I couldn't find the part where they reserve the right to defraud bitcoin related businesses.
You understand and agree that you will not engage in the following activities:
● Use the Dwolla System without written consent to operate or engage in any business regulated by FinCen, including the money service business;
● Act as a marketplace and/or exchange for virtual currency products without prior written consent;
...
You understand and agree that Dwolla is authorized, pursuant to general parameters of conduct established by Veridian, to take the following actions due User misconduct or Security Concerns as detailed in this section:
● Place a Hold on Your User Account for Up to 90 days:
● Temporarily or Permanently Suspend or otherwise Limit Your Access to Your User Account:
● Contact Users who have purchased goods or services from You, contact Your bank or credit card issuer, and/or warn other Users, law enforcement, or impacted third parties of Your actions; or
● Take legal action against you
There it is! Previous iterations didn't spell it out quite so clearly. |
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find the part where they reserve the right to defraud bitcoin related businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
No monetary system is moral. Every currency favors an arbitrary group of people.
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression it had everything to do with someone way more intelligent and mature for his age than his peers, driven to madness from having to deal with bullying and ostracism by those too dumb to understand him (like the few cases of highly intelligent loner school shooters before him), and nothing to do with our sociopolitical structure?
We are all of us shaped by the contours of our environment. And we are all victims of a sick culture. |
|
|
|
The Search for Causality.
Started in the 80s in the US with the birth of the "Postal" phenomenon, these mass killings have moved from workplaces, to schools, to churches to.... everywhere.
At what point do you think the US will start to compare it's extremely divisive socioeconomic policies to that of other more equal nations which have yet to see this kind of epidemic?
At what point will the "Structural" Violence of this system be seen for what it is and how through the process of constant shame, comparative advantage and dehumanization, which is inherent, these kinds of acts are not only predictable, they are inevitable.
We are breeding this behavior. They are defense mechanisms of those who emotionally have nothing else to lose. |
|
|
|
www.ubitex.org is a startup service that seeks to match local buyers and sellers of bitcoin with eachother so that they can exchange in person. As a shareholder, I think it would be great if you used and advocated this service to others such as yourself in your area! Ubitex doesn't seem to work. Yes, it is currently pining for the fjords, as is my investment. |
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Infomercial:
"Has this ever happened to you?"
Black and white video of a frustrated and irritated woman:
trying to buy something online by shoving cash into a computer monitor.
dropping a credit card and the entire contents of her purse while trying to swipe it at a PoS.
has an ink pen explode and stain her nice dress as she's trying to write a check.
"Now there's an amazing solution for all of your monetary needs!"
Star wipe to full color video of a happy and content woman waving a smartphone around, clearly enchanted by the wonderful technology.
"Bitcoin! The amazing digital currency designed to make your life simpler and easier!"
Woman buys alpaca socks with press of a button.
"Never have to waste time and effort on sending cash to online stores."
Woman taps phone on fast food restaurant cash register. Employee and woman exchange smiles and laugh.
"Pay for an evening meal in seconds!"
Woman throws away checkbook and pen into trash can, turns to look at smartphone with satisfaction.
"Never ruin your favorite dress in public again!"
Video animation of computer and internet stuff that looks simultaneously impressive yet safe and user friendly. (good luck)
"Using the power of the internet, your money is secured by the most powerful supercomputer on EARTH!"
Video of thieves unsuccessfully trying to steal money from the internet. (Again, good luck)
"All you have to do is press a button! It's like sending an email, but it's money instead!"
Video of group of attractive and diverse friends and family sending each other bitcoins for fun, smiling. Close up on young preteen.
"It's so safe and easy, even Junior can join in on the fun!"
Cut to standard blue order screen with yellow text reading "Internet".
"Toorderbitcoincallyourfriendwhoknowsaboutcomputersandaskhimtogetbitcoinforyou.B itcoinisnotinsuredbuyerbewareuseatyourownrisk.Cautionuseofbitcoinmayhavethefoll owingsideeffects:questioningauthoritybeinglabledaterroristengaginginlongdebatesaboutlibertariani smwithassholesonlinebeingscammedbecomingascammerbecomingdisillusionedbythereali zationofeconomicfreedomandtheurgetotellothersaboutbitcoinasoftenaspossible.Offe rvoidinIranifJGarzikcatchesyou.Nopurchasenecessary.Manywillenterfewwillwin."
