Introducing the MPEx Rota

[augustocroppo]

You know, anyone could be a judge as it is, the original article linked in the original post reads

Of course, even anarchists (which despise law and order) can apply to be a judge. The process to select a judge is quite a joke.

...and that background photo of Mircea Popescu reading a newspaper with a serious expression in his face is so funny.

Just imagine a serious court of law with an photo of a business man reading newspaper behind the judge seat.

[1715684649]

1715684649

[rini17]

First case almost closed: Case I - Wences vs MPEx, Breach of fiduciary duty. MPEx lost.

[MPOE-PR]

And it's dead. Or is it?

[misterbigg]

Too bad Rota turned into Epic Fail.

Hey, why is the IGNORE link on your posts brown, Mr. P?

[bitcoinbear]

And it's dead. Or is it?

So, MP lost the first case, which any sane person would have judged against him, and rather than changing policies so that this would not happen again (I actually think he did this, by changing the wording of his terms?) or learning from the experience and being nicer to people in the future, he throw a fit and shuts down the whole court? Seems rather odd.

[augustocroppo]

And it's dead. Or is it?

Already dead?

What I just said yesterday?

Mircea Popescu allowed anarchists to be judges. So it is not a surprise to discover that the judges not even required forensic examination of the evidence to understand what really happened. It is like to go after the politics & society section and ask for the user Myrkul (which is a delusional self-declared anarchist) to settle a dispute. There will be no fair sentence because anarchists despise the very essence of justice. They even consider that data cannot be owned or stolen, including Bitcoins!

By the way, my compliments to Mircea Popescu by the funny time I had following the ROTA (Route Of Total Amusement)!

[repentance]

Now that's funny.

[MPOE-PR]

And it's dead. Or is it?

So, MP lost the first case, which any sane person would have judged against him, and rather than changing policies so that this would not happen again (I actually think he did this, by changing the wording of his terms?) or learning from the experience and being nicer to people in the future, he throw a fit and shuts down the whole court? Seems rather odd.

I suspect you haven't fully read about the matter.

And it's dead. Or is it?

Already dead?

What I just said yesterday?

Mircea Popescu allowed anarchists to be judges. So it is not a surprise to discover that the judges not even required forensic examination of the evidence to understand what really happened. It is like to go after the politics & society section and ask for the user Myrkul (which is a delusional self-declared anarchist) to settle a dispute. There will be no fair sentence because anarchists despise the very essence of justice. They even consider that data cannot be owned or stolen, including Bitcoins!

By the way, my compliments to Mircea Popescu by the funny time I had following the ROTA (Route Of Total Amusement)!

If a political angle must be placed on it (which seems dubious) it'd be moreover that he allowed socialists to be judges, and "let's redistribute wealth from the perceived rich to the perceived needy because that's what institutions are for" sort of nonsense soon followed.

But you're welcome. After all, we're here to serve.

Now that's funny.

In a dead babies sort of way.

[thezerg]

Well, if I ever considered investing with MPEX reading this case has disabused me of the notion.  If someone sends you 130BTC and forgets the bitdust it is morally flawed to just keep it.  Return it or at a very minimum donate it to a charity.  You are taking the route modern banks take whereby they gain the majority of their profits from the charges they levy on the mistakes of their customers.  But you are even worse.  If I send a bank wire to a bad address, it comes back to me eventually.  A situation where the institution's gain is the customer's loss soon sets the institution against its own customers and is a recipe for failure since it violates the basic idea of mutual benefit that underlies contract law and capitalist economic theory.

MP, your precedent and abuse argument is specious.  If the number of mistaken deposits becomes an issue, solve it via a fee that discourages abuse but still loses MPEX money.  Because its your d*mn system and if customers can't follow it then losing a bit of YOUR money encourages you to fix it!

And I frankly can't believe you wasted everybody's time on this stupid case.  If I was a judge I would have charged you a penalty.  A penalty for being forced to do the right thing instead of just doing it yourself.

[kjj]

I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

[thezerg]

I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

The idea of encoding some data in bitdust is great.  But if someone messes it up, you do not get to keep their 2250 bucks.  In my book that's stealing regardless of what your TOS says.

[Monster Tent]

I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

The idea of encoding some data in bitdust is great.  But if someone messes it up, you do not get to keep their 2250 bucks.  In my book that's stealing regardless of what your TOS says.

