The urge to invest in bitcoin companies is the old meme that you don't get rich digging gold, but selling the miners spades.
For bitcoin, this is not correct. Just buy some coins.
Someone have to invest in companies, but it doesn't have to be you.
I would disagree. Many bitcoin related companies can be successful regardless if bitcoin is successful (or if some other altcoin is successful). They are simply 'investing' in any crypto currency taking off. With bitcoin on the other hand you will only profit if bitcoin is successful Bitcoin companies are strongly reliant on the community, the mainstream still sees Bitcoin as a huge risk and fraudulent system, while the exaxt opposite is true, Fiat and the financial system = Fraud. It's our job to get this in the open and to make GOOD bitcoin bussinesses a succes! So yes, it's hugely inmportant to support and invest in bitcoin companies if you have some btc to spare  Many Bitcoiners are involved in fraud (look at this forum) and many Bitcoin businesses are run in an incompetent or fraudulent manner (Mt Gox, CoinLab, Bitfloor, CoinLenders, ...) so I would not make that comparison. |
|
|
|
Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and would be reversed.
You would serve the domain owner WhoisGuard, Inc. Domain Name:BITCOIN.ORG Registrant Name:WhoisGuard Protected Registrant Organization:WhoisGuard, Inc. Registrant Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 Registrant City:Panama Registrant State/Province:Panama Registrant Postal Code:00000 Registrant Country:PA Registrant Phone:+507.8365503 In some cases an In Rem action can be filed where you sue the domain name. Not sure if that is possible in this type of case. In any case service is not that difficult. If Theymos would need to be served at some point he has already provided enough info to find him via his Reddit AMA. I am not very familiar with the laws regarding proper service as I have never had to try to avoid service like this. Regardless he would not need to personally appear in court unless he was compelled to testify, if he simply wanted to put on a defense he could have someone appear and speak on his behalf (an attorney/team of attorneys) I referenced the wrong domain but bitcointalk.org is registered to the same company. Mr. Marquardt would be a witness and he would be subject to appear at depositions and court hearings where he would testify. Him potentially testifying has nothing to do with putting on a defense. There is also nothing that would prevent him from sending some other agent of the forum to testify they the agent has sufficient knowledge about the scope of the deposition. This is why the CEO of major companies do not testify when their companies are involved in lawsuits. Also claiming section 230 protection would probably prevent the case from ever making it to trial in the event that immunity is upheld (if they have immunity then the facts of the case do not matter as they are not liable regardless of the facts) You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. If Mr. Marquardt is directly involved in the activities in question then he has to testify. This is not some large where you have thousands of employees doing all kinds of stuff. In order for immunity to even be considered they have to identify themselves. That means proving a registered business name, identify all the owners of the domain name, etc. You don't get that part. If they don't do that then they can't provide any defense. It is interesting that if this thread involved some financial intuition I can imagine all the hooting and hollering how a financial institution shouldn't be allowed to do things like this ... but since it is someone running a Bitcoin site everything is different and any complaint is a "conspiracy." |
|
|
|
Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and would be reversed.
You would serve the domain owner WhoisGuard, Inc. Domain Name:BITCOIN.ORG Registrant Name:WhoisGuard Protected Registrant Organization:WhoisGuard, Inc. Registrant Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 Registrant City:Panama Registrant State/Province:Panama Registrant Postal Code:00000 Registrant Country:PA Registrant Phone:+507.8365503 In some cases an In Rem action can be filed where you sue the domain name. Not sure if that is possible in this type of case. In any case service is not that difficult. If Theymos would need to be served at some point he has already provided enough info to find him via his Reddit AMA. I am not very familiar with the laws regarding proper service as I have never had to try to avoid service like this. Regardless he would not need to personally appear in court unless he was compelled to testify, if he simply wanted to put on a defense he could have someone appear and speak on his behalf (an attorney/team of attorneys) I referenced the wrong domain but bitcointalk.org is registered to the same company. Mr. Marquardt would be a witness and he would be subject to appear at depositions and court hearings where he would testify. |
|
|
|
Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and would be reversed.
