Bitcoin Forum

I see there's a lot of fuss about Bruce and his sexual orientation and more or less speculation about what acts he has engaged in.

My take on the issue:

* The hard evidence seems to not exist.

If anyone has hard evidence, then report it to the proper authorities and they will deal with it.

As far as I know, he's not charged with anything and never convicted of anything related to these matters.


As far as I see it, he's innocent until proven guilty.

I don't see how anyone can benefit from naming and shaming someone without hard evidence ( I don't count forum posts as hard evidence ).

Hard evidence would be video footage or first hand evidence of him doing anything of the stuff that he's been accused for.

Bruce Wagner has done a lot for bitcoin, more than most of his critics. I'm not a fan of him myself, and he clearly has room for improvement
in his actions, behavior and presence.

But he's put himself in the spotlight, and now he's paying a price that I feel is not right for him to pay at this moment.

It was perhaps stupid of him to have forum posts tied to him with controversial sexual content, someone somewhere sometime will always make
these connections if they exist.

But can we not separate? Bruce has used a lot more energy, time and resources on helping the bitcoin community then most of you have
ever done.

It's a shame how a lot of you are sitting behind your keyboards and attacking this man. What good does it come out of these actions for you?
If you sit on information regarding criminal matters, then deliver it to the authorities and let them deal with it. This rumor mongering and
accusations have no place in this community.

This is turning into an ugly version of Hitech Gossip Girl.

If I was Bruce I would shut my mouth, stay away for a couple of weeks, try to learn from my mistakes, start listening more to others, try
to improve my presence and professionality and stop answering any baseless accusations at all.

He being a homosexual is something he can't do anything about. For him this is just as natural as for most of us being heterosexual.

I do think however he should tone down his personal sexual life and his preferences, and perhaps refrain from having his personal and
professional image as closely linked as it is now.

To sum it up, he does come forward as a bit unprofessional, but there's always room for anybody to learn and improve. He however does
not deserve the shit storm he is receiving at the moment.

Some of the critics are making a total fool of themselves as well. I'm not a big Bruce fan, but I have a strong sense of what's right and what's
not, and what's going on now is not right at all.

Where have you been? That's old news.

Turns out Bruce was convicted of fraud. Ran a "business" that claimed they would help people avoid foreclosure. Took money, did nothing. When hauled into court, couldn't actually produce the name of one person his company actually provided the service for according to the court papers.

You're 100% right his orientation is irrelevant. And you're 100% right that the pedophile accusations were bullshit because nobody provided evidence.

Fact that he exploited the desperation of people facing the loss of their homes to steal their money and got hauled to court and lost and had to pay massive amounts of money out is more than enough to indicate why he shouldn't be the voice for Bitcoin. And that, the hard evidence exists and was plastered all over.

I stopped reading at your first sentence because it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. No evidence?  Seriously?  Have you not looked at anything?  Everything we have brought forward is Bruce's own posts, publicly available court records, new stories, etc.  Unless you think we went back in time 5 years to fabricate all that.  

Oh, and don't try to downplay all of this as being an attack against him cause he's gay. We knew he was gay before most of the users on this forum did and we loved him all the same.  It's not an issue.  As a matter of fact, the guy from SA who did some of the core work on all this is one of the most well known gays on SA. (Three Olives)  

So even when we post the court documents that show he fled the state of Illinois so he didn't have to pay $350,000 in restitution to the people he defrauded, you don't care?

When he made his post admitting that he was the person named in that court case, and that nothing further could be done because the statute of limitations was 6 years, you still defend him?

Step back a moment and take a breath ...

With much of this being moved into the Off-Topic forum, I think we should give OP the benefit of the doubt: From what he actually posted, beyond the first sentence ...

It's pretty evident at least to me he's talking about the accusation that Bruce is a pedophile. The reason I made my "Hey, where you been?" comment along with the detail is because the mods shoved enough of this stuff off to a sub-board many, many hours ago that it is quite possible OP missed the revelations and hard evidence.

Now, if he claims court records aren't enough or does some speech about how making people lose their homes is OK because he helped bitcoin, then hey, have at him all you want and I ain't gonna have no objection t'all. :)

I have read some of the threads, but as there's so much info I can't possibly take the time to read it all. Of course I care about someone being criminal being associated to Bitcoin. That's not good at all. I just could not see any hard evidence for him being a pedophile and actually misusing any kids sexually. That's very strong accusations, and should be backed up with hard evidence.

If he has done what's been said in this thread about exploiting people losing their homes, that's just very sad and very criminal as well, and then he should not be allowed to be a person promoting bitcoin. We don't need scammers and conmen promoting bitcoin. People can change of course, but that just does not look good at all.

Could anyone be so kind to link me with any of the evidence of this previous con-operation (foreclosure business) ?

http://buttcoin.org/has-bruce-wagner-pulled-off-the-financial-biggest-scam-on-the-bitcoin-community

We made a megapost here with all the currently known information including a timeline(there may be some recent developments missing but it will be updated soon enough).  Feel free to spread the link around to anyone who wants to know what's actually going on, all we want is the truth to be known.  

And sorry if I came off too harsh, wolftaur was right.  I ran into the no evidence and "lots of fuss about him being gay" and went off the deep end a bit  :)  

Edit:  For what its worth I agree about the pedo accusations, I never supported that position.  He's still a scumbag though. 

No offence taken. I know buttcoin.org is not bitcoin-lovers, but I have an open mind, and will read the entire post there carefully. Thanks for the link.

It's all in good fun mostly.  And regardless of what people think about us, we did like Bruce, he's a likeable guy.  So goofy, naive and positive (in retrospect it's the perfect cover for a con man) and we all feel betrayed, I can't imagine how others here must feel.  So if there seems to be some bias, that's why.  There are still plenty of facts there, and they stand on their own. 

A very long post that is based on a false assumption in the first line... oh noes.

The fuss was not about Bruces sexual orientation. We don't give a rats ass that he is gay.
The fuss is about the fact that he wants to hold a bitcoin conference (which is something that affects anyone who has an interest in bitcoin) in a place that has an extremely shady reputation and then STICKS with that plan even though it upsets a lot of people because he has interests in that location that are NOT bitcoin related, while claiming he is choosing that location for NO other reason than "bitcoin related stuff", which everyone can see is a load of bollocks.

Oh and also: There... is NO DRAMA... surrounding Bruce... Wagner!!111

Edit: hmm, I was late with my response. Basically ^^^^ with the above posters!

Please note how all the drama was stirred up by some trolls and their fake and alts  ::)

I for one am grateful that this issue with Bruce Wagner was resolved.  The evidence of his prior crimes is overwhelming (yes I consider a conviction in a court of law overwhelming evidence), and if not for the principles of a free and open discussion (I agree the pedo thing was unfounded) this whole thing surrounding Bruce Wagner and his credibility may have gone on for month's causing massive damage to Bitcoin as a whole.

Instead now anybody can read the cold hard facts about Mr. Wagner (court records in many states, his own comments, etc.) and make a determination for themselves about his credibility.

We the Bitcoin community, should be grateful a handful of moderators put their butts on the line to uphold the principles of free speech.   Thank you.

Yes, and we as a community should therefore put this entire thing to rest... the sooner, the better.

Agreed. I started to follow the SA thread when I realized there was actually more than random trolling behind the posts and made a judgement call what efforts to support and what not.

I was contemplating leaving this forum altogether since I couldn't understand why theymos let (and still does) obvious trolling continue, but maybe it was for the best after all. We'll see.

(I couldn't care less about Bruce's personal life and world views, but being a proven scammer automatically disqualifies him from all possible roles as a spokesperson and/or organizer)

Where there's smoke, there's fire... this is something I see now, looking back at the whole thing. Free market and free speech can be messy, but the "busts" also have cleansing effect in the long run. It was a good lesson!


These things die off naturally eventually, when they are settled. No point forcing it.

I'm the OP in this thread. I am sorry that I based my post on lack of information. I read quite a lot about the Bruce drama yesterday, but somehow his previous scams did not catch my eye, I read mostly on the pedo accusations.

Unless the govt. is involved in a campaign towards bitcoin trying to character assasinate Bruce Wagner (which the probability of is nearly zero imho), this is case closed for Bruce Wagner.

I can see the picture now, a very sleazy person living the high life scamming and conning his ways. Always talking smoothly, and making people trust him. This type of character I've seen from many other con schemes. There's no stopping those with lack of moral and judgement except from the law. Hopefully he will be put behind bars for years.

It made me really sad to learn about the foreclosure scam. Those are people that really have a hard time, and here he is, scamming them with the Bold Funding company. He made a very very pitiful explanation here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40404.0

Claiming that they recieved too many applications and could not help people. Well, it would have been extremely easy to just pay back the money to those he could not help and say: "Sorry, we don't have resources to help you, here's your money back!".

His speech is that typical of a con man, smooth and nice. Most people believe good about other people, and he's misusing this trust.

He must now retreat from bitcoin, as his name is forever connected to fraud and scam. He cannot possibly continue with the Bitcoin Daily Show now. What we need is honest and genuine people that will push bitcoin forward.

I sincerely hope we will come to the bottom in this matter and that those who have done criminal acts will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.

Beeing a goofy and unprofessional person can be excused, but not scamming people. That can't be excused in any way.

