Islam itself couldn't adopt Bitcoin, because there isn't anything like a "Pope of Islam" who can make Muslims do anything.  However, a lot of Muslims are in countries where the governments engage in the worst forms of abuse of fiat currency that make Bitcoin popular among nerds here in primarily Christian countries.

Frankly, anything that gets smart people anywhere, of whatever religion, into Bitcoin and therefore, on the Internet, can't possibly fail to help the world.  And fuck what governments think about that, or their fraudulent agendas.

Is it premature to say. . .

DONKDOWN CANCELLED!

j/k

Inaba is not a real man.  Or any kind of man at all.  He is a low worm.

I can only speak for myself.  Considering all elected officials take a similar oath, and their conduct doesn't always look to me like it's upholding the Constitution, I have to conclude some people take oaths in vain.  As for me, though, if I say "I swear" something, I take it seriously.

As for lawyers who take cryptocoin, I believe MSantori, on this site, might.  There's nothing illegal whatsoever about taking payment in any form, so long as it isn't contraband of some kind.  I've known lawyers to take payment in goods, services, dairy products, construction work, pretty much any form of barter.

(I can also think of a couple lawyers who took payment in less acceptable forms, such as drugs or illegal services such as procuring the absence of witnesses in other cases.)

I wouldn't suggest doing it without escrow unless you want to be scammed by this thieving, welshing fuck.

Best post on this thread ever.

Well, then you have an actual dispute about a material fact, so you can't, for example, successfully file a motion for summary judgment and avoid trial.

Unfortunately, that is what legal scholars would call an "interesting question" and spend upwards of six figures arguing about, should it ever come to a court case.

My personal opinion is no, but the opinions of the kind of idiots who would prosecute a case like this seems to be leaning the other direction.  And by idiot, I don't mean stupid people, that's just my term for people with whom I disagree.

Preponderance is basically a 51% deal.  If it's more likely than not that you own the private key, you prevail on that standard.  So if you can actually produce the key, that would prove that you actually own it to any reasonable person, especially if you also, as you would, swear under oath that you are the rightful owner of that key.

Civil court cases quite often turn into "swearing contests" just like this, with one person saying one thing and the other side saying another, and the fact-finder deciding which of them is telling the truth.

But actually possessing the private key is a lot stronger than just saying you are the rightful owner of it.  There's no "beyond any reasonable doubt" in a civil case, which a recovery action would usually be.  The burden is preponderance of evidence, and actually producing the private key while the other side is incapable of doing so (since it doesn't own it) would shift the burden to the other side to prove you were not the rightful owner.

So by that, you mean you made a completely fraudulent trust/untrust and lied about another person, accusing them of stealing USD $250,000 from you.

Okay.  That's pretty legit I'm sure.  I'm sure you don't lie constantly in other areas of your life.

This is sort of prompted by the existence of this thread on a specific service called the Islamic Bank of Bitcoin but probably deserves its own thread.

Islam, depending on how you count, is either the largest or the second-largest religion in the world, following Christianity, and indubitably the largest expanding religion in the world.

Islam has a number of interesting rules relating to money (actually somewhat resembling rules Christianity used to follow).  Essentially, interest and gambling are haram (forbidden).  However, the loan service in the thread I linked loans out Bitcoin, and receives payment back in the form of an identical amount of Bitcoin.  This, at least on its surface, avoids the Islamic rule against interest, even though generally, Bitcoin is going to be worth a lot more when you get it back then it was when you loaned it.

This strikes me as potentially violating the rule that gambling is also haram.  However, if this rule were interpreted as strictly as this, it would forbid investing in stocks, bonds, pretty much anything that might increase or decrease in value.  Since many Muslims do these things, and as far as I know, no prominent cleric has denounced them, it seems this is, at least possibly, entirely consistent with Islamic law.

So, my idea, to get to it, is this.  The Islamic world is one of the biggest in the world.  Countries where Islam is the primary religion sometimes have exactly the kind of fiat currency problems that Bitcoin addresses.  A few fatwas (simply statements from a cleric about a religious question) that Bitcoin isn't haram would really open up these markets.

As far as I can tell, the use of Bitcoin is actually entirely consistent with Islam.  It's a bigger market than China.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

If you happen to know a prominent Islamic cleric, or know someone who knows one, consider posing this question to them and inviting a fatwa.  Note:  Islam is not hierarchical in structure, as such, and there is no "Pope" of Islam.  Therefore, an opinion would really only be binding or even of interest to followers of that particular school.  

Unfortunately, at least on average, the level of player here is pretty damn good.  There are a few tilters and some utter degenerates, and the occasional really horrible player.  But in general, the level of player is much higher than on Pokertards.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact the player base is largely comprised of American players who were locked out of the poker market after Black Friday after years of playing online, and who got back in largely because of just finally having a site where we could play again.  I think the fish base, such as it is, is comprised of people who have more Bitcoin than sense and got into poker fairly recently.

Utter bullshit.


Almost all states have an oath in a similar form.

The theory of damages for that kind of dilution is that the mere existence of inferior knockoff products tarnishes the name of the original.  For example, Rolex is damaged by the profusion of cheap knockoffs out there, such that someone wearing a real Rolex enjoys less benefit from it because of the presumption that it too is a cheap fake.

TY MICON

Things like fake Rolexes are routinely seized.  They don't need an injunction to do that, just a temporary restraining order or, for instance, an ex parte writ of search and seizure.  The counterfeiting scum rarely challenge this after the products are seized, because there is a criminal element to trademark infringement (18 U.S.C § 2320), and the crooks are glad just to get away with whatever profits they earned with their fakes.

It is rarely if ever illegal simply to purchase a counterfeit product.

As for fake Rolexes, the fakes generally do not have the same second hand action as a real Rolex.  A real Rolex has a second hand that is a delight to watch.  The fakes tick along and spaz out and look like shit.

I checked, was actually $1,150.  So sue me.

So are you saying

DONKDOWN CANCELLED?

MY SIDES! 

Oh, yeah, it's much safer to keep your money in a bank where the government routinely just steals it!

$600 is where I bought back in.

ETA:  $610 actually.