It's no different than mediation in offline life.  Mediation is nonbinding.  (Unless the parties agree to be bound by the decision of the mediator).  Why trust my judgment?  I have extensive experience in mediation.  Plus I can guarantee my judgment will be better than screaming at each other in back and forth forum posts.  All disputes will be decided based on principles of common law and equity.  

And it is a service that is needed in offline life and online life for the same reasons.  Besides, if both parties are willing to submit to the process, then both have clearly made their interest in amicably resolving the conflict known.  

Why wouldn't I accept a bribe?  Because I'm not a scumbag lol.  (And that would pretty much guarantee I'd be labelled a scammer and never get any more business).  Also once again it is nonbinding.  A party would be wasting their money in bribing me to reach a crazy decision, when the otherside could still refuse to carry it out.  (Of course unless they agreed to be bound by the decision originally)

Edit:  But you did convince me of one thing.  1% for over 100BTC is too low.  I've adjusted the fee to 2% per party for disputes of that amount or higher. 

In my short time of being active in the bitcoin community I have noticed quite a bit of angst that there is no satisfactory way of resolving disputes among individuals.  There are some things that cannot be controlled due to the anonymity that inherently exists.  There will always be scammers.  Those that have no morals and only appear to steal and then disappear never to be heard from again.  There is very little that can be done with these individuals, other than try to identify them and not do business with them.

However, the majority (or so I like to believe) of the community actively strives to fulfill their end of the bargain.  It is disputes between these individuals that I offer my services to.  If you are involved in a contract dispute or a trade gone bad, then contact me.  If both parties are willing, and agree to the mediation contract, then I will assist in reaching what I believe is a fair settlement between the two parties.  My decision will be nonbinding upon the parties, unless the parties agree on the front end that it will be binding.  

I feel this is a better result, then simply turning to the forums to engage in name calling and false accusations.  

Fee structure is as follows:
Amount in Dispute: 1-10BTC
Fee: .5BTC per party

Amount in Dispute: 11-99BTC
Fee: 1BTC per party

Amount in Dispute: 100+BTC
Fee: 2% of amount in dispute per party

The mediation will be kept confidential, unless both parties agree otherwise.  If either party breaches confidentiality without the other's consent, that will be deemed a breach of ethics of the individual, and should serve as a warning against anyone doing business int he future with that individual.  

I look forward to helping as many of you as possible that are having issues with these matters.  

Well I think it's a positive that he hasn't completely disappeared off the face of the Earth yet, never to be heard from again.  So hopefully he does follow through. 

Possibly, but that's not how I took it from the context of his statement.  Plus, even if that were the case, if I filed a lawsuit against him I'm free to dismiss it at anytime I want.  So if he started paying people I could always drop the suit. 

He's basically just trying to use a scare tactic to try to keep people from filing suits against him. 

I was just using the contract statement as an analogy.  I could of used a tort reference.  "I know I hit you with my car.  But if you sue me I won't pay your medical bills!"

But since you brought up the contract thing, a contract doesn't have to be in writing.  There are only a few exceptions to this rule, and this is referred to as the Statute of Frauds.  Namely, contracts for the sale of goods in excess of $500, contracts that cannot be performed within 1 year, and contracts for the sale/purchase of real estate.

So there might be a breach of contract claim based on conduct.  

<@pirateat40> Those looking to file a suit against me or BTCST will not be eligible for repayment.


I would be fascinated to know on what legal ground, he believes this statement is enforceable. 

Let's use a little common sense.  He is essentially taking the position of "I know I breached this contract with you. But if you sue me for breach of contract I will never pay you!" 

Good luck with that. 

Sounds like you handled the issue appropriately then.  That's pretty much the same thing the Better Business Bureau does (although I'm not sure if the substance of their complaints become public, they just give the other side the opportunity to respond.)  Even without Section 230 you would only be liable for defamation if you knew or reasonably should have known the statement was false and defamatory.  So based on what you've told me you have absolutely no liability. 