As I've read on, this really is horrific news. And if Bruce really is behind the MyBitCoin scandal, then this is really really bad. Anyone knows if there's in fact a real investigation taking place into this? Bruce does not seem like the most technical proficient person (but if he can con us in other regards, perhaps he can con us here as well).

I am very sad, and surely Bruce will meet justice one day, sooner or later. This is very very bad. I have not anything else to add in this matter, and I am sorry to have started this thread having not enough information about it all. At the time I was just a bit fed up with all the pedo accusations, as I didn't think it was right to accuse anyone of that without hard evidence.

Thanks to all for answering.

If there's something in my post that's factually incorrect I'd like to know about it.

I think it was referred to one of my posts, not yours.

I thought the pedo stuff was extremely out of line, but I'm not entirely sure the people behind it would have discovered the link to Bold Funding without it. In that regard, I suppose it was a good thing? Most people could see the allegations were sketchy at best. And then Bruce damaged his credibility simply in response to the allegation which was full of misleading (and in at least one case, untrue) statements.

As far as Bold Funding goes, I think there's enough evidence of deceit and fraud on Bruce's part (both at the time, and yesterday's mischaracterization of Bold Funding as a failing business rather than the scam it was proved in court to be) to bother talking about the stuff without any real basis or evidence. Hopefully that goes for any possible future allegations as well.

This :)

A conviction? Man you guys are desperate.
Here's a link to the actual default judgment.
Conviction implies criminal charges
You can't "default" on criminal charges.
http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

White knight harder.

Keep on shining that heaping pile of dog shit that is "Mr. Bitcoin". One day it will shine!

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it.

Take the blinders off, Bitcoin's face and hero is a scammer and fraudster.

It's clear from the State's Attorney that the only reason they went Civil instead of Criminal for this is because they wanted to recover some funds for the victims.

Ummm that makes no sense. They can recover funds either way.

He might be a scammer and a fraudster. You people are trying to make him a criminal despite the fact there is zero evidence for that accusation.
I could less about Bruce you people are being intellectual dishonest and just let anything spew from your mouths.
Exaggeration and hyperbole is hurting your cause.

So a scammer and a fraudster, and a civil judgement isn't "criminal" behavior just because, in your opinion, it wasn't tried in criminal court? You are playing semantics here worse than the most ridiculous hyperbole I've seen.

Read the case. It's pretty damn clear what kind of person Bruce is. Also, look at this actual CRIMINAL history (non-civil) in Ohio & New York. That's pretty entertaining as well, since it's pretty much the same stuff from the mortgage fraud case (with the bonus of assault and prostitution).

He stole money from broke, desperate people who thought they were making a last-ditch effort to save their homes and often borrowing to do so. They lost their homes and the last little bit of money they had. That's what Bruce did for a living. He spent the last few dollars of hundreds of desperate broke people on trips to go screw exotic whores. That's the guy you're defending.

I know, please help me see the error of my ways!

That's easy. These things are prohibited, so they can't possibly have happened. The government checks this stuff, you know?

The funniest thing is this. I'll bet more than half the people on this forum have criminal pasts, histories of fraud, theft and hacking.

I have mine, but they do not involve theft, hacking or fraud. But i'm a natural born criminal, since all things good and proper are now outlawed in this society.

Someone mentioned this recently, and I think it bears restatement.
Bitcoins have a natural tendency to attract the more shadier elements of society. Why?
Because they are anti-government, and the anti-government crowd is very disillusioned with society at the present time.

Holy shit!  I was just in the irc (freenode, #bitcoin) and bruce came in there and tweeted to prove it was him (here's the tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/brucewagner/status/108986270688088064)), and then the channel op booted his ass out.  Lawl, Bruce can't catch a break.

I, too, was looking for "hard evidence". I found some, which I previously posted in another thread.

Bold Funding, Inc.
Nevada corporation search (http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=miY3gPQTRABI6kXTVjnPuQ%253d%253d&nt7=0)
Status: "Permanently Revoked".  President: "BRUCE WAGNER" Address "2248 MERIDIAN BLVD STE H   MINDEN, NV".  

The address is actually "Sutton Law Center" (http://sutlaw.com/), an "Incorporate in Nevada" firm specializing in "asset protection". "Corporate Direct forms and maintains your entity, and you subscribe to the Corporate Formality Services, we guarantee that you will not be exposed to personal liability from an attempt to pierce the corporate veil. If you are planning to form an entity to create asset protection, subscribing to the Corporate Formality Services will give you the added confidence that your protection team is working for you."

Updating...

An image of the court judgement against Bruce Wagner and Bold Funding (http://www.scribd.com/doc/63630294/Bruce-Wagner-Bold-Funding-Fraud-Judgement) is available.
"... Defendant Bold Funding and Defendant Bruce Wagner did not possess a license to engage in the business of a mortgage broker, mortgage servicing company, or a mortgage company in Illinois. ... Defendant Bold Funding and Defendant Bruce Wagner received thousands of dollars from homeowners for the purpose of providing funding for them, but the Defendants did not provide such services and then retained these monies for their own use."

The Bruce Wagner associated with Bitcoin has already admitted on these forums that he is the same Bruce Wagner associated with Bold Funding.

Any questions?

At this time I think everyone should really boycott his show, his conferences and do no more business with him.

This really is an eye opener. Sadly

A huge number of scams involving technology intentionally use two people: one is the smooth talker who doesn't fully understand computers, the other is the one who knows how to code and handle systems, who works in secret in the background.

The smooth talker who doesn't fully understand computers usually can't hide that he doesn't understand computers and when the scam goes down people assume this poor guy must be the victim too. It doesn't occur to them that the con man will simply collaborate with players that the victims don't even see, or, that the victims see but don't realize are connected.

Bruce Wagner continued promoting mybitcoin even after multiple people had been losing coins and having other problems, even after multiple people were complaining of weeks of trying to make contact but not getting responses. You don't promote something with such obvious warning signs if you're not in on it. Well, unless you're really, really stupid.

MyBitcoin allecations are very thin ATM, and Bruce's reaction on money loss seemed genuine. So if this turns out to be true, he is a VERY GOOD ACTOR!
I'm sure people are already digging into MyBitcoin again.

Agreed.

A huge number of scams include two or more people where some of them get "scammed" along with the marks to provoke a feeling of solidarity and sympathy (as well as trust)

No, a civil judgment isn't "criminal" because it's not a criminal judgment.  This is the definition, by law.  You can play semantics and debate whether you can call someone a "criminal" even when they're not a "convicted criminal".  But people keep calling Bruce a 'convict' in the mortgage case, which just isn't true.  The same way OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder.  It's not a matter of semantics.  I'm not saying this exonerates Bruce, but misinformation doesn't exactly help people's cases.

Where's Manny?

lol, great supporters you've got, Bruce.

How tragic. He wanted to be the Oprah of Bitcoins and he wound up the O.J. Simpson.

"Hello, I'm the OP.  I couldn't be bothered to read all of the freely available information on this subject but I thought I should start a whole new thread and write up several paragraphs letting you all know what I think about the matter.  I'm doing this because I'm a huge attention whore."

I could feel inclined to do a harsh reply to your post. But I won't. I don't get offended by what anyone says on a forum anymore.

I read quite a few threads here, and on the something awful forums, mostly dealing with the pedophilia accusations. I didn't know about the mortgage scam business Bruce was involved with, which I already stated in another post.

I wanted to express my disgust with some people accusing someone else of a very horrible crime (ie. misusing children for sexual purposes).

I don't know about you, but I don't sit around round the clock and read every post in every thread. I read enough about the issue to have an opinion, and I already apologized for me not knowing the whole picture, and in addition I thanked for the extended information I was given.

I don't know how anyone making a topic on the bitcoin forum could be an attention whore, but perhaps there's a country where such thread creators have expensive cars, gigantic gold chains around their neck, and surgically enhanced bitcoin babes doing the boob-a-top dance around their swelling upper arms and chests. I guess that's where you live?  ;D

What is the source for that quote in the article?

Is nobody else concerned if this is actually Bruce, he has admitted to molesting children for money in Thailand?

Also,  his name could be based on a book (maybe he had it legally changed).
http://www.amazon.com/Im-Losing-You-Bruce-Wagner/dp/0452278686

Bruce Wagner HAS been found guilty by a court of law. So I don't see why we shouldn't be highly suspicious of him.

People who don't know anything about the court and law system, and confuse criminal court's "guilty in a court of law" with civil court's "losing in a civil case" are kind of annoying. There was no government law that Bruce was found guilty of. The civil court simply agreed with the plaintiffs that they have been wronged. And based on Bruce's explanation, if what he did was scamming people, then likewise MtGox having people give them money, growing too fast, and losing people's money to hackers or whatever other unfortunate incident was also "scamming people." So is every start-up that has ever taken investor's money and ended up losing it because the business idea sucked. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but losing other people's money in unfortunate business screw-ups isn't "scamming," it's reality of business and happens often. Just because the type of people that got hurt makes your heart bleed doesn't change that fact.

Bruce's explanation leaves out things like:

* He was doing the business without the required license
* When brought into court he was unable to name a SINGLE customer he actually provided the "service" for

The comparison to Mt.Gox isn't accurate. Mt.Gox actually handled things until they got overloaded. Bruce was unable to demonstrate he provided service for even _one_ client. That isn't getting overwhelmed. That is scamming. Especially since, well... There were positive "reviews" posted of his service. Supposedly-happy-customers. Except Bruce couldn't produce even one of those supposedly happy customers for the court.