You would serve the domain owner WhoisGuard, Inc. Domain Name:BITCOIN.ORG Registrant Name:WhoisGuard Protected Registrant Organization:WhoisGuard, Inc. Registrant Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 Registrant City:Panama Registrant State/Province:Panama Registrant Postal Code:00000 Registrant Country:PA Registrant Phone:+507.8365503 In some cases an In Rem action can be filed where you sue the domain name. Not sure if that is possible in this type of case. In any case service is not that difficult. If Theymos would need to be served at some point he has already provided enough info to find him via his Reddit AMA. |
|
|
|
This isn't the real world; it's an Internet forum and we go by the rules that have been set out before us.
That is ridiculous. What I suggest is that people start suing the forum if they realize a loss due to some of the activities here. How it works is that you sue the whois privacy service (which is in Panama). It is unlikely that company will provide a court defense over a service that costs a couple dollars a year. Most likely they will either divulge the true registrant or simply default. If the true registrant is identified they will need to provide a defense and identify themselves or they will default. If they identify themselves then you can start identifying the staff and calling them in for depositions. If they default then you can probably get a court order to seize the domain from the .org registrar which is located in the USA. If bicointalk.org were to default you really don't need that solid of a case, you just need a prima fascia case which will be successful if they default. By suing the forum you will put them between a rock and a hard place. If you think this forum does not matter in the real word, think again. The Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation shot himself in the foot by posting here and Barry Silbert used it against him in court Vessenes has not posted here since: http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdfhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306672.msg3289385#msg3289385Forum posts have also been cited in a several other criminal and civil cases such as the Silk Road and pirateat40 prosecutions. Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information. The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post). That depends of the specific facts. That immunity goes out the Window if the web site conspires with people who post or place the ads. it also does not provide immunity from criminal liability. Giving Trade Fortress specialized privileges to promote a fake bank covers both those issues. You should read the link you posted so you understand what it means. Some case decisions are posted there. As I have explained any defenses won't matter unless Mr. Marquardt (Theymos) shows up in court. |
|
|
|
This isn't the real world; it's an Internet forum and we go by the rules that have been set out before us.
That is ridiculous. What I suggest is that people start suing the forum if they realize a loss due to some of the activities here. How it works is that you sue the whois privacy service (which is in Panama). It is unlikely that company will provide a court defense over a service that costs a couple dollars a year. Most likely they will either divulge the true registrant or simply default. If the true registrant is identified they will need to provide a defense and identify themselves or they will default. If they identify themselves then you can start identifying the staff and calling them in for depositions. If they default then you can probably get a court order to seize the domain from the .org registrar which is located in the USA. If bicointalk.org were to default you really don't need that solid of a case, you just need a prima fascia case which will be successful if they default. By suing the forum you will put them between a rock and a hard place. If you think this forum does not matter in the real word, think again. The Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation shot himself in the foot by posting here and Barry Silbert used it against him in court Vessenes has not posted here since: http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdfhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306672.msg3289385#msg3289385Forum posts have also been cited in a several other criminal and civil cases such as the Silk Road and pirateat40 prosecutions. |
|
|
|
Exactly, but I don't think this guy is going to get it. Most people generally do seem to frown upon account selling and it's not 'endorsed' by this site or the admins. There's a difference between endorsing something and allowing something, especially something they cannot hope to or be expected to control. Also, even if account trading was banned, that wouldn't mean it's not going to happen and suddenly make trust 'meaningful' or 100% trustable.
