This is pretty much my opinion, and it is also my opinion that New York State is once again acting too big for its britches.

My opinion is also that their actions are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution itself and that they're legally out of line as well as being out of line by simple measures of sanity.

There aren't freerolls to the Big BTC.  There are 1 and 10 chip satellites.

The tournaments with passwords become password-free a couple hours before they happen.  The passworded freerolls you get enrolled to automatically when you meet the criteria.

It's been 2 for several months.  If you go back in this thread a few screens, the announcement is back there somewhere.  I agree with 2.  A slight inconvenience is better than even a small risk of SwC losing lots of coin.

There aren't yet any games with this feature.  I sometimes wish on online fora there were a button to kill the actual poster, though.

Depends on the level of risk tolerance you have, I suppose.  With no confirmations, it seems pretty easy to rip you off.  With just one, there are attacks that could let you see a false confirmation.  With two, it's getting a lot more difficult, but something (not even necessarily a heist) could conceivably break the network itself.

I couldn't articulate the reasons better than they have been, but there were good reasons right before SwC went to two that they did.

Only a fool would do less than two.  Really, it would be entirely reasonable to insist on six.  I could see making only withdrawal contingent upon the original deposit having six, but actually keeping track of all that would be a nightmare.

I actually worry that even two is inviting a heist of some sort, since SwC is the only BTC poker site worth caring about.

But what about the neckbeards who are going to be home New Years Eve? 

Think about the neckbeards!

I read it and it is interesting, but as I pointed out, not relevant to the larger issue, which is in this document called the Constitution.  You might remember it.

I'm not sure why you're getting mad, since I agreed with all your points, just pointed out that NY's proposed actions are in violation of the constitution itself with absolute disregard to Congressional actions (other than those directly authorizing it to act).

Actually, Congress could preempt state legislation and regulation whether their bill passes first or afterwards.  (I'm not sure exactly which order you're saying is likely.)  This is yet another reason the NY State proposal is wrong-headed and premature, at best.  I wouldn't put it past those dunderheads in Albany to go ahead and try it anyway.

The other most likely culprit for stupid regulation is California.

There is nothing so clearly interstate as exchange that occurs across the entire planet.  The only reason NY State and other states can regulate things like banking as they impact interstate commerce is because of explicit grants of authority by Congress.  The same applies to insurance, which Congress has also explicitly granted states the power to regulate in derogation of ordinary restrictions on regulating interstate commerce.  

To the extent there is no explicit grant of authorization, such regulation is prohibited, even if it does not directly contradict any other federal regulation.

I.e., Congress does not have to preempt state regulation directly or even indirectly.

I hope any exchange I have anything to do with is not located in NY, since they would be regulating it just to flex their muscles, and clearly don't have any clue what they're doing.  The fact they don't know what they're doing speaks for itself in that they are attempting to mis-classify Bitcoin as somehow generally falling under Congressional legislation that is very specific to money transmitters.[

I.e. it is blatantly unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

Regulation by people who have no idea what they're doing rarely benefits anyone.

Doesn't matter.  Generally gambling for anything of value is what is prohibited or requires a license.  You can't get around that by, say, using chips instead of actual money, at least as long as the chips are convertible.

Pretty sure there's actually someone playing the hands that aab plays, but there's pretty obviously some kind of automation going on at least for starting hands.

If you can't beat a HU bot you should probably find another game.

This site is a pile of dicks.

Hope someone just steals the hot wallet and keeps it.

Fuck you, Di.

Fair use is a copyright defense.  It is not a trademark defense.


This is true, but I wouldn't rely on this much.  It is pretty easy for a trademark plaintiff to gin up some ludicrous claim that a defendant somehow profits in some intangible way from an "infringing" use and then claim that the use is therefore "in commerce."  That's why I didn't even mention that potential defense, because unless you're a lawyer, you shouldn't be telling people facing a potential lawsuit that they're completely in the clear. 

Citing fair use in a trademark dispute just demonstrates this further.

Just because the *non-lawyers* Western Union is using to make its stupid claims are confusing copyrights and trademarks does not mean that this is a wise choice or that we shouldn't avoid it ourselves.

Actually, it makes it much more likely that it will have increased 10-1000% in value.

This actually results in the likelihood that you might not receive it at all because whoever you contracted with might just decide to default on the deal and keep their BTC.

Don't tell anyone this is bad for something that wants to be a currency, because they won't believe you.

It isn't.  And so far, they've just made a takedown notice and then made noises in response to media contacts.  They're probably just used to bullying social media and YouTube and the like without anyone standing up to them.

She shows up here as a media contact.

You should consider contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or at the very least submitting this incident to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, which keeps track of bullshit like this (if you haven't already).

I'm not insinuating she went rogue, but that it is often a (bad) policy of corporations simply to send out shotgun notifications against anything that references their trademark in any way, often using inappropriate mechanisms like the DMCA (since you describe a DMCA notification). 

If it's worth anything, the address on the LinkedIn address is in Colorado, there's an Erin Schol in Aurora, Colorado, and there is no "Erin Schol" listed in Colorado's directory of licensed attorneys, nor can I find anything online about her graduating from any law school in the period shortly before she got this job that would, if done by a law school graduate, have been an entry-level job.

Just because the WU address is in Colorado doesn't mean our Erin Schol is in Colorado, or that the Erin Schol in Aurora is our Erin Schol, or that Erin Schol may not be licensed somewhere else.  But it seems like a good guess, and my initial guess is she isn't a lawyer, but just a DMCA notification agent.