Note it said he didn't have a mortgage or real estate license. I used to have one because I would actually sell mortgages. What Bruce was apparently doing in his business was not selling mortgages, but pairing owners with investors/buyers. I wouldn't think you would need a mortgage license for that. My guess is the investors would need some sort of license to sell the loans themselves. Perhaps the state court dissagreed.
Don't know why no one they actually helped was brought up. I have many guesses, but that's all they are. Bruce will have to explain that one himself.

Really? You have many guesses? Because I only have one.

It varies by state. In the state where I live right now you actually need a license to even discuss foreclosure-related finance with a client, or to even attempt to arrange a sale or equity transfer. In my home state you only need a license to make the actual sale/transfer to file with the county.

As to Bruce having to explain himself why he couldn't demonstrate that he helped even one single person when questioned by the court, I doubt such an explanation will be forthcoming considering that he has not responded to anything here ever since the thread was unlocked by a moderator. Bruce posted his list of excuses and locked the thread, wanting to be able to preach to a forcibly silenced audience. He didn't get his way on that part and he has ignored it since, as he has done in every other thread where these things have been getting brought up.

I'll note that in several of those threads I was defending him, quite vocally, because most of what was being raised as accusations were inflammatory and had no actual evidence. A bunch of people were trying to "prove" Bruce is a pedophile with no real grounds or evidence, for example. That's a really horrible accusation to make if you can't back it up... The court cases, though, he lost. Cases, not case. We're talking about judgments against him in multiple states now -- not just one civil trial he lost. Just one civil trial? I would be quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was possible he thought it was a great business idea and didn't realize what he stepped in until it was all over his shoes. But it wasn't just one. And it wasn't in just one state. And the most recent is still an active case.

Give Rassah some slack and civility on that, please. Not wanting to make random speculation or accusations without specific knowledge is completely reasonable and fair. Respecting the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as defending known wrongdoing. Rassah has been rational and reasonable, there's no justification to get hostile with him.

A bunch of people asked him in IRC. Some of them he ignored, the rest he called liars. When people pointed out that it was the court documents and news accounts that said that and asked if all of them were liars, he ignored them.


Let's just say that I've dealt with him before on this forum and I've found him to be exactly the opposite of reasonable.

It's totally not reasonable or fair, no one defended Bruce because his other clients didn't exist.
If you read the court documents it shows that Bruce was lying to every costumer he worked with. Bruce couldn't have made these lies up on accident so it's obvious that he knew full well what he was doing.

Now as for giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt, well its called a benefit for a reason. Bruce has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't scam at least 20 people in the year 2004 alone.

His post here doesn't even begin to explain half the charges against him, and I would really like to hear what he has to say but he wont talk to us. What else do you expect me to think? Theres a line between benefit of the doubt and ignorance, I think its safe to say we have crossed that line until Bruce himself actually explains what happened.

Yeah, I would have guessed as much. I'm sure Bruce knows any truthful answer will make him look worse, and if he lies...

Court records are available for anyone who wants them and his lie will be exposed very quickly.

I know, and that was what I pointed out to Rassah. But remember that someone just coming into this thread may not have seen all of the evidence which is at this point scattered across 12 threads on 3 sub forums here.


I said I could consider giving Bruce the benefit of the doubt if he had only been brought to court once. But it was multiple times, and in multiple parts of the country. I most certainly cannot give him the benefit of the doubt: Bruce's entire defense is "We didn't mean it to happen like that." That is a lie, because if he didn't mean it ... it would have been a one time thing, he'd be in trouble in one court in one state, not multiple judgements against him involving the court systems of multiple states.

Well, since you asked:
1) It was all just a scam and he got caught (how was he expecting to get away with the scam without providing any services though?)
2) They were sued while still in the process of getting their first mortgage-investor match, and thus never had time to actually conclude any business before they were forced to stop (seemingly-good idea so overwhelmed them that it crashed before getting off the ground)
3) Just as their lawyer had suggested they don't go to the court proceedings, their lawyer may have also suggested that they don't provide any information regarding this business's customers. I don't know why. Maybe it was a privacy issue, or maybe it was because Bruce's company was obviously at fault (the business did crash) and there was no point in providing that information since they knew they would lose the case anyway.
I haven't actually read the detailed court proceedings, so I can't say for sure. Frankly, I don't even know where to look for those.

Also, I was not aware of the multiple cases when I posted my original reply. Not knowing all the details, I would conclude that either Bruce is a major scam artist (albeit a crappy one, since he keeps getting busted and doesn't have exit strategies), or Bruce is a gung-ho entrepreneur who keeps having either bad luck, or a severe lack of business skills. Again, I would have to see the cases in more detail. I do know that many entrepreneurs have a LOT of crappy history and failures, including amassing huge debts and legal issues. That's the road you have to be willing to travel if you want to strike it rich with one of those single business ideas people actually remember you by.

That's interesting. I don't actually remember you at all, or ever having discussed anything with you. But if you think I am unreasonable, I guess I'll have to work on that.

He had them signing contracts where they agreed that he would be trying to find an investor for the house, but might not succeed. He had primed them to think that, well, it's like any realtor.

If I go to a realtor and say, "I want to sell my house for $120,000" the realtor can only sell it for $120,000 if someone wants to buy it. Bruce's "You agree it's not my fault if nobody wants to invest in your property" contract meant that in the majority of cases he did nothing he was able to convince the homeowner he did something but just failed. And everyone of course thought they had this binding contract saying it wasn't Bruce's fault.

What got him nailed was that he had been telling people he had successfully saved many homes, but he couldn't actually prove that: cover-your-ass contracts are not actually enforceable to protect the business owner when you can prove intent to defraud, and giving false information about what the business's success rates are is sufficient to prove intent to defraud.

Actually, you weren't the guy I was thinking of. I did argue with you for a couple pages in the politics forum, but I was thinking of someone else I argued with when I made that post. Sorry.

Did he give false information, or no information at all?

False information, including having "review letters" from "other satisfied clients."

Heh, it's OK. I make that mistake too sometimes. It's even difficult to throw off the crappy association you have with someone's name in your mind even after you realize that you were thinking of someone else...

Wow, at the trial? Now I'm really curious. Do you know where I can find the transcript? I just completed my Law class, and it would be nice to put my new learnin' to the test :)

There are actually many businesses that sprung up right around the same time he did that ended up the same way.

To much paper work(since foreclosures skyrocketed), not enough investors (they were terrified and rightfully so), and then complete financial destruction (the great recession) that put the icing on the cake.
 
It was the perfect storm, and Bruce thought he could handle it all, but apparently was not able to. Regardless this is all in the past, and he's obviously not "wanted" like so many trolls try to make him seem. The guy has obviously made mistakes in the past, and he has owned up to them very graciously.

If you can't respect him for things he has done for the Bitcoin community, at-least respect him as a human being. The facts are out, and I think everyone can come up with their own viable conclusions.

I hope things get better for everyone's sake.

A. I don't respect human beings who give advice to pedophiles on how to find discount virgin hookers.

B. The assessment of the courts was that this was a scam from the ground-up, that he never intended to help anyone. Additionally, he could not prove he helped a single person.

C. If you look at the court filings, he misrepresented his business in a number of ways (e.g. claiming to have 72 offices when he had exactly one office)

These aren't "mistakes in the past", these are scams in the past and he hasn't owned up to them. He's offered self-serving excuses and lies, and ignored all of the difficult questions.

No, I'm sorry, I probably should have been more specific.

When marketing and talking to potential clients and trying to convince the clients to fork over what little money they had (remember, these were people being foreclosed on, and the fees were up to $3,000) he was lying, including about how long he'd been in business, and how many people he helped.

And if you've had some law class... Well, let me give you the exact example here with a hypothetical, but if you will pardon me for straying slightly... See, I am in a different field for the most part and I can give you a much better example if I stick in my field. Computer programming, basic electrical engineering, logic signaling, and so on.

Let's say you come to me and ask me if I can design a custom thermostat for your house. I say, sure I can! I'm the guy who designed all of the industrial thermostats Honeywell sells. But I also tell you that some houses with old furnaces can't be interfaced to modern microcontrollers. So you give me the $5,000 I ask for, and I've put in the contract that you are agreeing that your furnace might just not be designed for what you wanted, and so I keep the $5,000 if I can't do it.

If I come to you six weeks later and say, "I'm sorry, but now that I've looked over the schematics for your furnace, I know I wouldn't be able to make a thermostat that can do what you wanted." Because of the contract, you're out of luck.

Except I've never worked for Honeywell, either directly or as a contractor. Now, if you find that out, the contract I had you sign becomes a pretty worthless piece of paper: you can prove I didn't enter into the contract in good faith. As such I may find it very difficult to convince a judge to uphold that clause.

Now assume that after you didn't get your thermostat you find out I've been going around town for months taking money for custom heating/cooling control systems... and I have never built a single one, but I have taken the money up front for every single one, and in every case simply come back and said "Oh, I'm sorry, I tried but your system isn't capable." And I have told all of these people that I have many satisfied customers, when in fact I have never built a single device. Not only can you now demonstrate I entered all those contracts in bad faith, but by pattern of behavior, you can demonstrate that my intention was to take money and do nothing whatsoever. If I cannot give you the name of a single person I delivered a completed product to, I'm not going to win the court case.