Liability would be based on the specific facts and what a reasonable person would do. The site has mechanisms in place to moderate and threads are deleted on a regular basis. Under those conditions it may very well that the site would be expected to control those types of posts as much as reasonably possible. By allowing the posts it could be seen as an implicit endorsement of those activities. The fact that staff comes on here to ridicule those that complain about would certainly weigh heavily on the side of liability. This is why normal businesses put in reasonable controls. It is clear that hilariousandco has no concept of these issues or how they work in the real world. |
|
|
|
|
The apologists have chimed in. It is funny how all these people scream of corruption and lies from the traditional banking system but when it happens in a Bitcoin forum we here the same old familiar excuses. Nobody said it was the forum's job to police things outside their control, the issue is conspiring with people when you know they are breaking the law. A reasonable newcomer is not the same thing as a reasonable person who has significant knowledge of the issues. The last three posts were hyperbole and they try to divert attention from the actual issue.
The people running the forum had enough knowledge to know the ads they were running were fraudulent and they continued to run the ads in the face a huge backlash. The forum finally put up that disclaimer and kept running the ads after they had even more information about the situation and worked closely with the people involved. In a situation like that the site may very well be liable. There is also the issues of promoting other things like inputs.io which was known by the site to be fake bank loaning out the funds which, of course, were eventually lost.
The theory that it is alright to scam newcomers because they should have known better is not going to go over well with most people, including the people on this forum. That is evidenced by the thousands of complaints received by regulators about BFL, pirateat40, Mt. Gox, and on and on. It seems Bitcoiners are like most other people and they want regulators to step in when things go wrong.
If people lost due to answering ads here they very well may have a claim. If the people who run this forum were concerned about Bitcoin they would voluntarily start refunding the money to the people that got ripped off. They knew all along what was going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Oh, now I see. I did not consider re-sending the coins or the strain on the network. Thank you!
It's really a fairly complicated problem to keep the utility of Bitcoin because you want low fee transactions for "micropayments" (which may not be "micro" for some parts of the world) while protecting the system as it scales and keeping the incentives for miners via transaction fees. |
|
|
|
I don't what you are talking about with the freedom not be censored since the article is about Bitcoin staff censoring critics. If the Bitcoin staff takes the time to censor certain things yet promotes the fake banks and vendors they know won't deliver it seems pretty clear what they are doing. The "free market" is not the same as conspiring to scam people.
Except the users mentioned in that pathetic and biased article wern't 'censored' for being critical of this forum. You can find plenty of threads attacking mods or criticising the site in one way or another and they're never removed or the users banned, yet when a user is banned for PM/sig/troll spamming like those three users were there's suddenly a conspiracy. You are correct, those petty arguments and 'troll" accusations don't really matter. It is just a bunch of teenagers arguing. What is important is teaming with fake banks and vendors who didn't deliver. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you need to reread my "hyperbole" instead of answering with your FUD.
Scams happen everyday, in every county, city, state and country. It's been going on since man has existed. You want utopia, there is no utopia.
I read it and your post is worthless nonsense. You are just making stuff up about my position and raising irrelevant issues. I never said I want utopia and certainly scams exist everywhere. Nobody said the forum should investigate activates of its members or things that happen outside the forum. Your post is all nonsense and hyperbole and it is an attempt to avoid the actual issue. The issue is the people who run this forum conspiring to knowingly engage in illegal things to make a profit. Often the profit was made from scamming newcomers just trying to get involved in Bitcoin. Other activities, while not necessarily illegal, are ridiculous and damage the reputation of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The people who moan at how this forum is run should try create one, though.
