Find me a *secular* Gaza based charity which accepts BTC ... and I'll donate.
I'll be waiting a while I guess.
Yeah I'm still waiting to be able to visit the US as a tourist. Too much Insh'allah from presidential candidates, elected presidents, congress ... pretty much the entire populace actually. (Insha'allah means the same as 'God willing', and since all Abrahamic religions have the same god - that's Christianity, Judaism and Islam - it's in effect a non-secular call for submission to the very same deity) Anyway, on topic: Excellent question, and if a successful route can be found it would bring BTC awareness to a large group of people. Bitcoin services should build upon strengths of Bitcoin, and not being hindered by US so called "terrorist lists" is indeed one of them. |
|
|
|
If it's so important to you get the laws changed
No need, existing laws cover Bitcoin theft just fine. Numerous examples have been posted. Seems to me like you are using Dutch law as evidence for a global standard!
No, but I am European and know how unlikely it is for the EU court to have a different opinion. If it was likely the Dutch case would've already been on its way there. Other examples posted in this thread supports the same applying to the US. If there are laws against something in the EU and US it's very unlikely for other countries who want to be part of global trade to take a different stance. Cited for your convenience, the definition of 'goods' in the EU: 3 . 1 . 2 . M E A N I N G O F ‘ G O O D S ’
Articles 34 and 35 TFEU cover all types of imports and exports of goods and products. The range of goods covered is as wide as the range of goods in existence, so long as they have economic value: 'by goods, within the meaning of the … Treaty, there must be understood products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions' The law most certainly covers stealing of goods. |
|
|
|
It has to be similar to thing things on the list; IE you can't steal air for example no matter how much value you'd like to assign to it because it's like nothing else on the list.
Aaaaand back to the Supreme court of the Netherlands: Under article 310 of the Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to deliberately take de facto control of any good belonging to another person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it. The term 'any good' has an autonomous definition under the criminal law. An intangible object may be considered a good provided it is an object that by its nature can be removed from the de facto control of another person.
Using another person's private key to sign over the control over their bitcoins to yourself fits the above definition quite well. (Don't worry, the same reasoning applies in other countries as well) And yes, using a password you find on pastebin to take control over someone else's property would also apply. |
|
|
|
It's a complete list of examples and none come close to bitcoin.
The list was not exclusive, as has already been pointed out. Maybe we can try Florida?
Sure! (14) “Intangible property” includes, by way of illustration and not limitation:
There you go! |
|
|
|
Amazingly, I mentioned the Netherlands in the OP
Yes, without finding the most relevant supreme court decision. To answer the question you pose in the OP: Yes, stealing Bitcoins is illegal, and would be prosecuted everywhere there's a functioning legal system. You have provided no support whatsoever for any other interpretation of relevant law that has been cited in this thread. I'll re-quote the Supreme court in the Netherlands below: The assertion that the objects are not goods because they consist of 'bits and bytes' is untenable. The virtual nature of these objects does not in itself preclude their being considered goods
Your personal views to the contrary are not relevant. |
|
|
|
There are no general laws for society. That's not how the law works. There are specific laws for specific situations. Legislation is not the ten commandments from the Bible.
Amazingly there's more than one society in the world. Here's how the supreme court in the Netherlands views the issue: By laying down various criminal provisions, the legislator intended to protect rightholders' control over any goods owned by them. Under article 310 of the Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to deliberately take de facto control of any good belonging to another person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it. The term 'any good' has an autonomous definition under the criminal law. An intangible object may be considered a good provided it is an object that by its nature can be removed from the de facto control of another person. The assertion that the objects are not goods because they consist of 'bits and bytes' is untenable. The virtual nature of these objects does not in itself preclude their being considered goods within the meaning of article 310 of the Criminal Code. The appeal court's ruling on this matter is thoroughly reasoned and is in no way incorrect in its interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court bases this conclusion in part on the fact that the appeal court established that 'for the victim, the defendant and his co-accused, the possessions they collect in the game hold genuine value, which can be taken away from them'
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Supreme-court/Summaries-of-some-important-rulings-of-the-Supreme-Court/Pages/Extractfromthejudgment.aspx |
|
|
|
Genjix and phantomcircuit are not scammers. If this was an inside job, these two people were not in on it.
My vote is still on the creation of an "Utterly incompetent" tag. |
|
|
|
At some point you have to trust someone. It is scary to think that your passwords are all stored there - make sure your account password in to lastpass is very complex. According to their site, they use an encryption method that uses your password to encrypt your passwords in their DB so even if they were hacked, your passwords are "safe."
Only your encrypted passwords are stored at LastPass. Since they don't have your key (the passwords are decrypted locally when you access them) it's impossible for someone to get your passwords from LastPass even if they hack their servers. They still need to somehow get your password from you. pretty sure was a LastPass account that got hacked which caused a fuckload of coins to be stolen from bitcoinica.