I haven't dug deep enough to look at the court filings, I am only going by what I read from his recent post explaining Bold funding. You guys seem to have all the answers so I will leave at that.

I am in no way defending the guys past statements, I am just pointing out the tone of civil discourse needs to change. There are alot of good people who have nothing to do with this fiasco, who have been getting attacked viciously on all different fronts and it's not fair.

The entire Bitcoin community should not have to pay because Bruce said/did something stupid 5 years ago.

There is a thread on something awful forums with all the info including the transcripts and alot of back information in it, and I think someone compiled all the info into a megapost on buttcoin.org

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3413928

And this coming from the guy who wanted all of us (so called) trolls to be banned an-masse from these forums, claiming that linking to shady shit on the internet was not part of free speech.
Ah well, still glad you saw the light! :)

100% agreed. I have already seen comments about a bitcoin business proprietor being attacked and pointed out promptly in that thread that unless there's actual evidence of wrongdoing the guy's done nothing wrong. And as far as civil discourse... I'm trying to keep myself civil. I'd really much rather the whole thing be about the truth than petty insults and "Ha look how much damage got done." That serves nobody. The truth, however, serves everybody except the dishonest.

I wanted anyone who was doing obvious trolling to be banned.

There were so many ways that this information could have been brought to light. Other than sending 200 goons to troll the hell out of the forum just so you could get us to listen?

EDIT:The write up at (buttcoin).org was a good start, if you guys would have built up on that, and brought it to a more serious venue, maybe this story would have gotten more traction from the serious people you folks were hoping to attract... But in typical SA fashion, you guys responded with the typical, "LETS BURN THIS FUCKER TO THE GROUND" attitude. That alone should have gotten EVERYONE banned regardless of how good the info was or not. I think that's what really turned people away from the story, even though many of the facts were actually good.

You know what would have been just fucking fantastic? If the people who wanted to discredit Bruce kept themselves to their own space and kept their mouths shut and just read stuff here and collected as much proof as they could, put it up into a nice presentation, put in as much sources for independent verification later as possible, and posted it in one bundle.

Not only would we have found out the truth about Bruce but we'd have nothing but respect and gratitude for the people who exposed him, as opposed to having to be glad we found out but disgusted by what a giant idiot-fest they had to make the process be.

Don't pretend no one listens to them... They could have posted this on the front page their site, and it would have gone viral from there.

They violated forum rules to expose someone in a very vicious way,and in the process delegitimized their good posts. It seems like they had this info for months, and were just waiting for the perfect time to nail him.

Why not release this ages ago? Why wait now?

Wow...what sort of fucking world do you live in  ???

Yeah, only the people you were calling trolls were actually just telling the truth, which you were trying to get banned. But I understand you don't want it to be seen like that. :)
You do hopefully understand that on your own forum, the real truth would have probably never come out, because you wouldn't have given it a chance.

Wait. Does this mean we have new suspects for who was really behind mybitcoin.com?  ::)

Correction... They were telling selective truth. A wise man said the greatest lie is omission.

What was actual truth was conveniently mischaracterized and exaggerated.

Right, like the way Bruce omits the answers to all of the difficult questions from his responses and then never comes back to the thread if people start asking them.

And the way he posts a self-serving "explanation" which is just a list of excuses, on a thread that he's locked so he can try preaching to a forcibly silenced audience.

Why can't people display the truth in a more sincere manner? Why must the truth always be portrayed in a deamining and inflammatory way meant to intimidate the entire community? The SA trolling has been going on for MONTHS long before ANY of this Bruce stuff started to happen.

Should all the abuse that you guys have inflicted on this community be forgiven because you brought us a few "good" facts? I say "good" because these facts were not brought out to protect the community from people like Bruce, but instead were brought to light to cause damage and pain to anyone who is part of the Bitcoin movement.

You want proof? You guys have 481 pages of it.

I vote hell no. On the should it be forgiven, I mean.

I don't know. I think you have a pretty low bar for intimidation.

On the other side of the coin, just yesterday a prominent member of the community was banned for making veiled threats of violence against SA members. He also tweeted similar threats.

How many SA trolls have actually threatened Bitcoiners with violence? Because that sounds a lot more like intimidation than anything you're talking about.

You notice how they bring up Bruce when I'm describing their behavior? That called transference. It's a pathetic debate tactic.

Ok , you've convinced me , you've sunk to his level for answering criticism.

Your debate tactics are old ,stale and reek of immaturity.  I have yet to see any of you refute an accusation (at least Bruce tried that) , all you guys do is through more shit a the wall.
It's sad you don't even realize how transparent that is. It's what is expected though because your behavior has no legitimate defense except changing the subject.

Who brought up Bruce? He hasn't been banned from here as far as I know. I was talking about this winner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0

I could talk about how you've been consistently disingenuous almost to the point of absurdity throughout all of this mess, but I'm sure that's a fact you already know about yourself.

Whoa, noagendamarket got banned?  He's been around here since damn near the beginning.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Do you even read your last post?



I'm done playing games with you fuck nut. Anymore from you and I'm going to get vicious.

And what would that entail?

I think he just meant he was going to go bring in these chaps to take his side in this debate:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NGgy4WmOLdk/Si3TmK03s3I/AAAAAAAAL_4/NnRnxR15XE8/s320/sid_vicious.jpg

or this guy

http://mimg.ugo.com/200901/15255/sid-vicious.jpg

Oh he's gonna get vicious, we better back off guys, no telling what he might do!

He probably never closed this thread and just sat there drinking himself into oblivion thinking about how this cruel world slanders poor, innocent con artists. Then he tried to punch the monitor, but missed and knocked over his whiskey instead.

He will mine bitcoins so hard that the heat from his rig will cause immediate global warming, rising sealevels and the killing of all beings who have not boarded the Bitcoin-Arc. Fleeee!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFX04tOPv8s

And then he curled up in the shower crying, while trying to wash off the filth of the dirty homo couple living down the street.

Being gay, a part of the furry fandom, and on SecondLife since 2003, I've had the (dis)pleasure of observing the SA goons for many years (possibly since the group formed). So, if the accusations against Bruce are true, it's too bad they are coming from attention-whore, flame-baiting, drama queen trolls with almost zero credibility, and zero distinction between fact and hyperbole. That group should have a giant [Citation Needed] warning label.

I am absolutely amazed by this post.

Essentially, what you're saying is, yeah, Bruce Wagner is damaging to the community. Yeah, the Bitcoin movement should be protected by people like him.  But because these evidence-backed accusations were apparently done to intimidate the 'entire' community, they should be ignored. So that Bruce can continue to damage the community? What's the endgame here?

First off, not every Anti-Bruce poster is anti-Bitcoin. But let's pretend they were. Who cares? I can defend my own, but regardless,  I don't care about their motives.

What I care about is Bruce Wagner, continually lying and misleading.

*This* man doesn't have the best interests of BitCoin at heart, either. Or he wouldn't have continually insisted that Pattaya was a good spot for the conference. That it was chosen first and foremost as a business centre. Or insisted that underage sex doesn't happen there, despite writing a diatribe on a thai sex website about how, if there was any karma, the low tippers would be the ones getting painfully devirginized over a period of 4 hours. Are there many 38 year old virgins in Pattaya? He wouldn't have lied about what he did and didn't write on those message boards. He wouldn't disrespect the Bitcoin community by lying about what (at the time) were unfounded allegations that were easily defendable.

He wouldn't have continued to promote MyBitCoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40417.msg495127#msg495127), despite assurances to the contrary, for months after it was deemed suspicious. He wouldn't have (allegedly) lied about contacting the FBI.

He wouldn't have lied to the Bitcoin Community about Bold Funding, claiming that they took on too many staff and were simply overworked, despite the fact that court documents showed he couldn't identify a single customer. He wouldn't have, while conducting his business with Bold Funding, lied about its startup date, claiming it began in 1992 and not 2004. He wouldn't have lied about it having 74 regional offices and not 1.

...He wouldn't immediately brush all of this off with a  "Don't you see, these people hate the Bitcoin community!" defense that seems to be working so well on a number of you. That's not a defense against the allegations against himself. That's misdirection, the work of a conman. And it IS working well. Yesterday on IRC he refused to provide a BitCoin address to show evidence of his MyBitcoin refund he's claimed. Despite this, he is still defended and 'trusted'.

And the continued defense of Bruce doesn't just damage the community, it continues to feed the trolls.

You seriously don't know about the violence SA has done to  forum members ?  Bitcoinmedia is having his family  threatened by SA members!

What? Please someone offer some proof of this, because if true it's ridiculous and very concerning.

who are all these south africans i keep reading about?

Standard of proof required for trolls: court documents not good enough, signed confession maybe?

Standard of proof required for bbit: forum post from crazy guy who got banned for threatening SA members

Standard of proof required for being an official bitcoin troll:  past history about this scandal https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22311;sa=showPosts

Those are slanderous accusations and I hope you have the legal team to back them up.

I know you're trolling, but to which statement(s) would you like citations for?

Wow, a self-identifying Secondlife furry and a bitcoin proponent.  You should join the TVtropes forums too so you can complete the trifecta of shit communities that goons love to make fun of.

TVtropes has forums?

I've GOT to see this.

