I'm Joe Average. I buy things online, predominately off Amazon, occasionally Newegg or Ebay. I have a paypal account, but I rarely use it- Really, only for Ebay. Either way, I have never run into a problem with either my bank, or paypal.
As strictly a consumer you are currently paying a premium (let's say 5% on average) above what the goods could cost if Bitcoin was the payment system used since it does not rely on some of the archaic thinking that has led us to the banking system we have today. It's similar to how the Internet brought everyone cheap publishing abilities. If you want to be a small time merchant, there's nothing that comes even close to being able to rival Bitcoin in low startup costs and overhead. |
|
|
|
My goal from the start was to have a payment network, not a speculative investment asset
+1 Getting the get-rich speculators out of the spotlight is only good for Bitcoin at the moment. Less focus on whether it's a pyramid/ponzi and more focus on what it actually brings to the table. |
|
|
|
Shifting 60 gigabytes of data in, say, 60 seconds means an average rate of 1 gigabyte per second, or 8 gigabits per second.
Yeah, that's comforting... No, but one proposed solution is: Bandwidth
The network costs of distributing blocks can be minimized by changing the protocol to send blocks as a header plus a list of hashes. Because nodes are very likely to have already seen a transaction when it was first broadcast, this means the size of a block to download would be trivial (80 bytes + 32 bytes per transaction). If a node didn't see a transaction broadcast, it can ask the connected node to provide it.
|
|
|
|
Each US dollar has it's own individual serial number, but the US dollar is recognized as having value because it is legal tender for all goods and services public or private. There is no such legal staple for Bitcoin.
Nor gold, heirlooms, sheep or socks. That's completely irrelevant as to how something gets valued. You're not even a good troll. |
|
|
|
That was my point, the ATM analogy is irrelevant because they're vastly different in their implementation and uses.
The law does not care about your technical implementation. You claimed a bug in software has intent, I showed that in the eyes of the law it hasn't. Explain to me then how we're supposed to have automatic transactions then? Do you expect someone running an exchange to click an "I consent" button every trade? No. THAT'S WHAT THE SIGNATURE IS FOR, IT IS YOUR CONSENT Do you believe writing in caps somehow increase the validity of your argument? Do we KNOW the person who admitting is the person who actually received the 511 BTC? Irrelevant to our argument, that's up to the court to decide. Alright fine, let's look at the issue of "intent" in another way, in regards to intersango specifically. I maintain that intersango intended to send 511btc because they set up software to do that very thing and sign the transactions for them.
Yes, you indeed keep maintaining a lot of things of which you can show no backing in law whatsoever. See the ATM example. |
|
|
|
1) these are not ATMs, certainly do not fall under the same rules and regulations (at present anyway)
Irrelevant. 2) I did not say the bug is consent, but the signature. What do you propose we do about this "bug" issue in the future then eh? Can I set someone up with a bitcoin wallet, send them all of my bitcoins with erroneously coded software and then prosecute them? I think not.
That's why you have to show that there was intent (and consent). 3) Do you know 100% for a fact that a software bug caused that issue? Provide solid evidence apart from an IRC log that it was not intersango's intent to send the btc and that a bug caused the issue
The thief has admitted. 4) whether you want it to or not, bitcoin has no regard for "intent", you're thinking of paypal, those transactions can be reversed, perhaps PPUSD is a better currency for you
Technical ability for reversals is of no relevance to the law. "But your honor, is technically impossible for me to return the stolen car!" |
|
|
|
This is what i'm not understanding with everyone arguing against me, it sounds like you guys want paypal, not bitcoin.
No one is talking about what they want here, maybe except you. We're talking about the laws governing us and Bitcoins, no matter if we want to or not. |
|
|
|
Your initiation of a transfer and signing of the transaction are both your intent and consent, respectively.
No, as shown with the ATM example I gave you in the other thread. A software bug is not, and cannot ever be, consent. |
|
|
|
because those bitcoin must be digitally signed to you for you to have possession. Bitcoin possession = ownership
Type of signature is, of course, irrelevant in the eyes of the law. In addition to the elements of a contract: - a party must have capacity to contract;
- the purpose of the contract must be lawful;
- the form of the contract must be legal;
- the parties must intend to create a legal relationship; and
- the parties must consent.