Correct.  As did Romney. 

I believe that's correct according to Zeran v. America Online, Inc. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)

"[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.  Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication."

This case is still good law, and the United States Supreme Court denied cert to hear the case. 

But doing what is legal, isn't necessarily doing what is "right".  So I still would advise clearly defamatory statements to be taken down, but it is not something a website operator should fear will lead to lawsuits. 

Thank you! Happy to help! 

Great question.  Fortunately, to help us answer this question there is a huge amount of litigation over this exact issue regarding newspapers/libraries/television/etc. 

What you refer to are "republishers".

Here's the common law on republishers:
One who repeats, or republishes, a defamatory statement is liable to the same extent as the "primary" publisher.  Furthermore, the liability of the "primary" publisher may increase where republication is either intended by him or is reasonably foreseeable.  Those who disseminate material containing defamatory statements (i.e., "secondary" publishers such as libraries, bookstores, and magazine vendors) are subject to liability only if they knew or should have known of the defamatory character of the material. 

The part in bold is the applicable law to message boards such as this one.  Basically, your responsibility would be to take down posts immediately once you have knowledge of (or if a reasonable person under the same circumstances should have knowledge of) the fact that the post is not true.  If you do this simple step you should be pretty well protected from liability for defamation.  If the same person persists in posting defamatory information, then you might have a higher duty to take additional steps such as banning the individual. 

But there is also a law that Congress passed that specifically protects individuals that run such sites and internet service providers.  Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, ISPs and website operators cannot be held liable for defamation for publishing statements that are were posted by someone else.

Hope this helps! 

The answer is, it depends.  Betsofbitco.in, from what I can see, operates on the exact same model as the famous prediction market intrade.com.  

Intrade.com is base in Ireland.  It is legal under Ireland laws.  Intrade offers the following disclaimer:

.in is a domain name from India.  Pretty safe to say I have no clue on what the laws are in India.  It appears from a quick Google search though, that India is becoming more relaxed in their "gambling" laws.  So it may very well be legal in India.  

What may not be legal, is for you, an individual in another country, to use the site.  That would be up to your individual state/country.  

Everything I said in my prior post was correct, I just didn't elaborate like I usually do.  Mostly because I qualified that response with  lol


As far as the securities issue, I discussed that in a prior post.  We're not even sure at this point if bitcoins are considered securities by the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933.  Also, this is such a novel area of the law, there could be other political factors at play out there that we simply aren't aware of.  The federal government could feel that intervention on behalf of the SEC to protect bitcoin investors might even "legitimize" bitcoins in the eyes of the public, and therefore they are refusing to classify them as securities for this very purpose.

Illegal wagering/bookmaking and selling insurance without a license are state law issues and are criminal offenses.  Every state is different, every jurisdiction has different penalties.  Sure they are being sold across state lines.  And that's where the whole federal enforcement can come into play.  Possibly they could be investigated for the racketeering charges I discussed in a prior post.  (Mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, etc.)

Plus all of the above primarily deals with the criminal liability of a party.  It is the civil liability that I feel most investors that have lost out on would be interested in.  Sure there could be some civil action against them for breach of these criminal statutes as well, but I feel recovery would be pretty limited there for several reasons.  1) They likely have already disposed of the money and don't have significant enough assets to make it worth while to even sue them, except maybe as part of a larger plan to go after the big fish pirate.  2) Litigation would be extremely expensive.  Sure this could be classified as a Rule 23 Class Action lawsuit, but there would be so many plaintiffs and so little money, the attorney would be the only one that actually recovers any material amount.  3) Once again, you probably can't even sue a "bookmaker".  What theory are you going to sue them on?  You made an illegal bet and they didn't pay when you won?  That's the equivalent of suing a crack dealer, because he gave you substandard crack.  Courts will not enforce illegal contracts.