I wouldn't recommend it.  It's a horrible slice of humanity that most people aren't equipped to deal with.  Let Goons drag the waters for you:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3411591

Much appreciated.

It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.

I'm bi, only in that because I like the art and met friends through that, and liked SL because of it's potential for coding, hacking, and economics. I'm quite comfortable with all that, so making fun of me for that is rather pointless. Especially since I have a damn good life, and SA goons project an image of poor, ugly, lazy slobs (you know, the type of people who hate their life, so make themselves feel better by tearing down others).
Also, I've never heard of TVtropes...

The documents don't say anything?! You might want to look over that State of Illinois ruling again, it outlines what our scammy pal Bruce did in great detail. There's also people in the process of getting the court transcripts (which are public record) to see if there's anything else that wasn't covered.

Not being snarky, but there's plenty there to set to rest any unease about this guy being a fraudster of the highest (lowest?) order.

Apparently, there are a group of headhunters that have come to this forum. They are all from South Africa. lol
It's Something Smells Awful Forum, that's the SA. It's a forum full of Cops, Narcs, Trolls, Feds, and losers.

Exactly, some of these trolls are talking like there isn't a legitimate industry in charging people money to find investors to buy a house soon to be in foreclosure and then sell or lease it back to the owners for mutual benefit.  If you can't understand why that could be a valuable and fair service you aren't very bright.

Not everyone doing this kind of thing is running a scam like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_stripping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_stripping)

If they were the scam wouldn't work in the first place since there would be no legitimate companies to make the industry seem real.  It would be like trying to run a lottery scam if there were no real lotteries. 

What a load of BS.


Yes, that sounds like a legitimate business simply "gone awry". It's perfectly normal to lie about who you are, how long you've been in operation, how many staff you have, what qualifications they have, and how many offices you have. It's perfectly normal to not provide evidence of a *single* customer receiving help.

https://i.imgur.com/3KvTh.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/JCU0z.png
https://i.imgur.com/L5Vw1.png
On the flip side, what single piece of evidence is there that the scam story *doesn't* match up, besides Bruce "Child sex doesn't happen in Pattaya" Wagner's continuous web of lies?

Thank you! Now, where did this quote come from? I need to know if that is a list of charges, results of fact finding, or court decision. That's important, since I can make a legal document, recorded in court, that says "DrZaius is a thief" as just a charge, during fact-finding present evidence of DrZaius's wrongdoing, but the court may find that nothing actually illegal was done. And yes, while its true that misrepresenting yourself in that manner is a shit thing to do, sadly false advertising is not illegal in US like it is in other countries. Its still a shit thing to do, and I hope Bruce learned his lessons from this.

I don't understand the legalese stuff, but it comes from here:

http://mortgagefraud.squarespace.com/storage/bold%20funding%20final%20judgement.pdf

It's called a "Permanent Injunction and Judgement", what does that mean?

Same thing as the courts saying "You're guilty - sentenced to x amount of days in prison/etc." in criminal court.

It's the civil side equivalent, where the punishment is revocation of licensing, inability to to business, and massive fines.

Judgement here I think means a decision against the defendant (Bold Funding) and permanent injunction just means ban from doing that specific type of business, permanently. Injunction is basically "stop what you're doing right now."

By the way, notice that document says "Default Judgement." That means that the suit brought against them was uncontested, and they lost by default (like sports teams who don't show up to compete). Not sure why it went that way, but it looks like the plaintiffs brought a complaint, Bold Funding answered, the judge didn't like the answer and struck it from court consideration, and then just ruled that everything that has been brought up against Bruce can stand, regardless of what the complaint said. Normally this happens when someone brings a complaint against the defendant, the defendant doesn't answer, and it is assumed that the defendant doesn't have any challenge to the claims, thus they are all true and can all stand. Here, Bruce's legal counsel was present, and Bruce did answer, but still got a default ruling? Just seems weird. Maybe their reply to the complaints was just REALLY bad, or maybe they just knew that the business was a total failure, and doing anything more with it, including spending more money on lawyers trying to defend themselves, would just waste more money at this point, so they just took the default ruling to save time. Bruce did mention that they didn't show up at the trial because their lawyer suggested they don't. I'm now wondering why.

It's actually extremely simple.

The full court document was OCRed and posted. The court's findings included everything DrZalus posted. Now, Bruce not showing up and defaulting is not actually the same as when a sports team does not show up to play. There is a judge. The judge's job is to make a determination from all presented evidence.

When a sports team doesn't show up they just automatically lose, even if everyone knows for a fact they're a much better team. When a defendant doesn't show up the judge has to look at the actual evidence presented against him, and the defendant can only lose if the evidence is likely sufficient to convict at trial.

The judge's determination includes a list of Bruce's violations. Things like claiming to have foreclosure attorneys when he didn't. Things like lying about how long he was in business. Things like lying about how many offices he had. The judge would not have actually issued those in the ruling if the district attorney did not have evidence.

Bruce's lawyer told him not to show up for one simple reason: Lawyers aren't allowed to encourage a client to commit perjury.

If Bruce's lawyer looked at the actual evidence (which included Bruce's own advertising claiming things, like how long he had been in business, how many offices he had, etc, that are trivial to prove are lies) then he had to know he had a guilty client. If he encouraged Bruce to testify he would be guilty of malpractice (helping a client convict themselves) or suborning perjury, depending on whether Bruce actually told the truth or whether Bruce lied.

Bruce "defaulted" because if he showed up, he would have either had to confess the truth, or he would have had to lie. And perjury means prison time, especially in a case like this. Telling the truth means a much bigger judgment and almost certain harsher penalties.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that your client shouldn't try to defend himself in an unwinnable case.

That indicates there was a previous default judgement (indicating the defense didn't show up), and this is a "prove-up" hearing, where the court looks at the default judgement.  This time, Wagner is represented by an attorney, but did not show up himself: Counsel for the People is PRESENT; Counsel for Defendant Bold Funding does not exist; Counsel for Defendant Bruce Wagner (Cantwell & Cantwell) is PRESENT; Defendant Bruce Wagner is ABSENT ....

"The court has considered the People's Amended Complaint, the Prove-Up Affidavits, and the previously entered orders in this case; has heard the witnesses testimony presented at the Prove-Up hearing, has heard the objections of Defendant Bruce Wagner, and over his objections, and being fully advised in the premises, the court finds that..."

So he had his day in court. It didn't go well for him.

I have solved it! It was most puzzling to me why people are insistent about Bruce Wagner (http://'http://buttcoin.org/has-bruce-wagner-pulled-off-the-financial-biggest-scam-on-the-bitcoin-community') being a huge bitcoin scammer man when clearly he denies any wrongdoing. It is clearly case of misunderstanding of mistaken identity. If you go to facebook.com and search for "Bruce Wagner" (I believe you need an account for this. But I am not sure.)... You will see that there are many "Bruce Wagners" living in the United States. This leads me to believe that Bruce Wagner is a common name. Perhaps you are confusing him with another gentleman?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40404.0

He has already admitted to running one scam. 

Bruce already posted a thread on the forum admitting it's him.

He then makes a bunch of excuses about "how it happened", though of course the judge rejected those excuses because there was evidence disproving them presented to the court.

If you bother to read all the court filings, Bruce tried but it was stricken from the record for some reason.

His first legal team also withdrew.

If you look at the judgement, the fine for his unethical business practices was double the amount he had to pay back to his victims. Undoubtedly this would have been lower had some of the charges been defended. It would not be hard to argue against the charge that Bold Funding "had no intention of providing services" if there was any merit to Bruce's side of the story.

Thanks guys for the more detailed analysis of the case paper.

Wow.  How can anyone possibly believe this, even for a brief brain-fart moment?

That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

A rational human?

Epic catch, even forgetting the ellipses, misplaced quotes and stupid copyediting errors.

Shall I post my own Bruce dossier? Hmmm... Perhaps I shall... Meanwhile, this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40417.msg498699#msg498699

Yep we have on our hands successful character assassination. Or was it suicide?

One thing I know for sure: I will not be calling BW when they come to repossess my house.

It was assisted suicide. We're all supporting Kevorkian this week.

This: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1orWPXoft3jOGWvXumlbUsdqswlbVu8RNDbQ3jfpEGTw

This may be odd coming from someone like myself, but this seems like a bit ... much?

Did I ... mention ...that I ...had a day to... waste?

No. You just mentioned all the reasons Bruce is the worst thing we could have ever possibly had attached to Bitcoin in the public eye.

+1

Oh, that.

Wow, you know, I think I can trust, or be comfortable with knowing how much to trust, someone I know so much about, than some random person on the web... still kinda creepy though.

No, I mean things like addresses, DOB, shit like that.
It's just creepy man.

It's just what happens here when the natives get angry at someone.  Look at what they are doing to this poor guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40934.msg500238#msg500238

I really like this place but it's a shame good guys like Bruce and Ben are being torn down for their success.

I was about to fall for it, hook line and sinker.

Lol. Good troll.

Bruce is a herpa-derpa-der and Ben is a criminal.

The end.

That has been debated into the ground, but regardless of how you come down on it the mob justice nature of it is unseemly.  In both cases it's a matter for the courts if you want to try and mulligan the results of the transactions in question, posting their home adresses and employment information for a mob of anonymous internet people is not a great idea.  By all means provide the data to the individuals who may need it to go to the legal system if they want but nobody else has any need of it.

