say that there's probably a better way while benefiting from the current system. I don't even have a reasonable way to opt out of it. Hypocrisy is a charge that gets thrown around a lot, but mostly incorrectly, and especially the way you just did.
That's not what I said was hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with saying that the agencies can be improved, or suggesting better methods for managing these issues. That's the kind of libertarian that I would characterise myself.
What is wrong, and what I've been continually arguing against, is pretending that these issues don't exist. Or arguing very loudly that the mechanisms for managing these issues are compete shit, have no reason to exist and should be thrown out entirely (without supplying a workable alternative); then relying on those same mechanisms when shit hits the fan and the complainer needs help. The latter behavior is very much hypocritical, and is what I was responding to in this specific thread.
No one said any of those problems don't need to be dealt with. You were responding to a straw man. But even your strawman is wrong about hypocrisy for exactly the reasons I mentioned.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Newsweek tracked down Satoshi whatsisass. He collects model trains. And it was never a pseudonym in the first place, although Satoshi uses a different name day-to-day.
...href="http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html"...
"/2014/03/14" As of right now, that date is about a week in the future...
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@blakeyrat said:
Newsweek tracked down Satoshi whatsisass. He collects model trains. And it was never a pseudonym in the first place, although Satoshi uses a different name day-to-day.
...href="http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html"...
"/2014/03/14" As of right now, that date is about a week in the future...
Have you ever looked at magazine dates before?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
"/2014/03/14" As of right now, that date is about a week in the future...
Newsweek is a print magazine.
... to expand on that, assuming you're a FUCKING IDIOT, print magazine articles dates aren't when they were written, but when they hit the newsstand.
-
You seem to miss the Trolling tags.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
You seem to miss the Trolling tags.
I figured you had just assumed that the print version of Newsweek had died like it should have.
-
PonziCoin!
I came across a link to this thread on a Bitcoin forum. A guy with the username of Vort set up a website call PonziCoin that is actually advertised as a Ponzi scheme -- you deposit bitcoins and they promise a payout of 120 - 200% using the standard Ponzi methodology -- paying off early investors with money from new investors. It might be an elaborate troll but it's a 69 page thread and I'm not going to read the whole thing. Skipping to the end, it appears that the guy running PonziCoin has disappeared and taken their bitcoins with him. And people are not happy about it.
But wait!! There are several other people advertising their own version of the same scheme on there! <font size="4">WTF!! </font>howzar Sr. Member
Online
Activity: 280
<br> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=77441"><img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/icons/profile_sm.gif" alt="View Profile" title="View Profile" border="0"></a><br> <br><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=ignore;u=77441;topic=474730;msg=5612067;sesc=81c482328fa45a497f9800caaa8ebab9">Ignore</a> </div> </td> <td style="padding: 2px;" class="td_headerandpost" height="100%" valign="top" width="85%"> <table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td valign="middle"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5612067#msg5612067"><img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif" alt="" border="0"></a></td> <td valign="middle"> <div style="font-weight: bold;" class="subject" id="subject_5612067"> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5612067#msg5612067">Re: ★ PonziCoin ★ 120% Profit ★ 200% for the last deposit in every round!</a> </div> <div class="smalltext">March 09, 2014, 10:23:56 PM</div></td> <td style="font-size: smaller; padding-top: 4px;" class="td_buttons" align="right" height="20" valign="middle"><div id="ignmsgbttns1260" style="visibility: visible;"> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5612067#msg5612067" class="message_number" style="vertical-align: middle;">#1260</a> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table> <hr class="hrcolor" style="margin-top: 4px;" size="1" width="100%"> <div class="post"><b><span style="font-size: 50pt !important; line-height: 1.3em;"> DICK MOVE VORT.</span></b> IF YOU ARE GOING TO RUN.</div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="smalltext" valign="bottom" width="85%"> <table style="table-layout: fixed;" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" class="smalltext" width="100%"> <br></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" height="172" width="1000"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" style="overflow: hidden;" class="poster_info" valign="top" width="16%"><b><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=182468" title="View the profile of RGBKey">RGBKey</a></b> <div class="smalltext"> Member<br> <img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif" alt="*" border="0"><img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif" alt="*" border="0"><br> <img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/useron.gif" alt="Online" style="margin-top: 2px;" border="0"><span class="smalltext"> Online</span><br><br> Activity: 112<br><br> <br> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=182468"><img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/icons/profile_sm.gif" alt="View Profile" title="View Profile" border="0"></a><br> <br><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=ignore;u=182468;topic=474730;msg=5623407;sesc=81c482328fa45a497f9800caaa8ebab9">Ignore</a> </div> </td> <td style="padding: 2px;" class="td_headerandpost" height="100%" valign="top" width="85%"> <table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td valign="middle"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5623407#msg5623407"><img src="https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif" alt="" border="0"></a></td> <td valign="middle"> <div style="font-weight: bold;" class="subject" id="subject_5623407"> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5623407#msg5623407">Re: ★ PonziCoin ★ 120% Profit ★ 200% for the last deposit in every round!</a> </div> <div class="smalltext"><b>Today</b> at 03:18:31 PM</div></td> <td style="font-size: smaller; padding-top: 4px;" class="td_buttons" align="right" height="20" valign="middle"><div id="ignmsgbttns1361" style="visibility: visible;"> <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.msg5623407#msg5623407" class="message_number" style="vertical-align: middle;">#1361</a> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table> <hr class="hrcolor" style="margin-top: 4px;" size="1" width="100%"> <div class="post"> This is comedy gold. You participate in aponzi scheme and then get butthurt about it when it turns out to be a
ponzi scheme.
-
Next up, the Hamburgler sets up the Hamburger Holding Corp. It's mission statement: "So the Hamburgler can collect all of your Hamburgers and burgle them." The operation is nothing more than a rented storage cube that the Hamburgler sits in, with a burgler sack. You arrive, and he instructs you to put your hamburgers in his burgler sack so he can burgle them. These are the literal words he speaks to you.
When he has enough hamburgers, he leaves and eats them.
Grimace could not be reached for comment.
-
Oh man, how much money did this guy make off with? I wish I didn't have these nasty "ethics" and "morals" holding me back all the damned time.
-
Why are you ignoring the fact this isn't a real ponzi. They simply don't tell EVERYONE out straight that its a ponzi and they also don't show a list of all transactions. .
... says victim of scheme that appears to walk and quack like a ponzi. Seriously, the lack of cognitive dissonance amongst those defending their putting money in, and losing it, on the last couple of pages (all I could be bothered reading) is staggering.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Oh man, how much money did this guy make off with?
It appears to be 10BTC (roughly $6,300 at the time of posting.)
-
@PJH said:
Oh dear:
Why are you ignoring the fact this isn't a real ponzi. They simply don't tell EVERYONE out straight that its a ponzi and they also don't show a list of all transactions. .
... says victim of scheme that appears to walk and quack like a ponzi. Seriously, the lack of cognitive dissonance amongst those defending their putting money in, and losing it, on the last couple of pages (all I could be bothered reading) is staggering.I think what he's saying is that it wasn't a "real" ponzi in that the guy is up front about what's going on. He's not saying that he's got a legitimate investment while actually running a ponzi. In the same comment you quoted, the poster characterizes this as gambling. My first impression was that this was basically gambling in the form of a game of chicken. It's possibly semantics, but he has a real point.
