...
Richard Stallmann warned of the dangers of proprietary software (nothing new here, move along!)
...
This is not surprising and actually expected. The fact that RMS gave his speech at a Bitcoin conference is a very significant promotion for Bitcoin. To put things into perspective. GNU/Linux accounts for 1% of the desktop operating system market share. A similar market share for Bitcoin would require a market price for 1 BTC of approximately 10000 USD. |
|
|
|
What about sponsoring Internet Providers to block websites that don't accept bitcoin?
That's the lamest thing I've heard in weeks. You must have missed his other thread about DDoSing sites that refuse to accept Bitcoins. This sounds straight out of the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI playbook. Ever heard of Piratepay? A resounding NO. By the way DDOSing sites is illegal in most jurisdictions, so this offends virtually everyone. |
|
|
|
|
The combined site be will about 25% the size of bitcointalk.org though slightly more active. I suspect the younger members of the combined community (those in their teens) will lead the way in Bitcoin adoption. Why? Because for many of them it will be the only practical option.
|
|
|
|
I have a hard time believing the <1$ votes
It is not that unreasonable. Let us say I bought 1000 BTC at an average cost of 6 USD per BTC for 6000 USD total. I then sell 500 BTC for say 11.50 USD per BTC for 5750 USD. The effective average cost of the remaining 500 BTC is 250 USD or 0.50 USD per BTC. the hard part is not buying back at 10$ after selling at 11.5 ... i guess that's what makes my avg price suffer i always buy back Ok. So we now have 1075 BTC for the initial 6000 USD for an effective price of 5.58 USD per BTC. Keep doing that and the effective average price will get below 1 USD per BTC. |
|
|
|
I have a hard time believing the <1$ votes
It is not that unreasonable. Let us say I bought 1000 BTC at an average cost of 6 USD per BTC for 6000 USD total. I then sell 500 BTC for say 11.50 USD per BTC for 5750 USD. The effective average cost of the remaining 500 BTC is 250 USD or 0.50 USD per BTC. |
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not really clear about how a situation could arise where the court would demand for the private key to a bitcoin wallet. If the crime was receiving money for some illegal activity, all they would have to do is prove that someone had the private key to the public address. They would have to know something linking you to the public key in the first place to charge you with a crime. Your financial transaction history would be on the block chain, hence, public. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I just don't get it.
I could see a potential situation where someone is ordered by the court to pay back taxes or alimony, and it comes up that the defendent has the private key to a 100K BTC wallet. A divorce case might perhaps, but it would be easy for the defendent to move the BTC around and claim that they lost it all on Satoshi dice or something.
I can see a situation where a court of law would demand the private key or keys to a bitcoin wallet. Hint: pirateat40. |
|
|
|
|
No. One can use mBTC or eventually µBTC.
|
|
|
|
...
It should also be noted that we are actually required to require AML data from all customers, but allow use of the service anyway as long as we don't see anything that could be suspicious (in case of fraud we end paying if we don't have any aml data). "Suspicious" is defined as anything that has been known to be done by hackers. This includes accessing multiple accounts, using proxies, etc...
...
This says it best. If you wish to use MtGox get verified and provide the AML/KYC information. Otherwise there may be problems. Personally I went through the verification process first before depositing any funds there, and have had no problems. I posted this is another thread but it is just as applicable here. |
|
|
|
As Bitcoin continues to grow in popularity that is an unreasonable demand. It may be a good practice to personally protect your wealth but an exchange should expect that a portion (probably a majority) of its users are logging in from a Windows machine. I would point out that session jacking isn't just a windows issue. There are exploits in MacOs, iOS and Android OS as well. Users logging in from public wifi risk MITM attacks regardless of the OS. Cross Site Script vulnerabilities in browsers, extensions, and plugin (java) are generally speaking OS agnostic.
I for one am for a web based business supporting as many different platforms and operating systems as possible, so I would never expect a web based business to not support Microsoft Windows. As the owner of a website for over 10 years most of my visitors use some version of Microsoft Windows. In fact this year I even got the odd visitor using Windows 3.xx! Having said this it is also very important to be honest about the risks involved. We are talking about risk mitigation not risk elimination here. Sure there is the odd piece of malware for GNU/Linux or cross platform browser exploit, and some exploits by their very nature are cross platform such as phishing attacks, MITM attacks etc, but the reality is that a lot of attacks here are Microsoft Windows specific and can be eliminated by simply not using Microsoft Windows. I have for example removed Windows specific Bitcoin stealing and mining malware from a customer's computer. The customer had never even heard of Bitcoin! Where this is important for an online business is to ensure that the site is compatible with GNU/Linux and that any two factor authentication security methods used dot not exclude the use of GNU/Linux and other Free Software operating systems. I would take single factor authentication on a properly secured GNU/Linux system over two factor authentication on Microsoft Windows any day from a risk mitigation perspective. |
|
|
|
...