Hey, give credit where credit is due.

Bruce is a criminal and a herpa-derpa-der. :)

You cannot be serious. Mob justice? What is a court of law but a mob sworn on a bible? There is no governing body of Bitcoin, so there ended up being a thread instead, full of community members from around the world, and it's full of a lot of very educated (and a lot of retarded, backward) opinions and advice for Ben. He was flippant and he is in the wrong, in his state, in his jurisdiction. He's in the WRONG, legally, morally and ethically.

The time of these bitcoin forums is winding down.

Time for something new.

Oh believe me, I'm no fan of the government or the courts.  My opinion on this is that the free market has already decided the issue.  If you aren't going to go to the courts though there is no reason to post personal employment data unless you are considering a campaign of harassment of some kind, which is not at all Christian.

Has this Bruce guy stolen someone's BTC or what? There are so many threads about him but I can't figure out who on these forums has actually been wronged by him. I'm sorry if this has already been asked a dozen times. A link to the answer will be fine if nobody feels like explaining it again.

Some trolls have a silly theory that he is behind the MyBitcoin thing.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MyBitcoin

They have dredged all through his past to find new accusations to make but in the end they have nothing to prove his involvement with MyBitcoin or that he has done anything to anyone here.

Even if everything else about him was false, he's still an unashamed Ubuntu fan and that's damning enough in my eyes.

There's plenty of evidence out there:
He used the pseudonym "TodWilliams" in his previous scams.
He continued to promote MyBitcoin despite posters here pointed out the security vulnerabilities of MyBitcoin.
Bruce uses the same webhost as MyBitcoin.

If that's not enough evidence, I don't know what is.

That's all I wanted to know. I'll leave you guys to slug it out. This doesn't affect me because I would never send my BTC to a website that didn't offer evidence of being a registered business. The lesson to be learned is, know who you're doing business with.

Extremely weak.  You would be laughed out of court.


Shows only an honest and trusting nature, good people are often naive.  


This was proven incorrect.   Even if it were true, what the heck would it prove?


This is nothing but people wanting Bruce to be the bad guy and grasping at straws to make it so, there is just nothing solid there at all. 

Sorry to sound too conspiratorial, but frankly his past legal trouble coupled with his "one love" psychopathy makes it all to clear that his actions speak louder than his words. I've known people very much like Bruce Wagner in real life, and the charisma is the first giveaway.

Based on my previous experience with people that fit many of Bruce's characteristics, you simply cannot be so naive as to believe that such an easily disprovable 302 forward -- "OMG HE'S ON THE SAME HOST" is anything but a honeypot. I absolutely know that people like Bruce are capable of high levels of deception, and are great chess players. Who's to say that he didn't point MyBitcoin to his own server, just to point out that someone is trying to frame him?

You can call me a conspiracy theorist ALL YOU WANT, but there are rational minded people who read this who will agree, 100% that, based on their own experience with his kind, that this is a very possible reality.

I wish you well pinkypie. I'm not sure that you're shilling for anyone, so much as you are either somewhat naive and good hearted, or simply trolling for reactions. Still, it's appreciated, because yours is a position that requires others to prove theirs, and I can respect that.

Regards,
Jonathan

Are you seriously defending that Ben Davis dude? Honestly I don't know how you compare the 2 incidents.

^ He did nothing wrong, if you send Bitcoins to someone you sent them, we don't need the government to decide this and start ruling the bitcoin world.


"Who's to say he didn't?" isn't evidence, that's my point.   "Who's to say" the real criminals didn't just see an opportunity to keep people off their trail?

If they are on the same host, that's proof he did it!  If they are on different, oh well that just means he is playing 11th dimensional chess and faking everyone out!  That's what I mean about wanting him to be guilty.  It's fitting the facts to the conclusion that Bruce did it.  I think a more objective look at the MyBitcoin situation is that they stone cold got away with it and there are no solid trails, so far at least.

If word of Bruce gets out to major news outlets, it could shatter confidence in Bitcoins. That's the main problem with these allegations. Even if they're not true, it's still bad press, but it's even worse because Bruce's statements don't match the record of events.

I dont think you troll's are going to be able to take Bruce down.  ;D He will be back on his show as soon as he gets back to New York, with his ratings trippled from the publicity you numb nuts gave him for FREE.

Yes, THREE HUNDRED TROLLS in his channel at one time instead of the one hundred there were before.

He didn't intentionally send the amount that got sent . It was an error.
So again, He did nothing wrong? Try larceny. The subject of the theft is irrelevant. Bitcoins aren't some sacred object.
In truth though, the government didn't and won't decide anything. Ben Davis decided and expressly consented to when he enjoyed the benefit of the government's care and protection. Getting imprisoned for larceny is his protection from getting shot in the face by the offended party as a result of his unjust enrichment.
Rest assured if phantomcircuit did some self help justice and hacked one of Ben Davis's hands off with a cleaver , you' be the first person to bitch that the government should imprison him.

I'm not even sure what to think anymore.  Bruce definitely seems a little off, but I also don't like this mob-trial thing that's going on here.  I mean, come on, the guy was such a cheerleader for the whole community.... doesn't he get a bit of benefit of the doubt?  I think MTGOX has a good point: the justice system caught him doing whatever he was doing and it WORKED, so the problem is fixed now.  Justice has been served so we can go back to trusting him.

So what?  He sent it.  What happened to personal responsibility?  If you want to be able to chargeback for mistakes use a credit card.  This is bitcoin, not whatever socialist economy you love.  Go ahead and let your big government get involved in bitcoin, in a month all the amazing innovation here will be gone and squashed by regulation and uncertainty.  

If we reward every incompetent coder who thinks they should run an exchange and get a bailout when they mess up there is no advantage to being competent.  It all goes back to the lowest common denominator, every parasite will try and latch on to bitcoin so they can make whatever mistakes they want and pay no cost.  

Don't confuse morality with legality. It should definitely be considered legal to keep BTC that was accidentally sent to you but it shouldn't be considered moral.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

I have never seen so many red herrings in one statement.
What did you do take the Frank Lutz's Course on Inflammatory buzzwords?
Pathetic word cloud this is.....
Chargeback, socialist,your big government, bailout, regulation, uncertainty, reward incompetence, parasite.




You equating return of mistakenly delivered property to a bailout? You are fucked in the head. The bailout was a 3rd party that was a stranger to the transaction's money you dolt.



Second thing Bitcoin isn't make believe credit money. Acquiring them takes depletion of real world resources and work. It isn't imply a bunch of key strokes.

Pray tell what kind of innovation is larceny? Even if credit cards didn't do chargebacks you could still recover your money  sent by mistake. It's been that way for 4000 years.

Enough of your bullshit rhetoric. You trying to justify theft and injustice plain and simple.

I'm absolutely aghast that you tried to stereotype me in that way. Why don't you google my nick.


@bitcoin2cash
It's not legal, moral or lawful.

It's definitely immoral but not everything that's immoral should be illegal. It should be legal because there was no aggression or fraud committed.

You do realise that nobody has been able to find evidence that Bruce actually paid amount awarded against him in the Bolding Funding judgement and that Bruce himself didn't claim to have paid the judgement in the posts he made about Bold Funding.  I wouldn't consider the matter "fixed" or justice served until every last cent of that judgement has been paid.  And that's not even taking into account the current legal proceedings against him in New York.

Whether or not people give Bruce the benefit of the doubt again after everything that's come to light is their personal choice, but I don't think it's valid to argue that they should do so just because he's been a Bitcoin cheerleader.

Illegal and unlawful are 2 different things.

Just say it, stop beating around the bush.  You want the government to regulate and control bitcoin transactions.  A 4000 year history?  Where did you get it from, Das Kapital?

...then you should know that this history just leads to more and more government control until Stalinism and bank bailouts and auto bailouts are the only way you know how to do business.

Just once we have a chance to start over and do it right and let the free market work its magic and you want to throw it all away before it even begins because some spectacularly huge moron gave his money away because of incompetent code and now wants a do-over?  Amazing.

I don't want your job killing government takeover to control my destiny, ration my healthcare, and put a death tax on my bitcoins.  No way.

Can you link me to a dictionary that will explain the difference? My Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you.

No we can't, because his most recent case of being caught was much more recent than 2004. He's got an active case against him and he lost that one, and hasn't paid the amount ordered.

The "English for Bruce's Accomplices and Shills" dictionary isn't linkable, it's just in the minds of a handful of criminals, trolls, and total morons.

Lawyers like to use a lot of "terms of art" .The dictionary and common meaning is almost never the legal meaning.

For instance, attorney comes from the word attorner. Attorner means to turn someones loyalties to another master. Sure explains how they behave doesn't it?

Anyway , here's the definition of Lawful from Judicial and Statutory Words and Phrases.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT143&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U153qGoaLzx-xR8ufKXG4iElPVmXQ&ci=132%2C383%2C424%2C400&edge=0

Another red herring? Is that all you have are logical fallacies? No where in the annals of human history has "Finders Keepers , Loosers Weepers prevailed as law.
On top of that,every reply you've posted is a non sequitur.
Suing for unjust enrichment = Stalinism? Go back to Mars. While your at it,
try to have an original thought before your brain atrophy's and dies will ya.
Someone needs to cut your pull string.
 

