I believe "security" measures like this are best described as "bullshit."

Why the fuck not?

And this doesn't apply to Android why exactly?

They're not as reduced as you might think.  They're less frequent, but considering the vast increases in the value of Bitcoin, are either almost as good or possibly even better than the previous krillroll setup.

I do think there should probably be more krillrolls for lower krill players just because people like to play poker, but I think the main issue there is the shitty Briggs software can't deal with 500+ players.

Note, another collection method that is really fun is called a "till tap."  I don't know if that's available in Kansas.  Essentially, what this means is a sheriff's deputy shows up in uniform at their offices and any money that comes in gets immediately seized until the judgment is fully collected.  Plus, the presence of a uniformed law enforcement official seizing money really looks impressive to any visitors of the business.  Also, they have to pay for the cost of having this done.

Defaulting on judgments when money is still coming in is basically an invitation to collect your free money, so contact this reddit guy and find out who he's using.  The guy could probably use the business.

Not legal advice, of course.  I'm just suggesting that I'd find it amusing to watch.

Depends.  If they have other assets, it may still not be possible to recover the Bitcoin itself, but legal judgments are almost always going to be denominated in USD.  The problem is your typical scammer is often a judgment-proof degenerate with no assets whatsoever, at least none you can actually seize.  There is also the additional problem that Bitcoin generally appreciates in value, but proving this may be beyond the ken of the average juror, that is, it will require expert witnesses to prove.  So the amount of BTC in controversy as well as the solvency of the debtor/thief will determine whether it is worth bothering.

And if the idea suggested itself, a court will generally not look with approval upon an attempt to sit on your rights while waiting for the price of BTC to go up and only suing then.  That defense will immediately suggest itself if the amount in controversy is sufficient to encourage the defendant to seek competent counsel, i.e. that you waited until the price went up to the point to make it worth it to sue, so you should only be entitled, as a matter of equity and/or just basic fairness, to the value at the time of the breach of contract and/or tort.

Josh Zerlan, a.k.a. Inaba, is a worthless liar, a welsher, and a thief on basically every level.  I doubt this worm has ever done anything honorable in his life.

This really makes him the perfect representative for BFL, the scummiest, most dishonorable corporation ever to do business in Bitcoin.

Both actually.  And under either theory, Bitcoin is a a currency.  There are some specific legal definitions under which Bitcoin is not a currency, and usually that is actually to Bitcoin's benefit, because being a currency under some legal definitions would subject it to stringent regulations.  When it is considered a "commodity" instead, that is actually beneficial.

However, Bitcoin is definitely a currency under most normal human language uses of the term.

That's exactly the welshing I was talking about.

Anyone who says Bitcoin isn't currency is literally retarded and doesn't even know what currency is.  There used to be a currency called "wampum" that was basically just the shells of various kinds of mollusc, mostly whelks and clams and other molluscs, and there was no central government that enforced its use as currency.  The tribes just basically agreed to use it as currency.

That's all that determines what a currency is.  People use it as a unit of exchange.  There does not need to be any government to enforce this.

Seriously, do a martingale solely as a FUN strategy.  Anyone who thinks they can reliably make money at this is a moron.  A negative expected value bet is a negative expected value bet no matter how you structure your betting.  That means you lose long-term anyway.

When I'm doing retarded losing gambling, I like what I call a "reverse martingale."  This is basically making a tiny bet at first, and if you win, let it ride and put the winnings on the table again.  Then keep doing this until either your inevitable loss or until the winnings get big enough you can buy a car or something.  Then cash out.

It's still a losing strategy, of course.  But I'd rather risk a tiny amount that doesn't matter in the least to me to win a huge amount that might, than the usual martingale, which basically involves risking your entire bankroll every time to win a tiny amount most of the time.

Also, if you're generally an advantage player, it's a great way to charge up your comp card and not get kicked out of casinos.  The house likes it when you give it some -EV action.

Basically, because they're idiots, which is what Inaba/Josh Zerlan is betting on.  It's worked out pretty well for the BFL scam so far.

No one who is not an idiot should place a bet with the known welsher and thief Inaba/Josh Zerlan, and nobody who is not an idiot should place an "order" with BFL.

I dunno.  I think there's a small amount of signal in the noise.

My personal translation of the message was "I'm a lunatic, ignore me."  So I did.

Agreed, but business-savvy Muslims do manage to bank.  Kosher rules on diet are also quite complex, and yet Orthodox Jews manage to eat.

My suggestion is simply that it might be a good idea for any Muslim who is pro-Bitcoin and knows someone with authority to issue a fatwa and who is likely to issue a favorable one should go ahead and do it.  Muslims are generally hostile to the way Western banking operates, and frankly, for good reason, and Bitcoin actually lacks many of the characteristics that makes Western banking standards haram (forbidden). 

This is not only an enormous market, but a potential area where cultures that generally clash could be brought together in agreement on a fundamental issue (money and what it means).

Salman Rushdie is my favorite particular example of stupid fatwas.  The Satanic Verses supposedly insults Mohammed.  Anyone who has read it knows it doesn't.  It does have two particularly pointed parodies of specific people, though.  

One character is obviously a parody of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who just coincidentally issued the fatwa calling for Rushdie's death.  Another is a parody of Cat Stevens, now calling himself Yusuf Islam.  What a surprise that he is also one of the other vocal supporters of the fatwa.

Basically, two Muslims got butthurt about being satirized in a brilliant novel, and then called for the murder of the author of the satire.

This has little to do with Islam itself, and a lot to do with theocracy and the ability of egotistical assholes to get buttmad about anything and everything.

Incidentally, while I have no opinion about this particular dispute, small claims is an excellent way to resolve a conflict with a corporation that does business in your state.  Just remember to follow all deadlines, and if you get a judgment, domesticate it in a state where the corporation has assets, and they generally cough it the fuck up.

Not legal advice, just a personal opinion.

ETA:  Oh, and just to avoid seeming like I'm insulting this service, every transaction I have personally had with Coinbase has been excellent, either exactly on time or even days earlier.

Which Sharia, though?  There are many schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Martingale always works.  All it requires is an infinite bankroll and a casino willing to take any bet up to infinity.

>Earn
>Martingale

LOL.

Yep, for me too, although I have largely only sold there.  I recently did buy (just .3 BTC though) and it worked fine.  But I have heard a number of anecdotes about purchasing BTC not going excellently there.