Well, with no OTP on login or a jacked session it is not unfathomable that the account could be used to trade away all the funds from the account over a series of trades when withdrawing is protected with OTP.
...
Or to manipulate the market by trading in a particular direction using a series of compromised accounts. Two factor authentication is certainly part of the solution. Another is to mitigate the risk of a compromised system by avoiding operating systems that are the major targets of malware such as Microsoft Windows. I have been using GNU/Linux (Ubuntu) for this very reason for all my secure transactions / logins /applications for over six years for this very reason. Today I simply refuse to do anything involving Bitcoin or fiat banking using Microsoft Windows. |
|
|
|
If Dorsey is into it then a lot of other people will get into it. The man is practically the only cocaine powered fairy godmother of tech companies.
Exactly. Because you have other tech names like Django core developer Alex Gaynor doing everything he can to crap on bitcoin: - https://twitter.com/alex_gaynor/statuses/82543631940075520On supporting the use of Bitcoin for software-developer tipping platform GitTip: Please don't do this, I know that I, and many others, don't take bitcoin very seriously, and projects that use it are similarly often not taken seriously. - https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/14#issuecomment-6166095So it is good to see @Jack not dismissing Bitcoin out of hand as something they might use some day. (though it would be cannibalistic as Bitcoin is not just a currency but a payment system, but hey -- if Square wants to add the capability where they become a front-end for Bitcoin transactions and save a little on interchange fees, that would be fantastic for Bitcoin!) I described how today a merchant can use Square's register even though Bitcoin is the payment method: How to accept Bitcoin payments: Purchase an iPad Purchase an iPad stand (which has a swivel base) - http://www.tinkeringmonkey.com/square-register-standFrom an iPad download the iOS version of My Wallet from BlockChain.info/wallet: - https://blockchain.info/wallet/iphone-app# (and click "View download instructions) Download Square Register app:  - https://squareup.com/registerRing up sale and accept cash, credit card, or bitcoin. When ready for payment, tap Charge. The following is displayed:  For bitcoin payments, use the [  ?] app to convert the USD price into an amount of Bitcoins. - [source of such an app to be determined yet. Blockchain for Android does this, but Apple kicked Blockchain for iOS out of the App Store. For now, http://Preev.com will suffice.] From the Blockchain/wallet My Wallet website click Receive Payment and enter the amount of BTC to accept. This will show the QR Code. Swivel the iPad stand so customer can scan the QR code with their mobile Swivel back and watch for Payment details to show the payment received (a few seconds in most instances) On Square Register app, enter the USD amount and tap Tender. Print a receipt for customer. Print a second receipt and write down amount of BTC payment for reconciling by back office. Say thank you to customer. And perhaps a thank you to Square for the free, advanced point-of-sale app: - https://help.squareup.com/customer/portal/articles/385188-square-register-how-do-i-process-a-cash-payment- There is one problem with this. The Apple censorship of Bitcoin. Ditch Apple and use an Android tablet instead. |
|
|
|
...
It should also be noted that we are actually required to require AML data from all customers, but allow use of the service anyway as long as we don't see anything that could be suspicious (in case of fraud we end paying if we don't have any aml data). "Suspicious" is defined as anything that has been known to be done by hackers. This includes accessing multiple accounts, using proxies, etc...
...
This says it best. If you wish to use MtGox get verified and provide the AML/KYC information. Otherwise there may be problems. Personally I went through the verification process first before depositing any funds there, and have had no problems. |
|
|
|
Exactly more than enough information has been know about Mr Shavers for weeks now. No victim has done anything. Not a single thing. I don't even think anyone non constructive (like prank phone calls, or vandalism) has been done. The victims have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The info has been available. Hell if you were a real investor you had all the info before sending him a single coin.
Why?
1) Because for weeks many continued to defend him
2) For weeks the same victims bought into the whole delayed payout, needing more info, shifting the blame to PPT, Matt idiot gamble, etc, etc, etc. It was designed to delay and gradually get you use to the idea that you weren't ever seeing your money again. If you held out even the slightest hope in the past 3 weeks well it worked.
So either
a) hire a laywer
b) meet him at his front door with baseball bats
c) STFU
How many threads are needed?