BTW I'm not replying to you anymore. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Hardly finder, this is receivers keeper.  Once you make one excuse to allow the government to steal back bitcoins there will be ten more excuses ready to go.  Is that the future you want, Obama taking bitcoins to pay for communist universal healthcare?  Now is the time to take a stand.  Let the government have their phony paper money and leave the real value to the market.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

If unlawful means something is unethical then let's just use that word instead since it's less confusing to us non-lawyers.

Cheating on your partner is unethical and immoral but it shouldn't be illegal.

Like when a retarded guy steals a car. He didn't mean to be a dick, so he gets to keep it. This is just like what happened to my Chevy Caprice.

Uh, no. I'm not implying that intentions have anything to do with whether or not something is illegal. In fact, intentions weren't even part of the discussion. My point is, cheating on your partner is immoral. If we were to make everything that's immoral also illegal, we would be sending people to prison for cheating on their partners. Clearly, some things are immoral but even still, they shouldn't be illegal. The justice system isn't supposed to be the morality police.

Legality and morality are separate issues that don't entirely coincide

You said this before, can you give us examples of things you believe are immoral but are legal and things you believe are not immoral but are illegal?

abortion, anonymous direct corporate funding of political campaigns. 

What's wrong with abortion? 

The murdering of babies part.

Yeah, abortion is the Republicans' way of killing off young Democrat and Indpendent voters. They hide behind wanting to ban it, which tricks the Dems into siding with it.

Why do you hate women's rights?

I'm a libertarian, I believe in rights for every human being, and that includes a right to life.  Men and Women who make the immoral choice to have sex outside of marriage, or married couples who don't want any more children, have plenty of available birth control options that very nearly eliminate the risk of pregnancy.  If they are careless or unlucky enough to get pregnant anyway, that may be a shame, but it doesn't justify murder.

What makes it murder?  At what point does something deserve rights?  Life begins well before the embryo stage, each sperm and egg is a precursor to life as well.  Should we lock up every woman who has ever had a period, or any man who has ejaculated into a condom(thereby killing the sperm)?

Human life begins at conception.  I'm not sure why you are bringing masturbation or periods into this, you do know how babies are made, right?

So are miscarriages manslaughter due to gross negligence. I know it's not a joke and I have no intention of making fun of it, but we should at least answer this question before we move past.

No, risk of accidental miscarriage is an unavoidable part of pregnancy and it can be near impossible for a doctor to determine the ultimate cause.

In before the " So Bruce Wagner kills babies?" comment!

The only way a woman would get his poison miscarriage sperm is if she agreed to carry Bruce and Ed's babies.

I'm bringing it up because I want to know who decides what has rights and at what point those rights are established.  Law has established that they don't have rights during the first trimester, nor is it truly "alive" at that point.  

And how would a Libertarian society deal with abortions?

The Supreme Court has made an error in the determination of who deserves full rights and who is a full human being, like when they created the 3/5ths compromise during the Dred Scott case.


The same way they deal with any other murder.

They would allow the family of the murdered victim decide on the punishment sufficient enough to compensate them for their loss?

LOL this thread just got derailed into the toilet :D

I've been trying to not pay attention to the endless ignorant rubbish you espouse but I couldn't let this one go by.
The Supreme Court didn't create the 3/5ths compromise the Constitutional Convention did.

^ I don't know about any of that legalese mumbo jumbo, the point is the Supreme Court did nothing to prevent people from being treated as subhumans through most of their history.  Look at what happened to Japanese Americans who were rounded up and tossed into camps during World War I while the courts did nothing.  That entire war was sparked by one assassination, just imagine what the mass killing of children we practice today might spark sometime in the future.


I was thinking jail.

I wonder, what a libertarian jail looks like.  :D

Much better than our current system.  Once you release all the people jailed for victimless crimes you have far fewer prisoners to deal with and can treat them more humanely and spend far less in the process.  The privatization helps this too by cutting down on costs and putting an incentive on having a well run, safe facility.  

Now this is an off topic thread!  From Bruce to abortion!

I am talking specifically of a right to life.  The rights of children are restricted for obvious reasons, parents must first teach children how to handle them.  We restrict the rights of children far too much currently, but they have to be restricted as a necessary evil.  When I was younger I had some...problems...and my father had to send me to a church therapy camp for a few months to straighten me out.  I really didn't like it at the time and would never have gone on my own, but by the end I learned that what I had been doing was wrong.  That kind of help is what parents are for, and to avoid it is neglect.


The moral source of our rights is, in my opinion, the Constitution.  It says:  

So basically you think everyone should  abide by the US's law?  Do you feel they should enforce their law in any country where it isn't now? 

Funny, that is one of the lines that I feel gives constitutional right to gay marriage.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2011/07/05/all-men-created-equal-means-constitutional-protection-for-gay-marriage.

(lets see how far this thread drifts!)

I believe marriage is an issue to be decided privately or by whatever church or group one wants to join.  The government has no place in it, if we want to continue the social engineering government policies involved in it, it should only be in the form of secular civil unions for any two or more people who want them.  Now, don't get me wrong, I believe any gay or polygamous relationship is sinful and disgusting, but they have a right to make their own decisions.


To the extent rights are granted by the Creator, all governments should implement them.  However, it isn't our right to meddle in their affairs or help that process along.  We are only responsible for our own actions in our own representative democracy.

I see what you did here.

You can believe whatever you want, but murder is murder. A=A.

Self defense law relies on the concept of proportional response.  Murder is not a proportional response to defend yourself from raising a child, something that virtually all parents in America manage to do without it resulting in their demise.  The proportional way to defend yourself from this situation is with birth control or abstinence. 

I just gave you an example of something immoral but legal in the post you quoted and are replying to, cheating on your partner. However, everything that should be illegal is also immoral. Illegality is a subgroup of immorality but they don't coincide, like I said.

Everything moral should be legal but not everything immoral should be illegal. Can you give me an example of something that's moral but should also be illegal anyways?


Abortion is an eviction that usually results in the death of the fetus. However, it's the mother's womb and she gets to decide who stays in there. The fact that a fetus can't survive on its own is unfortunate but won't always be the case. The fact it is the case now doesn't remove the mother's right to her own body.

That's the Declaration of Independence , more legalese right?

What I find hilarious is that the document you claim is the source of rights expressly says the source of our rights is the Creator!

Your parents shouldn't have sent you to Bible camp , they should have sent you to remedial reading.

Your synapse are crossed.

The Constitution.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

Article 1.

Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall
have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of
the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State
shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be
made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three,
Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut
five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland
six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive
Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and
shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each
State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall
have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election,
they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the
Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second
Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the
third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be
chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise,
during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may
make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which
shall then fill such Vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore,
in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of
President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to
Law.

Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall
be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a
different Day.

Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of
its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do
Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be
authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and
under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time
publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require
Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of
the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that
in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United
States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected,
be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which
shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased
during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States,
shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


Section 7
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate,
shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United
States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his
Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the
Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after
such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it
shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it
shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and
against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If
any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,
in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and
House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment)
shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same
shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall
be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according
to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the
Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the
Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from,
one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of
the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties
on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing
its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by
any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control
of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep
Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 2.

Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or
Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like
Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from
them by Ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation,
which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he
shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress
may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during
the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End
of their next Session.

Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the
Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge
necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both
Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he
shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he
shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 4.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall
flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the
executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be
removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States
shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 5.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 6.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.

Article 7.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth. In Witness thereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. <-- signed merely as witnesses

George Washington - President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut - William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York - Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey - William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan
Dayton

Pennsylvania - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer,
Thomas Fitzsimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouvernour Morris

Delaware - George Read, Gunning Bedford Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett,
Jacob Broom

Maryland - James McHenry, Daniel of St Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll

Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina - William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson

South Carolina - John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney,
Pierce Butler

Georgia - William Few, Abraham Baldwin

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

It doesn't define who or what the Creator is though. It could be YHWH but it could also be a six-headed space-goat, Xenu and a gang of pointy-eared fairies, or a set of natural, stochastic processes.

It is deliciously ironic that you're telling someone else that they belong in remedial reading though!  :-*

I am talking about the laws of the United States, as I explained.  The self-defense idea is ludicrous and silly, could you murder your five year old because you lost your job and now can't afford to raise her?  BUT JUDGE!  IT WAS SELF DEFENSE!

You're a complete nutjob.


Of course she gets to decide, if she is pregnant she already made her decision.  She signed a nine month lease.

No, instead of solving the problem via murdering the potential victim I would put the rapists in jail.


What kind of gibberish is this?  It would be a violation of rights, it would be legal, it would be immoral. US law enforcement has no role anywhere else in the world. The situation I am describing in the US is that it is a violation of rights, it should be illegal but the Supreme Court has made an incorrect decision, and that it is immoral.

Leases are overridden by extradition treaties.

What crime is the fetus being extradited for?  If the current location of the fetus is criminal the people who put it there are the one's who should be charged.

For a better understanding of the ethical philosophy I'm describing, I should refer you to Kafka's Trial.

Meh, I tried to read it but it was too senseless and complex and depressing.  