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, We've been interviewing bitcoin exchange sites over the last few weeks. The list includes MtGox, Coinbase, Bitcoin-central, Bitfloor, BitInstant, and more. In a few lucky opportunities, I even have gotten to speak to owners in person. This was all in the hopes of creating a reliable place to find out what you'd want to know when buying bitcoins. What I learned in the process is: * Rates vary a lot! So do limits. Buying bitcoins reliably is still hard. * Bitcoin businesses are booming. Bitcoin-central had a very positive affect on the USD->BTC price. * Most businesses aren't certified... yet. * Support is still spotty, but there are actually reputable places to buy and sell bitcoins. Like #bitcoin-otc, we are trying to establish who the awesome businesses that are out there. You can now sign up, and rate + review these businesses. http://howdoyoubuybitcoins.com/from/Please join and give a shout out to your favorite business!  Certified by who? To do what? By what standard? |
|
|
|
The universe does not lend credit, credit has no basis in reality, credit is an idea, an illusion that we ourselves create to maintain the fiction that we have ownership over something, or that we are owed something or that we deserve something.
I'm not a fan of credit either, but this is just no exact. The word "credit" comes from the latin "creditus" which means "to believe, to trust". We may not "deserve" things, but we do expect stuff to happen. It's based on the ability for one human being to express his future motives and actions, and for an other human being to hear about it and thus predict what will actually happen. It's not just humans. I'm pretty sure all primates are capable of anticipating the behavior of other members of the group. Same for many superior mammals and also for plenty of birds, who trust each other when they let each other take care of the eggs in the nest, for instance. The universe has lent credit as soon as he invented a sophisticated central nervous system. I expect the force of gravity to be in effect constantly and consistently, but a force of nature is not the same as the overwhelming possibility space of human behavior. And basing society on the presumption of future fallible human behavior is unlikely to serve us well in this time of technical and scientific capability. |
|
|
|
|
Ripple tries to democratize and idealize the old failed system of credit. There's a reason it is failing, and it isn't because the banks have control of credit and money, but because money and credit distort values and produces aberrant behavior. Credit is a terrible idea, mainly because it is an idea based on false authority. The universe does not lend credit, credit has no basis in reality, credit is an idea, an illusion that we ourselves create to maintain the fiction that we have ownership over something, or that we are owed something or that we deserve something. Let's stop playing these detrimental mind games and start recognizing the realities that we find ourselves in, the unprecedented technological advancements we have achieved and the understanding that we have so much more to gain if we didn't paralyze and cripple ourselves with the ancient and outmoded idea of money.
|
|
|
|
The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess
Rarely is the law scientific about anything  Then read "logical". Logic and science go well together though Rarely is the law logical about anything. oh, but it is. do not confuse "logic" with "common sense". Agreed. Ideally, logic is the foundation of law, but often its application and interpretation are not. |
|
|
|
The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess
Rarely is the law scientific about anything Then read "logical". Logic and science go well together though Rarely is the law logical about anything. |
|
|
|
|
Vladamir. I'm sure he would love to talk to you guys.
|
|
|
|
even if they should somehow learn the private key without my permission, they cannot spend the bitcoins. I believe this is technically incorrect. I'm not an expert on the bitcoin software, but I'm pretty sure anyone who has the keys can spend the coins. |
|
|
|
|
Clearly a magazine with lots of issues.
|
|
|
|
Only 1 of those people can spend it at any given time. Like a bank account many people can have access. If they all tried to withdraw the balance of that account only the first successful attempt would be valid. So the actual owner of the money was the one who was able to use withdraw it.
Before the bitcoin is used any one of the holders has the potential to be the owner, but it the one that determines it's usage that is in fact the owner.
