If I desired to lend, I'd go to BitLendingClub simply because they're in the US but aren't complying with any of the securities laws that they're supposed to be. If I lost a significant amount, l'd just sue them and take it.

My interest in what other people think of me is limited, and even less so when those thoughts are motivated by disagreement.

Troll or not, I am simply saying that, using the Mail Order Rule as the basis of demanding a BTC refund is not the strongest idea and that my assessment of the rule is that, when paid in BTC, such a refund need not be performed in the manner outlined by the rule.

Currency also does not equal cash. FinCEN also said that virtual currencies are NOT legal tender.

The Coinlab case is different as a contractual obligation is, and should be, enforced as written.

If you read the actual text of 16 CFR 435 it says:

"(d) Refund shall mean:
(1) Where the buyer tendered full payment for the unshipped merchandise in the form of cash, check, or money order, a return of the amount tendered in the form of cash, check, or money order;

(2) Where there is a credit sale:
(i) And the seller is a creditor, a copy of a credit memorandum or the like or an account statement reflecting the removal or absence of any remaining charge incurred as a result of the sale from the buyer's account;
(ii) And a third party is the creditor, a copy of an appropriate credit memorandum or the like to the third party creditor which will remove the charge from the buyer's account or a statement from the seller acknowledging the cancellation of the order and representing that it has not taken any action regarding the order which will result in a charge to the buyer's account with the third party;
(iii) And the buyer tendered partial payment for the unshipped merchandise in the form of cash, check, or money order, a return of the amount tendered in the form of cash, check, or money order."

Bitcoins do not meet the definition of cash, check, or money order. (While they may be "money", "money" is not the same as "cash")

Compliance with the rule is not possible.

I have 8 GBs of RAM. And if I was RAM-short, the external mouse shouldn't move either, no?

Anybody else had a problem with having Armory running and finding that their mouse isn't responding?

On my laptop, usually when Armory is scanning the block chain, my laptop touchpad will no longer respond to movement. Clicks still work, but the mouse won't move. My external mouse continues to work just fine though.

After my bitcents were stolen, I turned on logging in my account and didn't bother changing my password. Whatever happened, somehow, SOMEBODY managed to get my blockchain password and has been having a snoop through tor.

Today 01:03:15   get account settings   37.221.170.49   Mozilla/5.0
Today 00:06:41   get account settings   204.124.83.132   Mozilla/5.0
2013-04-12 21:43:37   get account settings   37.130.227.133   Mozilla/5.0

I just recently (a week or so ago) wiped and reinstalled Debian, haven't logged into my blockchain wallet on my PC since then... and still got my fraction-of-a-coin swiped. Not sure I buy the XSS explanation.

Blockchain.info has just informed me that I sent a payment from my wallet.. except I didn't.

https://blockchain.info/tx/b79bba28fcfd40e44008ba95ba0087733fab3bfa73c75236efd0d3ab84266f5d

Bumpity bump.

New cards in stock!

I have several hundred in Starbucks gift card value that I am looking to sell. You can purchase any amount greater than $5. If you buy more than $100, you'll receive cards card direct from Starbucks/CashStar in $100 increments (system limitation).

I'll sell for 10% off face value in BTC, using Mt. Gox last.

Whenever I try and edit my Profile I get a (humorous) internal server error page.

Stuck behind a firewall at college that doesn't let IRC out.

I'm looking to sell a few Amazon e-gift cards. More will be probably added throughout today and tomorrow. This account is heavily linked to my "real life" identity through virtue of its screen name (Google knows WAY too much...), however, I am still willing to send first to established members or as an alternative, provide a greater discount.

Now selling at 7% off face value listed for BTC @ Mt. Gox weighted average.

AVAILABLE NOW:

Coming Soon - Reserve Now!:

You look around and realize there's nothing here.

Right of First Refusal Claimed:

This space available.

Sale Pending:

The crowd's here... but there's nobody on the field.

Sold:

• $111.83 - Was: OTC #12383
• $111.83 - #PS-0001-001
• $74.55 - Was: OTC #12384
• $73.50
• $73.50
• $147.00

Fine Print:
USD/BTC tolerance for this offer is -1 USD. BTC price quote may be rescinded if the value of USD/BTC drops 1 USD or more following quote but prior to exchange of either BTC or card code.

2) If a loan was fixed to USD and serviced by a third party a la point #3, if a person wanted to use their real identity to obtain the loan, it is possible to have it report to the credit bureaus.

3) With regard to what I'm getting at, there is no selling of the loan. The original person who owns the loan still owns it, just a third party does all the work overseeing payments and such. This is to enable it to be reported to the "real life" credit bureaus. In this case, the third party has no control over the interest rate or anything (since we mostly see fixed rate loans).

So, since the idea of credit reporting has been kicked around a lot lately... and I've been thinking about it for a while too, I have a few questions (which are incredibly US centric):

- What is the general view toward fixing loans in USD (or other fiat currency) and not BTC?
- Would borrowers be okay with having their Bitcoin payments reported to their "real life" credit report?
- Would lenders be okay with having a third-party company service their loans (like how US student loans and mortgages are done -- you give the money and own the debt, but somebody else is responsible for collecting and such for it)?

I ask these questions because there's a lot of talk about wanting real life credit reports. It's a good idea, but unless you're going to trust borrower-provided reports, a hard inquiry results in a ding to a credit score. Since reporting a loan in BTC is extremely difficult and doesn't happen at present, it's inherently unfair for the borrower to get a ding to their credit score for a BTC loan with no hope of it reporting. Soft inquiries are an option, but can only be done for certain reasons. I also realize some of these things go against the anonymity-hawks desires, but I think if you're seeking to borrow a significant amount of money, anonymity gets to take a backseat.

http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/txlist/

All of those transactions have made it in to the Bitcoin network, but are waiting for confirmation. A few of them are from the beginning of the year! However, it's worth noting that, in the grand scheme of Bitcoin, this is a VERY low percentage of transactions.

In the future, if/when Bitcoin becomes more popular and transaction blocks are crammed full of transactions, it becomes possible that transactions will take forever to confirm and allow a user to double spend (and thus you run the risk of being deprived of those funds, which could cripple a business).

This is why, interest of best practices, it's good to wait for confirmation. It's better to learn it now, than have to learn it later.

In order for a punishment to work, you have to know you're being punished.

What REALLY would be nice is: If you get ignored by somebody, on every one of their posts you see: "This user is ignoring you, replying to their post is of no consequence to them since they won't see it." Then again, that would also encourage trolling and flamebait... this is harder than I thought.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Giving scammers an entire section to brood in would just encourage the development of trolls and mod-oriented flamebait.

If a particular group wants to ostracize somebody, fine... but I don't think it should be a decision made for everyone. I, personally, have no problem accepting relevant and productive input from scammer tag affixed persons on ideas.

I would be in favor of banning them from the marketplace, though.