Note that they aren't actually a courier company (let alone one of the largest in the UK, as claimed in one of the press releases), they are a reseller of other courier companies.
That is actually the easiest way to get BTC accepted, as you don't need the large companies to change anything, just the resellers.

They aren't sold in packs of 24, so I think I'm safe in assuming something like this: http://www.beersofeurope.co.uk/trappistes-rochefort-10

The third big problem:

- What are they? Are they currencies, designed to be spent, or are they commodities/valuables, designed to increase in value?
The two contradict each other. If you think BTC is going to increase in value, it makes no economic sense to spend it, you would spend USD instead, and keep your BTC.
But the ultimate long term value of BTC is tied to it actually becoming used as a currency (or at least a medium of exchange), and so having actual use, rather than just speculative value.

You need to convince retailers to accept BTC, and for people to spend it, to increase its long term value.
But if you think its long term value will increase, you won't spend it.

Ah, that isn't what I meant. I meant that if you already had BTC, why not just spend those, rather than convert to Munti and spend that.
One of the few tangible benefits of cryptocurrencies over 'real' ones is the ability to transfer and spend funds worldwide with no exchange fees. The idea of having separate cryptocurrencies for each country removes that completely.

(You can file a criminal case (make a complaint to the police) against anyone for anything, that doesn't mean that any notice will be taken of it or that it will have any effect).
If you manage to have a European Arrest Warrant issued for any of KNC's employees [for failing to refund your money within 30 days], I'll send you 100 bottles of Belgium beer.

It appears to be an English partnership.
So what? You agreed to contract out of consumer protection. It may be that you could successfully argue in court that you should be excused from that portion of the contract, and that you should be entitled to consumer protection, but until you do that, you aren't.
It matters not what legal status you are, it matters what contract you agreed, until you can have that contract modified.

I think there is zero chance that the police will, without further investigation, conclude that KNC have acted fraudulently.

<Bangs head on wall>
Exactly.
For a criminal complaint.
You don't have a criminal complaint. No crime has been committed.

Perhaps it is a matter of language, as I think English is not your first language.
To sue someone, or to file a lawsuit, in English, means to file a civil complaint, with the courts.
You don't sue someone for a criminal issue, or file a lawsuit about it, as you said you just report them to the police.
You don't arrest someone (in general) for a civil complaint.


Wow, that sentence contains so much incorrect information, I don't even know where to start.

If you read the post I was quoting, the point I was making should be clear.
Whether you start with BTC or Euro, you have in no way avoided exchanging currencies.

No it isn't.
I really don't know how to say it any clearer than that.
Failing to meet a contractual obligation is a violation of the contract which can be sued for damages in civil courts. It isn't fraud, which is a criminal offence.
Fraud requires dishonesty. Simply being inefficient is not fraudulent.

No, you have to convince a court that they have jurisdiction to hear your lawsuit.
You have to apply to them to be allowed to serve your filing [on KNC] out of their jurisdiction.


At least in the UK, that is simply not true.
The police would have no interest in your civil complain against KNC, they investigate criminal offenses.


You can claim all you want, you still have to file a lawsuit, get agreement to serve out of state, and convince the court to accept jurisdiction.


I don't think that is true.

If KNC violate the terms of your contract, you sue them in civil courts for damages.

I can't read anything in that decision which remotely supports your position.
It affirms the legality of European Arrest Warrants.
Those are issued for criminal offences.
It says nothing about civil suits, suits filed in multiple jurisdictions, or the ability to issue a EAW for multiple civil suits.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_matters/l33167_en.htm

What relevance does that have to KNC being late refunding your money?

Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (85/577/EEC)
DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

You explicitly contracted with KNC on the basis that you were operating as a business, not a consumer. You are therefore assumed to be outside the realm of consumer protection unless you can first convince a court to ignore that portion of your contract.


Yes.

Which laws?
(Remembering that you have contracted as a business)


Unless you can show cause otherwise, KNC have the right to be sued in their own country, just like any other defendant.


I'd love to see the 'European law' that you think says that if more than one lawsuit is filed against someone, you can have them arrested.
It certainly would come as a surprise to KNC.

Don't take legal advice from random strangers on the internet, people.

An hour would on average give you six BTC confirmations.
Are you going to wait at the icecream stand for the 9 minutes it would take to get 6 Munti confirmations?
[No, you are going to use cash, just like everybody else]

You don't see the contradiction there?
Why not just use BTC!
Rather than exchanging dollars for Euros you've exchanged BTC for Munti. Hardly a brave new world.

The biggest cause of it stopping, as highlighted in the list above, was Britain, and the Royal Navy in particular.
Britain had not just the desire to stop slavery, but the means to enforce that desire.

Not ever close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

1569: An English court case involving Cartwright, who had brought a slave from Russia, ruled that English law could not recognise slavery.
1706: In the case of Smith v. Browne & Cooper, Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of England, rules that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."[16][17]
1772: Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.[20]
1807, 25 March: Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes slave trading in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported.
1807: The British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. The West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) is established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[34]
1811: Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire, punishable by transportation for British subjects and foreigners.
1815: British pay Portugal £750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator[37]
1817: Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo[37]
1818: Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade[39]
1818: Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade.[39]
1818: Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands taking additional measures to enforce the 1814 ban on slave trading[39]
1831: Brazil adopts the Law of 7 November 1831, declaring the maritime slave trade abolished, prohibiting any form of importation of slaves, and granting freedom to slaves should they be illegally imported into Brazil. In spite of its adoption, the law was seldom enforced prior to 1850, when Brazil, under British pressure, adopted additional legislation to criminalize the importation of slaves.
1834: The British Slavery Abolition Act comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. Legally frees 700,000 in West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, 40,000 in South Africa. The exceptions, territories controlled by the East India Company and Ceylon, were liberated in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire.[42]
1835: Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade[39]
1835: Treaty between Britain and Denmark to abolish slave trade[39]
1840: Treaty between Britain and Venezuela to abolish slave trade;[39] the first World Anti-Slavery Convention meets in London.
1841: Quintuple Treaty is signed; Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria agree to suppress slave trade[21]
1842: Treaty between Britain and Portugal to extend the enforcement of the ban on slave trade to Portuguese ships sailing south of the Equator.
1843: East India Company becomes increasingly controlled by Britain and abolishes slavery in India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.
1843: Treaty between Britain and Uruguay to suppress slave trade[39]
1843: Treaty between Britain and Mexico to suppress slave trade[39]
1843: Treaty between Britain and Chile to suppress slave trade[39]
1843: Treaty between Britain and Bolivia to abolish slave trade[39]
1845: 36 British Royal Navy ships are assigned to the Anti-Slavery Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.
1846: Persuaded by Britain, the Bey of Tunisia outlawed the slave trade; the policy was reversed temporarily by his successor.[44]
1847: Under British pressure, the Ottoman Empire abolishes slave trade from Africa.[45]
1848: Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade[39]
1849: Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade[39]

1850: In the United States, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requires the return of escaped slaves to their owners

1862: Treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act).[39]

1863: In the United States, Abraham Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation which declared slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in "border states" are freed by state action; separate law freed the slaves in Washington, D.C.
1865: December: U.S. abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.[53]

This might in part be due to the fact that what is being measured is blockchain transactions, and
a) not all of them will be actual economic transactions, they could just be people shuffling their own money between wallets. Could a couple of large exchange movements have caused the spikes?
b) blockchain transaction amounts are always artificially inflated due to having to always transfer entire previous outputs, so change ends up getting counted as spent money
Not really obvious how you could filter either of these effects out, except in the simple case of change being sent back to the original address.