They could intervene if they're affected in some way, such as having a claim to some or all of the money in the account.  I have no idea what Mutum Sigilum LLC is other than a Delaware corporation that has been associated with Gox and apparently processes payments for it.

While I'm not going to endorse Coinlab, the lawsuit does not appear to be frivolous.  Gox contracted to do something and they didn't do it.  In fact, they're actively obstructing carrying it out.  While I don't know why they chose to renege on the contract, and they may have had good reason, that's what a breach of contract suit is for.  The $50 million liquidated damages clause is somewhat dodgy, but the suit itself (if the facts are actually as claimed) is legitimate.

Also, the Dwolla thing appears to be the DHS' doing, not Coinlab's.  They just don't have the clout to engineer something like that.

Because they're subject to the same gigantic $50 million liquidated damages clause that they're using to sue Gox. 

While I've written a more detailed article with legal reasoning on that issue as to why I think that contractual term is a literal paper tiger, considering that CoinLab is depending on that clause in their own arguments, it would be foolish to go violate it themselves.

They also don't have the Gox technology, such as it is, to deploy anything.  While I don't see that preventing them from working on implementing after the litigation is resolved, they probably can't just go ahead and do it, at least not without risking losing their $50 million lottery ticket against Gox.

Arguably, someone who provides an honest roulette game is mitigating the harm.  Without honest providers of gambling services, which are harmless entertainment for the majority of punters, the problem gambler would get their fix from some dishonest vendor, maybe a Mafia loan shark operation, and would be harmed even more. 

Even the profitable poker player has this ethical issue, to the extent it is an ethical issue.  That bad player may be playing with his rent money, money he can't afford to lose, or money he borrowed, and may have a serious problem with gambling.  I am not happy if that is the case.  However, I have to admit I do not feel a bit of guilt if that is the case, either. 

He's not going to feel guilty if he gets lucky on me.

So I'm going to take that money if I can, and I'm going to enjoy doing it. 

Moar like TurdCoin amirite?

Are you fucking kidding?  He is the lead developer.  That means he actually produces things of value.  You think he isn't important to Bitcoin?  Well, go and do something better than he's doing and maybe you'll be lead developer and have something worth saying on the subject.

It may look like this douchebag is actually angry, but that is not the case.  It is a trick of a scam artist.

He merely feigns anger to distract attention from the fact that he's lying and refusing to answer questions by putting attention instead on what a douchebag he's acting like.  If attention is shifted to Josh being a colossal douchebag, which in fact he is, he deflects attention from the fact that worse than that, he's a thieving piece of shit.

Thanks to Josh for again demonstrating exactly why I'm thrilled to have nothing to do with Butterfly Labs, the convict-run company represented by a guy who is completely full of bullshido.

As for anyone with nearly year-long advance orders that have little hope of ever being filled. . .keep praying to the criminally convicted Jim "Sonny" Jones that he'll eventually deliver.

And keep drinking that Kool-Aid!  Mmmm, yummy!

Try posting something coherent, please.  Or actually don't.  I'm just putting you on ignore with the rest of the loons.

There may and probably will come a time when the interests of the users of the currency (who are actually using it as a currency) collide with the interests of miners.  There's a natural tension there.  (One that the market should be able to resolve, usually.)

However, speaking as a user, I have had numerous transactions from 3-10 BTC where I would sit and watch, sometimes for hours, while floods of dust transactions worth less than a penny went by on the blockchain while my own transaction languished without a single confirmation.  It is quite infuriating.  Usually, things go smoothly.  When they don't, though, it is hard to have patience for these bullshit little transactions.

Vandalizing Wikipedia with libelous statements about other people isn't "civil."

That someone has done one or more good things does not give them some kind of magical immunity for all future despicable actions.

Give them a magical hypothetical where everything is already paid for, and unless people are insane, they would be happy not to pay taxes.  Who the hell actually likes paying taxes?  Nobody.  Not even people like Warren Buffett who think their taxes should be higher in the world where we actually live.

Well, Josh's response to practically any question is to shower the asker with obscenities.  Have you even paid any attention to these jerks?

That shouldn't be an issue.  Nobody else reports this, and I've never had it happen.

The earliest blocks would all be the same size:  50 BTC.

As for the ones after the genesis block, it's easy enough to see where they went (or didn't go) on the blockchain.

Gotta love these bootlicking Kool-Aid drinkers willing and eager to scream their praises of the people scamming them.  It'd be sad if it wasn't so hilarious.

If they ship soon enough that most or all of the buyers make a mint on it, people will rapidly no longer give a fuck.  They didn't buy these things for a blowjob from Josh.

Frankly, you appear to be stating that this will no longer be a list of sites where you can get a fair wager, but instead, will be a list of people you like and don't like for personal reasons.  That seriously degrades its value as a resource.

There might be a way of protesting this kind of arrangement, especially if some miners/pools adopt a policy of transmitting these small transactions, which is to boycott those who don't.  I.e. if you don't take these small transactions, you don't get my larger transactions with transaction fees, and those fees go to those who will.

This might not be very helpful if the majority of people doing those tiny transactions don't do enough "real" traffic to care about, but then the question becomes whether those people are worth caring about in the first place.  The fact is that the network load created by a given transaction has little to nothing to do with the "value" of the transaction, and is solely tied to the number of bytes it eats in a block.  That asset is limited, and for the sake of efficiency, should be allocated to favor those transactions with more value.

In actuality, though, these dust transactions, of minimal to nonexistent value to the network, consume far more of this limited resource than some feel due.  Why should a 10 BTC transaction wait in line behind 100 SatoshiDice transactions?

If it's been done right, the account holders have a secured interest that would take priority over a court judgment.  The judgment creditor would have to stand in line behind them in a bankruptcy.  Fat chance of them seeing anything in that event.  It is not in the interest of CoinBase to bankrupt Gox at this point.


The last step will be a formality, if there is ever a judgment.  And that won't be the first step.  The first step will be just domesticating the judgment and seeing if it's paid voluntarily.  And it can settle at any time the cost of continuing to litigate about it is higher than the reward remaining (i.e. if Gox ever is near insolvency).

And of course, Gox could win outright.  In theory, Gox could win and Coinlab could lose and get slapped with that $20 million liquidated damages themselves.

I doubt you're going to hear anything very helpful about what's going on from either side.  What they file in court will probably be a more accurate reflection of what's going on than anything they say in public.  At least, unless they're fools, which has yet to be disproven.