So it is more like quantum property, which exists in a state of ownership uncertainty until it is in fact spent. Either that or a far more simple explanation is that the private key is just information and the actual bitcoins, the property are the unspent outputs. Then where does ownership come in? If the property is the unspent outputs, then everybody with a copy of the blockchain has them. Ever heard of: Possession is nine-tenths of the law? What you are saying is the same as saying that because everyone knows where the Mona Lisa is held everyone owns it. And yet that's not true because the picture although it's location being public is held under lock and key in a museum in Paris. It all falls back to how you define a property and how you define ownership. Here are my definitions: – property: a scarce tangible entity, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the access to and control of has been restricted and limited – ownership: the freedom to restrict and limit the use of a scarce tangible, corporeal or incorporeal, entity These definitions might not be what is generally accepted but they are what I thought of myself as the most sensible ones. And to answer your question, clearly just knowing about the unspent outputs means nothing if you don't have the information needed to turn them into inputs and spend them i.e. if you don't own them. if Possession is 9/10ths what is the other 1/10th? Okay, lets take apart the premise it is possible to give parts of a Bitcoin to many people so that many people have ownership. Fundamentally this is not possible. Bitcoins can only be associated with 1 ECDSA key at any given time that means there can be only 1 owner at any given time. Please see the following. "Each coin is associated with its current owner's public ECDSA key. When you send some bitcoins to someone, you create a message (transaction), attaching the new owner's public key to this amount of coins, and sign it with your private key. When this transaction is broadcast to the bitcoin network, this lets everyone know that the new owner of these coins is the owner of the new key. Your signature on the message verifies for everyone that the message is authentic. The complete history of transactions is kept by everyone, so anyone can verify who is the current owner of any particular group of coins."
- source How Bitcoins Wortkyou can make up your own definitions to suite yourself if you like. It's of no consequence to me. It seems very immature, and ignorant but that is your decision. Consider this, having a general consensus of word (or even gesture) meanings is the only way we can communicate. If you don't think so, then try to communicate with someone that speaks a different language than what you are familiar with. You will be able to mimic their words, but it is not possible to communicate unless there is meaning associated with with those words. There have been new technical developments. Look up "pay to script hash" and related functionality. |
|
|
|
Here's a prediction: Vlad will never actually file any lawsuit.
Is that on bets of bitcoin yet? |
|
|
|
Only 1 of those people can spend it at any given time. Like a bank account many people can have access. If they all tried to withdraw the balance of that account only the first successful attempt would be valid. So the actual owner of the money was the one who was able to use withdraw it.
Before the bitcoin is used any one of the holders has the potential to be the owner, but it the one that determines it's usage that is in fact the owner.
So it is more like quantum property, which exists in a state of ownership uncertainty until it is in fact spent. Either that or a far more simple explanation is that the private key is just information and the actual bitcoins, the property are the unspent outputs. Then where does ownership come in? If the property is the unspent outputs, then everybody with a copy of the blockchain has them. Ever heard of: Possession is nine-tenths of the law? What you are saying is the same as saying that because everyone knows where the Mona Lisa is held everyone owns it. And yet that's not true because the picture although it's location being public is held under lock and key in a museum in Paris. It all falls back to how you define a property and how you define ownership. Here are my definitions: – property: a scarce tangible entity, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the access to and control of has been restricted and limited – ownership: the freedom to restrict and limit the use of a scarce tangible, corporeal or incorporeal, entity These definitions might not be what is generally accepted but they are what I thought of myself as the most sensible ones. And to answer your question, clearly just knowing about the unspent outputs means nothing if you don't have the information needed to turn them into inputs and spend them i.e. if you don't own them. But doesn't being in a museum imply that everyone owns it? That's kind of the point of a museum, to share and curate a shared culture, which is ultimately owned by no one. If everyone possesses the unspent outputs, then how many tenths of the law does that add up to? It seems like a lot of tenths. I am frightened by the idea of a rapidly inflating legal system this implies. If multiple people possess the key information, then both simultaneously have the freedom to use the outputs, but it is not until that freedom is exercised that ownership can be computed and determined by the bitcoin protocol. I suppose that one thing can have multiple owners, but in some cases one could be completely unaware of the other. This is further complicated by the m-of-n scenario where multiple keys are used to manipulate one or more specific unspent outputs. How is ownership defined in that case? The quantum description applies much better than any previous legal term, I think. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