It seems you have some legal experience, so I think you'll be able to see where the PA Supreme Court was going in its analysis of criminal conflict of laws rule in Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (2007):


Conflict of Laws rules are used in criminal contexts just like they are in civil.  Typically a substantive v. procedural issue.  But basically I was just pointing out in my prior post, that we have no idea how these conflicts might come into play.  We don't even know where these people are located and for that matter, exactly what they could be charged with anyway.  All I am able to do at this point is guess and theorize about what possible rights and remedies the players will all have.  But beyond that, in a criminal or civil context, we're likely dealing with international law as well. Treaties between the United States and whatever nation the would be defendant is in.  Can the US extradite him for a criminal case?  For a civil case, can a United States court assert personal jurisdiction over him?  Can the US court even seize any of his assets if they did?  Remember, in a civil context, a judgment without any assets to collect is only worth the paper it is written on.  Without assets to collect, why sue?  

Attorneys fees range quite hugely depending on the case.  Class Actions of this type are pretty much only taken on a contingency fee basis.  The ethical rule for how much an attorney can charge only says that "the fee must be reasonable."  This is in light of all of the circumstances in the case.  Generally, a contingency fee of 33% is considered reasonable.  This may include the cost of the litigation (court costs, expert witnesses, etc.) or it may not.  That's negotiated between the clients and the attorney.  And then in a class action case, the court usually must approve the fee since it can be so large.  Now, in this case, I don't think anyone would claim that 33% is unreasonable.  This is an extremely novel case.  Never before been litigated.  It will require countless hours of time and research. 

But the good thing about a contingency fee case, is that there really isn't any downside for the plaintiffs if you lose, other than you lose.  You don't pay the attorney fee unless you win the case.  That's the very definition of a contingency fee. 

The bottom line is how much does pirate have left?  And I don't know how you find that out without hiring an attorney with expertise in securities fraud and doing some heavy duty investigation. 

A criminal action doesn't cost anything, but you can't bring that yourself.  Only a government employee such as a state district attorney/attorney general, or a U.S. Attorney.  The good thing about a criminal case is that the bad guy can go to jail.  The bad thing about a criminal case, is that it is not designed to compensate the victims.  The SEC tries in these cases to do that, but that just isn't the primary goal of the criminal prosecution. 

And any BTC tips are always appreciated.  I haven't posted an address yet in this thread, so here ya go.  Thanks again!   1Hu8aScogCkcphFVcR376y1T2mMdqiSd1r

Excellent question.  The only way what you can achieve what you are asking for is if a class action lawsuit is filed.  A criminal undertaking by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Justice Department would not allow for this result. 

Basically a class action lawsuit would be filed against pirate and whoever else.  At that point a lead or lead plaintiffs would be nominated, and the court would either grant or deny the Rule 23 Class Action lawsuit to proceed.  The lead plaintiffs are just the names on the lawsuit basically.  Now at any time the "plaintiffs" (all of the injured parties) could agree amongst themselves in the form of a contract as to how they will split any proceeds.  At this point it could really only be decided upon a percentage basis after legal fees and litigation cost, as no one knows how much there actually is left. 

There is no rule of ethics that would prevent this (there is an ethics rule that dictates the procedure the attorney must take in this agreement Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(g)), and I cannot think of any contractual rule that would bar this type of contract.

I started a topic in the forum "Services". 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109385.0

If you can post in that forum, please post in the future in that thread.  Otherwise I will still be somewhat monitoring this thread for newbies. 

I'm tired, and heading to bed.  But I just thought I'd give a quick (not well thoughtout) answer to your post.  In the morning I might feel differently about my answer.  But here it is for now:

X is liable for breach of contract to B.  
Y is liable for breach of contract to C.
Z is liable for breach of contract to D.  

Unless there is a defense such as illegality.  A court will not enforce an illegal contract.  Therefore, if for example, Y & C's contract of the "bet" is considered illegal gambling, then C has no remedy against Y, not even an equitable remedy.