If a contract is in a written form, and somebody signs it, then the signer is typically bound by its terms regardless of whether he has actually read it,[28] provided the document is contractual in nature.[29] However, affirmative defenses such as duress or unconscionability may enable the signer to avoid his purported obligation. Furthermore, if a party wishes to use a document as the basis of a contract, reasonable notice of its terms must be given to the other party prior to their entry into the contract.[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Formalities_and_writing |
|
|
|
Read what you just quoted me, because it's funny that you're defending my argument for me. You are entitled to keep the money if you honestly believe it's yours
The thief has already admitted to acting in bad faith. If you want to spout random nonsense at least try to acquire basic knowledge about the subject first. |
|
|
|
(But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind)
No idea what any of that stuff is. Yeah that's why I suggested you should read more and post less. It's not utterly irrelevant, it's completely irrelevant because property must have value. Without any value, BTC's cannot be property as defined by law.
BTC has value at the nearest exchange, just like gold. (If you believe there is a difference you might want to check your calendar, it's not 1971 any more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system ) |
|
|
|
The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/scams-and-rip-offs/consumer-rights/11335/what-to-do-when-atms-give-you-the-wrong-money“People should realise that, even though an ATM has dispensed cash, they are not entitled to that money and are committing a criminal offence if they keep it.”
In English law (covering England and Wales), you are entitled to keep money paid to you in error “under mistake of fact”, but only if you honestly believe that the money is yours. Without any proof of mens rea (‘guilty mind’), mistake of fact can be used as a defence against civil and criminal liability, but only for unintentional mistakes.
But I suggest you keep making stuff up. It makes for fun reading. |
|
|
|
BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate.
Again with the personal ramblings. The above is utterly irrelevant. (But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind) |
|
|
|
Regarding the intention, did you read my other post?
Yes. Your posts contain no information of interest. And, you're ignoring the description of the law itself. Property must have 'value,' and there is absolutely nothing that gives mined BTC value to humans. I can only assume you're trying to be funny. The value of a bitcoin at the nearest exchange is enough, just like with gold. Mined BTCs are not the product of human work, and thus have no human value. They are the product of computer work. Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans.
This is what I meant with your personal ramblings. Don't do forums when on LSD. |
|
|
|
These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.
No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance. I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.
No. You're ignoring both the existing case law that has been posted as well as claiming BTC is somehow "special". The only way I can see why you would do that is if you completely ignore all the information in the thread in preference for your own ramblings. That's pointless. This is a clear cut case, based in law, with no special provisions needed for it being about bitcoins. |
|
|
|
My argument is
... completely irrelevant. Start by reading the existing posts, everything is covered there and personal speculation is completely pointless. |
|
|
|
You don't know what are you talking about, do you? What I'm talking about is a very basic legal principal that exists in every modern legal system since the times of the ancient Roman jurisprudence! Do you think UK is an exception?
Some countries go mostly by "letter of the law". Some mostly by "spirit of the law". I live in the latter. I can only assume you live in the former. |
|
|
|
Everything that is not forbidden is allowed!
I strongly advice you to not bet on that being true for all different national jurisdictions. |
|
|
|
About 90% of my trades have been profitable ones. I've made approx. 30-40 trades on tradehill. Try flipping a coin 30-40 times and see how often you get 90% heads.
Since you're the one claiming it would be out of the ordinary, why don't you do the math  You of course know how to do basic statistical calculations. (PS: Traders talking about their success rates after the fact, using words like "about" and "approx" don't ever show up in scientific research. Can you guess why that would be?) |
|
|
|
Err how was this information obtained? Did the person talk to FSA or someone in the EU commission? Is there any EU politician or finance ministry that is semi-publicly stating this? And IRC chat log doesnt seem that creditable.
I'd suggest asking the Pirate Party representative in the EU parliament as a good way of finding out. I don't think the Swedish Pirate Party has an official stance on Bitcoin yet but at least they're not of the boring mainstream politician breed. http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/category/english/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