Do something or don't but there are like 200,000 posts related to the scam.
Does anyone really think talking about it for another couple weeks is going to make Bitcoins rain out the sky? Really?
If "one more thead" going to magically convince him to give you your coins back?
TL/DR:
The reality is if you haven't already done anything, you AREN'T going to do anything. Being honest with yourself is the first step in resolving a problem. Be honest. Just admit it to yourself that you aren't going to do a single thing about it (and that includes all 200 something victims). He got away with your money and you know deep down you aren't going to stop him. Now you can move forward with your lives and maybe stop posting about what someone "should" do.
BTW: I heard Rusty is offering 3% per week. Just put twice as much money into Rusty "super secret can't share any details money making biz" (max out some CC if you have to) and in a couple months you will have even more money than before Pirate defaulted. It is that easy. You believed it once, why not believe it again.
I applaud you, sir. I find that a) is a great idea. On the other hand b) is not recommended. Please see below. |
|
|
|
So the strategy now becomes: 1) Force Pirateat40 into bankruptcy 2) Sell the guns in the United States for BTC for partial debt recovery. So how much in BTC would that COLT 308 MODULAR CARBINE fetch towards the pirateat40 debt? |
|
|
|
To confirm, those payments can be reversed even in the case of personal bankruptcy?
Any payment can be "voided" if allowed by statute (in the US it is 90 days prior to the BK petition). However it is rare for personal payments to be voided. A classic example. Someone is in debt (lots of creditors - multiple CC, a signature loan, a loan on a jet ski, loan on car, student loan, mortgage etc). They get into financial trouble and the liabilities are more than the income. This person decides to forget the jet ski, CC, and signature loan. They use the little income they have to keep making payments on their mortgage and car note. Technically the trustee could void the prior 3 mortgage and car payments, return that cash back to the bankrupted estate and divide it among creditors. In 99.9% of the cases the trustee won't. It is human nature to try and save your home. The debtor hasn't done anything which indicates that he is trying to defraud anyone. Another example. Same debtor has $10,000 in gold coins. He decides to sell the gold coins to his brother for a lawn mowever worth ~$100 less than 90 days before the BK petition. The trustee would likely void this payment. The gold would return to the estate. The brother would become a secured creditor and could either seek to get his lawn mower back or get fair market value on a prorated basis with other creditors. Just because a trustee "can" void a payment doesn't mean they always will. There is no absolute rule "line in the sand". Generally speaking trustees use common sense to determine an equitable arrangement. There are far too many unique situations for the law to handle every possible case. One thing that I would add is that the period is longer if the parties are not dealing at arms length. Here is Canada it would likely be 12 months for the $10,000 in gold coins / lawn mower trade with a family member. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-3/page-68.html#h-32 I do agree it is rare in personal bankruptcies but it can happen especially if there are non arms length deals involved. |
|
|
|
Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.
I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything. If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice. If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence. BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil. Ok, so here's a question: In the event of a MNW bankruptcy, and assuming he still held partial equity in Bitcoin Magazine, what would happen to that equity? Would it be sold by the state at auction? Would it be offered for buyout to the other shareholders at the highest bid price? Would it be distributed to the creditors? Also, are individuals treated the same as corporations when it comes to bankruptcy? If a person is known to be bankrupt soon, then they shouldn't pay anyone, but save what they have to be distributed to the creditors evenly? I've never heard of that happening in a personal bankruptcy case, so it just seems odd to me... I've never heard of anyone not being able to choose who they want to pay right up to the point that they make the official declaration of bankruptcy. It would be up to the court and the bankruptcy trustee to sell or transfer that equity for the benefit of the creditors. There may be restrictions of the sale of the equity that would give the remaining shareholders first rights, options to purchase etc. This type of agreement is not uncommon in business startups. As for payments to a creditor by a debtor in anticipation of bankruptcy, these can be reversed in many cases by the other creditors. |
|
|
|
No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.
On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.
I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems. I tend to disagree again. This is solely a PR deal to minimize damage to the companies reputation. Companies do this all the time to people wronged by one of their staff members. But I'm not completely sure this time. Might be a problem, but I don't think so. As long as Bittalk Media Ltd. does not in any way allow this to influence their relationship with Matt with respect to Matt's stock yes. Otherwise there can be serious problems. |
|
|
|
Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.
I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything. If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice. If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence. BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil. As long a Matt does this of his own free will and without duress, yes of course. Now what exactly is the "leverage" that Bittalk Media Ltd. has here? |
|
|
|
No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.