The password to the account was the same as a string visible in the leaked source code. That's extremely bad password management - of course your LastPass master password should be extremely secure and unique. I'd also recommend using two factor authentication towards your LastPass account. Google Authenticator on an Android mobile is an easy and painless solution. tl;dr: Use unique strong passwords everywhere. Never re-use passwords. LastPass helps you accomplish just that. |
|
|
|
|
Electronics follow the bathtub failure model. Either they fail immediately, or after a very very long time. If you test the stuff before shipping you can be pretty much sure about the mean time before failure (mtbf).
Some electronics include moving parts. Those can fail pretty much at any time.
Some electronics are based on chemistry, like electrolyte caps. Those dry out in decades.
Some electronics have wear, think cells in an SSD with limited (although still in the thousands and tens of thousands) number of write cycles.
Some electronics are basically just fixed gates. Like ASICs. They don't wear, and the likelihood of one failing is incredibly small.
/defxor
Anecdote: At home I have an 1987 Atari ST, including a SM124 monochrome monitor and an RLL MFM 30GB hard disk in working condition. The picture quality is slightly unstable, most likely due to the caps in the PSU needing to be exchanged.
|
|
|
|
Reading the license it does look like CC A 3.0 would support translated versions.
But of course  Creative Commons is a set of licenses designed for permissive reasons, by the great Lawrence Lessig. The only CC license that would not support translations would be one including the NoDerivs option (which weusecoins don't use). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/Also, in many countries there's no such thing as "public domain", mine included, and for us CC0 - Creative Commons Zero - is the most permissive license possible. |
|
|
|
Let's say, for sake of argument, Gavin said the same thing about me--Bruno. But Bruno Boy is the only known person to have ever met Zhou. That aspect can be put up for dispute. I don't understand what the argument is. Also, I mentioned it once on this thread, and has been echoed in a different way: Iain, the liquidator, should look into Zhou's involvement in Bitcoinica. His actions should not be left off the table. There have been no new facts disclosed that change my opinion since I wrote this post, quite a while ago. The least complex explanation that fits all known facts involve no one but Zhou: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95795.msg1065233#msg1065233With regards to Donald, Patrick and Amir I would just consider them to be in denial, besides being utterly incompetent. |
|
|
|
Also how do you know Tihane(or whatever his name is) has done anything or is even who he says he is (has anyone here even met him?)?
Tihan Seale is who he says he is, according to Gavin. I'm not sure there's much more trust than that to be had in the Bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
Einstein had faith. The theory of relativity was pure inspiration.
Deluded human! Know that all scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. And Isaac Newton less so then others. Except when he quoted Bernard of Chartres on that very subject, of course  |
|
|
|
1) His name is probably Trendon Shavers, from McKinney TX.
2) He runs gpumax.com, which is registered under "Don Shrents". A little investigation would easily dig up how these people are related.
It's not uncommon for people to (unconsciously) make up aliases that keep some traits of their real names (initials, syllables etc) without realizing it. Tren don Shav ersDon Shrent s |
|
|
|
then I propose a tag something like "Don't trust with money", which doesn't necessarily entail scamming, just that at the very least this person has been negligent in some way.
"Incompetent" |
|
|
|
Obviously, this is not something that everybody can do, which is why good investors are highly paid.
All scientific research done on the market has shown that it's random. Good investors don't outperform chance, but since there are so many of them you will always be able to find those who've done well. The trick is, you can't predict who those will be beforehand. There's a nice anecdote in Kahneman's "Thinking, fast and slow" where he visited some fund manager office in London and realized that on some rational level they did know what they did was equal to throwing dice. Yet, they still paid out large bonuses to those who had been the best at it. Nuts. |
|
|
|
eleuthria, fair point. However, by "old days" we perhaps refer to slightly different old days. I, for example, distinctly remember some websites updating their dedicated servers to cope with slashdot effect.
Ah the old days. My /. uid is ~100000 - I was late to the party. For many years getting Slashdotted meant your connection would go down - and they themselves had a pretty big pipe. When 9/11 happened and a lot of big websites went down due to traffic (CNN.com IIRC) Slashdot was the only site that was continuously updated. It's quite fun reading comments on Bitcoin on Slashdot. Most of them reek with hurt geek superiority, i.e, "Since I didn't get it from the beginning I will now hate it". |
|
|
|
Update Bitinstant <--> BTC-E Enabled now It sounds like they also adopted good security practices
Explaining the external use of their LR key with "brute forced" has me worried, I don't see how that's computationally possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96831.msg1068030#msg1068030What additional security practices are put in place in case the hackers are able to extract new replacement keys easily? They are preparing a full write up for the community including screenshots, ect. Did this ever happen? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