Yes, keeping a forum operating is a difficult task but with a 7-figure budget that should be possible. However, the issue is not about that, the issues are about common-sense policies that most other forums and legitimate businesses do. For instance, most forums do not promote Ponzi schemes/illegal investment schemes, partner with vendors who they know will not deliver, promote fake banks where the people lose their funds, and promote the resale of accounts. Even if you can't stop these things you certainly do not promote it or watch it take place without taking reasonable action to stop it. You simply don't see this stuff other places and it often makes Bitcoin look ridiculous. Greed. It's what causes most scams and the subsequent successes of the scammers. Many of these "deals" happen in Skype, Yahoo and other off site places and only come here to open an accusation thread, seeking some kind of help for their gullible actions. The really sad part is they usually fall for the same scam over and over again. Throw in people sprinkling dust on the beggars, gamblers and "loan" seekers, this only keeps them coming back and bringing their pals. Start banning accounts and scammers only create more accounts and stay deeper in the shadows, there is no winning this fight. If people want to be censored, there are an unlimited places they can go but for myself, I would rather have the freedom here than have a select politically correct few deleting my posts at will. Your post if hyperbole. Nobody said a site has to go investigate activities of those who post. The issue is specifically conspiring people to do illegal, stupid and ridiculous things. I don't what you are talking about with the freedom not be censored since the article is about Bitcoin staff censoring critics. If the Bitcoin staff takes the time to censor certain things yet promotes the fake banks and vendors they know won't deliver it seems pretty clear what they are doing. The "free market" is not the same as conspiring to scam people. |
|
|
|
The people who moan at how this forum is run should try create one, though.
Yes, keeping a forum operating is a difficult task but with a 7-figure budget that should be possible. However, the issue is not about that, the issues are about common-sense policies that most other forums and legitimate businesses do. For instance, most forums do not promote Ponzi schemes/illegal investment schemes, partner with vendors who they know will not deliver, promote fake banks where the people lose their funds, and promote the resale of accounts. Even if you can't stop these things you certainly do not promote it or watch it take place without taking reasonable action to stop it. You simply don't see this stuff other places and it often makes Bitcoin look ridiculous. |
|
|
|
I guess I am confused... What is the problem with someone sending you a million little bits of btc? Besides flooding your transaction history, I guess I fail to see the negative side.  It would also fill up all the blocks with transactions and push out the regular transactions. Block size is limited so it can only currently handle 7 transactions a second. Also increase traffic for the nodes and increased storage space. |
|
|
|
|
Apparently what happened was that the dust transactions got into Armory before I had upgraded QT. Armory has its own memory pool and it stayed there until I manually cleared it. With the current version of QT it should not show up all now.
|
|
|
|
Armory has a memory pool file that persists between loads. However, you can manually clear it using Help->Clear All Unconfirmed
If they show up again, then Bitcoin Core is rebroadcasting them (perhaps to try to get them mined?).
That worked. if Bircoin-qt is not relaying why did they show up in the first place? Bitcoin-Qt was relaying them (I had some of that dust, too). It but it wasn't re-relaying them, so clearing the mempool made them go away. It's possible, if you restart Core, that its memory pool will clear allowing them to be re-relayed again if someone rebroadcasts, but I think the newer versions of Core should reject them as non-standard and not relay them. I think that is it. they got into Armory's memory pool before I had upgraded Bitcoin-QT and it didn't go away until I cleared it. thx |
|
|
|
Armory has a memory pool file that persists between loads. However, you can manually clear it using Help->Clear All Unconfirmed
If they show up again, then Bitcoin Core is rebroadcasting them (perhaps to try to get them mined?).
That worked. if Bircoin-qt is not relaying why did they show up in the first place? |
|
|
|
I have a couple of those unconfirmed tx's from those 1Sochi 1Laxo addresses and they are more than a month old. Gavin posted this about the QT wallet
That is a feature of Bitcoin-Qt. Unconfirmed dust transactions don't enter the memory pool, so they are not relayed, not included in blocks being mined, and not displayed by the wallet.
If I recall correctly, if they DO get mined into a block by somebody then they are displayed. Ignoring them and not adding them to the wallet in that case might be a nice feature, although today's dust might be tomorrow's treasure if prices rise another couple orders of magnitude.
Why do these tx's show up on the Armory wallet at all and why are they there more than a month later? Normally they disappear after a couple days. Does it mean they are being rebroadcast or is it some other reason? |
|
|
|
|
It is just a piece of the virus that triggers the signature detection algorithm so it can't do anything. I ran ClamWin a couple weeks ago and it found about 5 or 6 signatures in the blockchain files in addition to the "stoned" one that gets detected by many scanners.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