+1

[kjj]

I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

The idea of encoding some data in bitdust is great.  But if someone messes it up, you do not get to keep their 2250 bucks.  In my book that's stealing regardless of what your TOS says.

I don't know about stealing* exactly, but I agree that everyone has a duty to return things they know don't belong to them.  The extent of that duty varies a bit, but generally an involuntary bailee is held to a very low standard of duty, sometimes not much more than merely not injuring bystanders while they dispose of it.  In the case of an entity taking deposits, I think that most people would consider the bailment to be at least a tiny bit voluntary, and the duty somewhat higher.  How much higher is open to question.

But, I don't see any mention of the plaintiff taking any steps at all to rectify his mistake.  Would mpex have returned the money if asked?  We have no idea.  Perhaps the judges saw more evidence than I did, but based purely on the public part of the record, the punishment was not justified.

Perhaps we need a rota of appeals, and a supreme rota.  But I can't see how to get there from here, mostly because it compounds the reputation problem.  In the real world, this problem is mooted by simply having someone with the authority to impose obedience by force, an option that we clearly do not have.

* It is clearly unjust, and in most places, illegal.  I may very well have argued in the past for or against attaching the label of "stealing".  That is a matter of philosophy relating to intention, but is not important to my point.  I only make this footnote because I don't want people jumping on my in case I've contradicted any of my old posts.

[greyhawk]

I don't know about stealing* exactly, but I agree that everyone has a duty to return things they know don't belong to them. 

Really?

About 30 years ago there was a scam going on for a while in Germany where people just sent stuff to other random people. Stuff that was never ordered. Then they sent an invoice for the random stuff and people rather paid the invoice for stuff they never wanted because sending it back would have been even more expensive, and going to court would have been even more more expensive.

This only changed when the law was amended so when you send out stuff to someone who did not order it, the recipient is allowed to keep it. Period.

Which is essentially exactly what MP is doing. Keeping stuff he never asked for that was sent to him.

Now why the MP-Jury consisted of a bunch of bleeding hearts instead of people versed in law is another matter entirely and was not only foreseeable but totally MPs own fault for accepting these people in the first place for jury duty.

[MPOE-PR]

Well, if I ever considered investing with MPEX reading this case has disabused me of the notion.  If someone sends you 130BTC and forgets the bitdust it is morally flawed to just keep it.  Return it or at a very minimum donate it to a charity.  You are taking the route modern banks take whereby they gain the majority of their profits from the charges they levy on the mistakes of their customers.  But you are even worse.  If I send a bank wire to a bad address, it comes back to me eventually.  A situation where the institution's gain is the customer's loss soon sets the institution against its own customers and is a recipe for failure since it violates the basic idea of mutual benefit that underlies contract law and capitalist economic theory.

MP, your precedent and abuse argument is specious.  If the number of mistaken deposits becomes an issue, solve it via a fee that discourages abuse but still loses MPEX money.  Because its your d*mn system and if customers can't follow it then losing a bit of YOUR money encourages you to fix it!

And I frankly can't believe you wasted everybody's time on this stupid case.  If I was a judge I would have charged you a penalty.  A penalty for being forced to do the right thing instead of just doing it yourself.

Practically speaking it's this sort of dumbassery that has cost people like you ("the community", if you wish to hold on to that mistaken notion) any chance of being involved in the process for the future. Which... you know, anyone's guess if it's a loss or not in the end.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it

Yeah.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

Yeah.

I don't know about stealing* exactly, but I agree that everyone has a duty to return things they know don't belong to them.  The extent of that duty varies a bit, but generally an involuntary bailee is held to a very low standard of duty, sometimes not much more than merely not injuring bystanders while they dispose of it.  In the case of an entity taking deposits, I think that most people would consider the bailment to be at least a tiny bit voluntary, and the duty somewhat higher.  How much higher is open to question.

Except there's no duties in BTC. Nor customs. Nor etc.

But, I don't see any mention of the plaintiff taking any steps at all to rectify his mistake.  Would mpex have returned the money if asked?  We have no idea.  Perhaps the judges saw more evidence than I did, but based purely on the public part of the record, the punishment was not justified.

No, actually, the case was quite agreeably brought before the court, it was more of a "here's a chance for you boys to prove you have some basic understanding of the matters involved" rather than a sort of "omg I KILL HIM".