X,Y, & Z could be subject to prosecution for criminal fraud in almost any jurisdiction in which they reside, do business, or in which they entered into the contract.  (This would require a lengthy discussion of conflict of laws and constitutional law, but that's the general rule.)

Thank you!

Ok lets go into the law of conspiracy with a little more detail and we'll talk it out, with the additional information you have provided me.  The reason I am focusing on conspiracy is because it is a crime.  The tort of misrepresentation may be an appropriate civil remedy under the right set of facts.  It depends on whether the pass-through operator himself misrepresented to the investors what they were doing.  This would be so fact dependent on the individual pass-through that an answer without an example really isn't possible.  So an analysis of conspiracy is really all we can do at this point.

The elements of a conspiracy charge are:
1) an unlawful criminal combination;
2) between two or more persons;
3) who enter into an agreement;
4) with the specific-intent to commit an unlawful act; or
5) a lawful act by unlawful means.

The essence of the conspiracy is the agreement.  Feigned agreement (as in the case of an undercover police officer) is insufficient.  An actual agreement is required.  
To form a conspiracy, the parties must act together and agree to accomplish the same crime.  But an express agreement is not required.  An agreement may be evidenced by conduct where the conspirators demonstrate over time that they intended to achieve the same objective and agreed to work together toward that end.  

Each co-conspirator is liable ofr the crimes of all the other co-conspirators where the crimes were both:

• a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy; and
• were committed in furtherance of hte conspiratorial goal.

The only accepted defense at common law is withdrawal.  Under the Model Penal Code, if a co-conspirator gives timely notice of his plans to all members of the conspiracy and performs an affirmative act to "thwart" the success of the conspiracy.  

So applying the above law to the additional information you have provided me about what a pass-through operator does, my conclusion is like everything in law, it depends on the facts of each case.  If the actual operation is a ponzi scheme, then element 1 is met.  Element 2 speaks for itself.  Elements 3 and 4 are where the prosecution would have the toughest time bringing a criminal charge.  Once again, they do not have to prove an express agreement, just that the parties acted together and agree to accomplish the same crime.  If the prosecution can prove that a reasonably prudent person would have known that what he was peddling to the public was a ponzi scheme, then I believe a jury could find that this element has been met.  This requirement goes hand in hand with element 4.  Specific intent can otherwise be rephrased as "knowing".  Did the pass through operator "know" that he was being used as a conduit for a ponzi scheme.

In your post you say  A prosecutor would latch on to that fact and run with it.  If the pass-through operator is betting against their customers, then the prosecutor could argue that the operator knew or at least hoped that he was involved in a scheme that the investors would lose in.  (Atleast that's what I would do )

Criminally?  Maybe.  That's what we just discussed above.
Civilly? No.  They could civilly be liable in a tort theory of negligence or misrepresentation, simply for recommending an investment without proper due diligence.  (And if they did the proper due diligence, and it was a ponzi scheme, this could be used as evidence to prove that they did know it was an illegal operation.  So the knife cuts both ways on this one.)

  

I greatly appreciate it, thank you.

As far as the pro bono work goes, let me share the types of cases I have taken.  A battered wife who was scared to leave her husband because she couldn't afford to litigate over custody of her child.  I took that case for free, and she now has sole custody of her child.  I have helped protesters that have been wrongly arrested for just being at a demonstration.  I have worked on (wasn't the lead) on a case where the prosecution had information that a guy in prison was wrongly convicted, but the state refused to reopen the case.  The guy was eventually freed.  So you can see, in these cases there isn't any money to be made anyway.  I just do it because it is the right thing to do. 

I don't do contract breach or corporate litigation pro bono lol.  Most of the time I charge (gotta make a living after all).  But what I'm saying when I post that I do pro bono work is, that the more I can raise on extra activities like this board, the more time I can spending helping those that can't afford basic legal services.