I think a more fun way to look at this issue is to examine it through the lense of the classic My Little Pony Tales episode called "The Great Lemonade Stand War"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-If0bzyZlNE

Back to Bruce for a moment: http://buttcoin.org/bruce-wagner-admits-to-the-hacking-of-mybitcoin-com

https://i.imgur.com/jBBpU.jpg

^  Great, a complete hoax of a confession.  It looks like the idiot trolls are ready to admit they have no actual evidence so they are resorting to this transparent ploy.


Can you read?  There's a reason they are listed as three separate concepts in my post.

Me too, sorry for getting snippy, I feel passionately about this issue.  

I don't think the trolls are organized, they are just acting like a mob.  It's hard to seperate out the actions of one from the other, it's all going to the same purpose of slandering Bruce.

Getting pregnant isn't a contract with the fetus. If I invite you inside my house, I can immediately tell you to leave. Simply inviting you in doesn't mean you can live there.

It's not an invitation, an invitation can be rejected.  The baby has no choice about the decision to move in and dies if she leaves.  However, it should be noted I did not bring the contract language into this.  Anyway, I think we should probably call a truce on this one and maybe start a new thread if we want to debate this topic.  There is new Bruce related news, the trolls are getting desperate and are now just making stuff up and that shows just how empty the accusations are and how clearly innocent he is.  I don't want to distract from that fact at this point.

Man, religion ruins libertarianism so badly  :( How can you be both for liberty, and for subjugating yourself to a monarch/dictator at the same time? Also, sincerely hope the camp you were sent to wasn't a "pray the gay away" therapy. Not sure what other re-education camps churches have.

As for abortion, the fetus never signed a contract on that lease, does not even have the intellectual capacity to sign a contract, and is thus tresspassing. Worse, it is stealing resources from the mother without giving anything in return, like a socialist welfare queen. If not aborted, at the very least it should be extracted, frozen/preserved, and wait until it can be tried in juvenile could for its crime.

I hate you for being a secondlife-playing furry, but that shit is hilarious.

That's irrelevant. Even if I carry you into my house while you're sleeping the same logic applies. The point is, you're in my house. Even if it's the case that if you leave you'll die, you have to leave.


A lease is a contract. You mentioned it being a lease. I didn't.


That's fine with me. Make a thread in the politics/society section and I'll gladly debate the issue there.

gay SecondLife lurker who is simply open to all types of porn. There's a difference XD

The mother doesn't always have a choice.
Take rape, for instance.  No choice there, but still pregnant.

As always, it's not a black:white issue.

Well duh, in that case I feel abortion should be legal and the rapist should take the murder charge.


Absolutely wrong.  If you take someone into your house knowingly without their consent in such a manner as their death is an inevitable result of leaving, you will be charged with murder.  It's more like you kidnapped them in while they slept and put up an impenetrable minefield outside.


Looking back you are correct, but you introduced the entirely irrelevant concept of eviction, I simply offered a more accurate metaphor regarding residency to describe the situation.  Neither is a one to one example.

I may start a new thread on this later tonight.


I have read a lot of people have problems with these types of programs but my time in therapy really helped me a lot.  I was just young and confused and didn't understand what I was doing to myself and my family and my relationship with God.

Gay is fine, secondlife is criminal.

OMG *facepalm* Quite sorry that happened to you. Those places should be charged with criminal psychological abuse. Though judging by your MLP interest, guess it didn't fully work.

Not when you're on there to invest in casinos and shady banks/businesses, and use the proceeds to buy imported European smartphones before people here even know what a smartphone is. Now it's criminal, yes. Nothing to do there any more.

WTH does the definition of Creator have to do with anything? He claimed the document was the source of rights... (after he mis-identified it)... The document itself says the Creator was the source of rights.
Now whoever the Creator is, happens to be irrelevant when it is the created beings that wrote the document.
Are you claiming the piece of paper is the Creator and the created beings created their Creator ex post facto?  
What time-space continuum are you living in?
I guess cause and effect are just an opinion now too.

How can every post get stupider from you guys?
If he needs remedial reading , you need basic logic instruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjV3wdXDHDk

Bruce has put a FULL CONFESSION UP on youtube.

They are always sacred and any such abortion would still be a grave sin, but despite how some are trying to strawman me here I judge law on secular terms despite my strong religious convictions.  My original assertion in this debate was that abortion is immoral and legal.  I do think it should be illegal, but not because of immorality.  If I thought that way I would be arguing to ban things like prostitution or gambling, but I don't.

If the consent of the woman has not been given she is not legally responsible for the results, the criminal is.


It was one of the best things to ever happen to me, and ummm. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile)

It's pretty easy to be against abortion when you're 16 years old and you haven't had sex yet.

Someone needs better editing tools.

That's exactly what I think about every episode of the Bitcoin Show.

Ah, you're a girl? Wonder why your parents freaked out then. Also, weird that they were all, like, "Nuuuu! You're not allowed to love everyone! Being indiscriminate in love is sick and disgusting! Jesus only approves of you loving specific people, since Jesus also only loved specific people, and spoke out against universal love ALL THE TIME!"

But whatever. I was a devout Christian Catholic, and an altar and quire boy (no, the priest never found me attractive enough). But I started questioning, found answers, and got better. Hope you do too. Hell, i'll even pray for your recovery.

Hi I'm the choir boy that's never seen the word choir before. Pray the Rosalee!

OMFG! Now this evolved to "How religious I'm"?

I was overbrowsing this topic, and came across a curious line. Sort of "You see, this guy scammed in the past therefore he's a pedophile".

Two questions:

- If he is or not pedophile, what does that add (or subtract) for the bitcoin world?!
- Since when one totally unrelated thing in the past makes anybody a pedophile nowadays?! «Hey! My mortgage scheme went down so I'm going to vent my disgrace over young boys'» Is this supposed to be the "logic"?!

Well, this thread has earned its title. *facepalm*

You need to overbrowse the topic harder.

Not a pedophile. I just reached my 30's, and I still refer to other guys as boys sometimes, and hate it when people refer to me as "man." Makes me feel old, and i definitely don't look it. Likewise, Bruce explained he just reffers to cute guys as boys, too, even if they're way above legal age. I think it's just a gay thing.

Well, my grandma also says something like "that girl" where "girl" means an old woman about 70 or 80 years old.
I also call all "about my age friends" as "boy", I'm 33 so that "boy" may mean anyone from +/- 25 to 40. And I'm straight, so it's not a gay thing, it's just a matter of socialization.
Actually the last one I met which did not want to be called "girl" but "woman" was an 18 year old girl...  ;D

Oh cool, I didn't know Bruce was 80 years old.

He's aged well

He's also posted advice on picking up virgins - he used that specific word - at Thai brothels. How many 20yo virgin prostitutes can there be?

You're definitely over-browsing.  Bruce's involvement in the Bold Funding scam was discovered way after the Pattaya shitstorm which led to people digging up past posts of his which showed that he was well aware of Pattaya's thriving under-age prostitution industry and had paid for sex in that region.  

While some posters now link the two together when arguing that Bruce is not an appropriate spokesman for Bitcoin, the controversy about his reasons for so stubbornly insisting on Pattaya as a conference venue definitely preceded the discovery of any legal proceedings against him for fraud.

The song "My Girl" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Girl_(The_Temptations_song)) was originally written as an anthem for pedophiles.  This sort of thing would not be tolerated today, the troll police would make sure anyone who sang it was called out as the pedophiles they are.

If it weren't for child labor laws, you could put that fetus to work on your farm (which everyone should own in an ideal setting) and make it pay for itself.

OMFG go take your meds. How do you get pedophilia out of this?



Who the fuck let out the insane asylum?

Just because they say they're virgins...

a non-work safe warning would be good... I almost got fired when my boss read that!

If/when Virginia passes their "fetus is a full legal person" law, I am totally getting myself a frozen one in a test tube, and taking it with me when i go driving, just so I can legally use the HOV (>1 in car required) lanes.

Huh, I guess you're right, referring to someone as a boy or girl in a romantic or sexual context doesn't make someone a pedophile.  I stand corrected.

Especially since that song has no mention of cakes, or them being delicious. Just some mention of honey...

The R. Kelly remix was very different. I'm leery of even linking to it here.

WTF! Since when Bitcoin does have or need a "spokesman"?!
Jizz! This lately is getting filled up with self-nominations crap; like "spokesman", "bitcoin police", the others that I don't recall the name but also pretend to be some sort of "Bitcoin police"...  ::)

Are you done splitting hairs? I refer to my 38 yr old wife as my girl. Using "Old lady" will get me a smack.

You're right, of course. Bitcoin doesn't need a spokesman. It simply is and its need and utility are both self-evident to the educated individual. It's unfortunate that there are so few educated among the population and that those of us who can grasp such obvious facts are decried and vilified.

Incidentally, given your mention of jizz, I was wondering if you'd be interested in a proposition: I'm starting a BTC-based sperm bank for wealthy single women. The Sex and the City crowd, if you will. There's an untapped market for high-grade semen for spinster breeding purposes and I'd like to milk the resources of the bitcointalk forums to A) spread strong, intelligent, libertarian genes among the population at large, and B) make a small but justifiable profit. Interested?

I hope you don't also refer to her as a fifteen-dollar virgin that has no choice but to take abuse at a discount price.

Or you guys can just keep ignoring that part, whatever.

e: oh you're talking about that song. Pretend this indignant comment was in response to a similar post about Bruce

sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Lol yeah except in this case it should be called "I Hate You Bruce Wagner" and Chris Kattan would play Bruce.