Perhaps we need a rota of appeals, and a supreme rota.  But I can't see how to get there from here, mostly because it compounds the reputation problem.  In the real world, this problem is mooted by simply having someone with the authority to impose obedience by force, an option that we clearly do not have.

MP has stated the only way forward is for actual law students to take this up as a summer project.

Now why the MP-Jury consisted of a bunch of bleeding hearts instead of people versed in law is another matter entirely and was not only foreseeable but totally MPs own fault for accepting these people in the first place for jury duty.

'Twas either because MP is a blooming idiot who didn't foresee the possibility or else because MP is an evil mastermind who did foresee it but aims to derive whatever unforeseeable profits and benefits from it. I'd guess the former but nobody'd believe me anyway.

But for the record, the sum in question was returned etc. For the future however, the FAQ is quite clear:

DEPOSIT|{sum}, where the sum is an integer, written in BTC (note that you can not deposit less than 10 BTC). You will be quoted an exact sum, which you must send to the exchange address (1Fx3N5iFPDQxUKhhmDJqCMmi3U8Y7gSncx). Don't round anything, the decimals are there to identify you as the beneficiary. You will be credited the full amount. Incoming Bitcoin that doesn't exactly match a quoted sum will be simply kept, reported as profits and distributed to MPEx shareholders.

[thezerg]

greyhawk, there are critical differences.  First, law rests on intention.  Second, there is an implicit contract between MPEX as a service provider and the customer.  So this is not strangers forcing you into an interaction.  Third, contract law rests on mutual exchange of value/benefit because that concept underlies successful capitalist economic theory.  That's why CEOs (who make $ on options) still pay themselves 1 dollar instead of working for free.  So that new clause is probably not enforceable in most jurisdictions because there is no mutual benefit.

What MPEX is doing is more like if your credit card bill is $20.53 and you wire just $20 the company just keeps the $ and still claims you owe them the full $20.53.


MPOE-PR I'm not really interested in responding to your ad hominem attacks.  You make strange comments about my future contributions but you don't know anything about me.

So let me simply suggest that if you really think this is the right thing, then don't hide your beliefs deep inside the TOS but instead put your red quoted modification right above your bitcoin deposit address where it cannot be missed by anyone thinking to use your service.  Stand by your ideas and see how many new customers agree with them.

[MPOE-PR]

MPOE-PR I'm not really interested in responding to your ad hominem attacks.

Then don't. Fuckwit.

You make strange comments about my future contributions but you don't know anything about me.

Then again, maybe I do. You don't know whether I do or I don't, you'd just like to assume that anyone who'd know would think more of you than I do. What you'd like to assume is not worth money.

So let me simply suggest that if you really think this is the right thing, then don't hide your beliefs deep inside the TOS but instead put your red quoted modification right above your bitcoin deposit address where it cannot be missed by anyone thinking to use your service.  Stand by your ideas and see how many new customers agree with them.

Why don't you quote what it actually says "above the bitcoin deposit address"? Just to show that you're not the sort of idiot who talks out of his ass for lack of a head to talk out of. Hm?

Fuckwit.

[justusranvier]

In the real world, this problem is mooted by simply having someone with the authority to impose obedience by force, an option that we clearly do not have.

The reason it's so hard to come up with a system for voluntarily resolving disputes is because most of the population is literally brain damaged.

Most people start out in infancy having obedience extracted from them by force and threat instead of mutual negotiation. Those early experiences permanently impair their ability to resolve differences peacefully or have successful voluntary relationships.

[Gabi]

Look, they are forming an Aristocracy, to rule over the peasants 

[thezerg]

MPOE-PR I'm not really interested in responding to your ad hominem attacks.

Then don't. Fuckwit.

You make strange comments about my future contributions but you don't know anything about me.

Then again, maybe I do. You don't know whether I do or I don't, you'd just like to assume that anyone who'd know would think more of you than I do. What you'd like to assume is not worth money.

So let me simply suggest that if you really think this is the right thing, then don't hide your beliefs deep inside the TOS but instead put your red quoted modification right above your bitcoin deposit address where it cannot be missed by anyone thinking to use your service.  Stand by your ideas and see how many new customers agree with them.

Why don't you quote what it actually says "above the bitcoin deposit address"? Just to show that you're not the sort of idiot who talks out of his ass for lack of a head to talk out of. Hm?

Fuckwit.

When your argument has no sound basis you can always resort to name calling... not sure if it is effective but it sure feels good!