On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.
I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems. |
|
|
|
So what did Vlad do that is wrong? Matt indicated he had cut including ownership of BitTalk. Guess that was yet another lie made by Matt. If Vlad uses his defaulted obligations as leverage to boost him from the company before he does anymore damage I don't see a problem with it. Honestly I am not sure what the problem is? Matt hasn't repaid the debt because he feels nobody is in a posistion to collect. Vlad believes he is in a posistion to collect. Selling debt to "stronger hands" happens all the time, everyday, all around the world. Vlad likely wants Matt far far away from the company he is a part owner. Can you honestly blame him? Matt has already done significant damage and if it comes out later that Matt still owns a significant stake that will be another blow to the company. Obviously depsite his "apology" Matt is looking to play hardball and Vlad see his debt as a method to gain leverage. It is called "big boy business". Also Goat posting PM publicly? They are called PRIVATE Messages for a reason. Nobody is saying it is criminal but it is downright scummy. Your actions indicate you don't care if a conversation is private you are just going to violate that privacy when you feel like it. Kinda sends a message that nobody should ever do business with you and nobody should ever tell you anything in confidence.TL/DR: "snitches get stitches" j/k This misses a very critical legal point. Does BitTalk and Vlad have right of offset on Matt's debt? If I were in Vlad's position I would be getting legal advice pronto. Seriously. Otherwise Matt could potentially bankrupt BitTalk over this. Maybe I'm just a noob at this, but HOW? IANAL I am going use Pirateat40 as an example since unlike this case it is fairly straightforward to establish the amount of the damages in court. In Matt's case the first question that comes to mind on the other hand is: Would a court consider a scammer tag on bitcointalk.org liquidated damages in the event of a default? So it is actually a lot worse for Vlad and BitTalk. So let us say I purchase some Pirateat40 debt at say 5 bitcents on the BTC. I spend another 5 bitcents per BTC on debt collection efforts, get Pirateat40 to settle for say 15 bitcents on the BTC without forcing him into bankruptcy for a cool 100% profit. Sounds great? Not really. Let us say the other Pirateat40 creditors force Pirateat40 into bankruptcy shortly thereafter, and his bankruptcy estate cannot pay them 15 bitcents on the BTC. The bankruptcy estate can then sue me for the 15 bitcents per BTC pre-bankruptcy settlement. In theory but i don't see how you think it could bankrupt BitTalk. BitTalk has no liability regardless. At most it could cause a personal loss to Vlad but even that is unlikely. For those who are interested the concept is called voided debt. First (at least in the US) only payments made 90 days prior to a bankruptcy petition can be voided. Lets say hypothetically Vlad buys up 40K BTC of Matts debt (the risk to the company is lower the more of the debt he owns). He buys Matt's share of BitTalk for 40K of debt. Note BitTalk the legal entity isn't a creditor or debtor in the situation. The sale (if any) would be between Matt & Vlad. Now hypothetically Matt files bankruptcy in the next 90 days. Technically other creditors in the bankruptcy could move to void the payment (of equity) between Matt & Vlad. I would point out this is a legal longshot and probably not one worth worrying over. One Matt is almost certainly not filing for bankruptcy over this. No bankruptcy no risk of voided payment. Two it is very unlikely the courts would see an online gambling debt made by pseudonyms involving a virtual currency on an unregulated forum as a valid creditor in the bankruptcy. If they don't then they other bettors have no method to petition the payment be voided. Even if those things happen (and if I was Vlad I would like my odds) the company has no liability this is just a sale of equity between one shareholder and another. The company neither gains nor loses in that transaction. Given the limited loss even if the grossly unrealistic worst case scenario (and honestly I am not recommend anyone hold on to their debt thinking this will happen because it won't) I don't really see there being much of a realistic risk for Vlad. Will buy Matthew's debt. How much would you want for it?
It seems I might be in position to collect. I do not want to pay much for it (there are a few people who offering me hes debt for free), maybe will pay some very symbolic amount.
I could however promise you a percentage of whatever I might be able to collect. And I can promise that Matthew will be very very unhappy once he finds out about this debt assignment.
I dont know what to think. What is your offer for five k?
First of all, please keep it all strictly confidential if you could. I must mention that I am negotiating on behalf of Bitcoin Magazine (Bittalk Media Ltd).
What to offer? .... Hmmm... It is a bit unorthodox and hugely ironic... I will offer for it 12 issue subscription to Bitcoin Magazine, starting with #2. Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
