'I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements." -Theymos

[Matthew N. Wright]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements.

Say what? So if I would have told people I bet about Pirate that I would have paid them on Ripple instead, I wouldn't have had a scammer tag and it would have been "okay"?

Talk about censorship and corruption. This is a legitimate question with a very legitimate (and appropriate) example as reference, that deserves a legitimate answer.

A) Why is it being deleted by moderators?
B) Why is it not being answered?

EDIT: Apparently it was BadBear judging by this message.

I deleted your post. If you want to discuss your scammer case and how it's somehow relevant then make a separate thread about it, don't derail threads over it.  

The problem I have is he also sent this message earlier:

I split your off topic derail, I have a much lower tolerance for your bullshit this time around. Keep it on topic in the future, I'm not going to waste a lot of my time splitting threads or deleting posts because of you, my time is better spent elsewhere.

And made this post about me publicly at an earlier time as well:

I don't trust many people but there's very few people I actively distrust, and he's top of that list now.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I think it would be relevant, but there's an obvious response (which I've replied):

Well, if you are OK with getting paid in Ripple IOUs issued that can't be redeemed.

I have not said that I will let you redeem the BTC, I've even implied that you wouldn't be able to. It would be a clear and shut case if I told people that I would send them a bitcoin via ripple that they can redeem from me, versus sending them a Ripple BTC - which are not BTC.

It's like those 5 BTC coins with no value / private key on them that were selling recently, you know? They say 5 BTC, they are not 5 BTC, they don't have the private key of 5 BTC. When someone sells that for 0.04 each (or even free, in this case), crying in scammer accusations isn't going to help you - even if the seller didn't explicitly state that "they cannot be redeemed by BTCs". Example:

Casascius.com:

Each piece has its own Bitcoin address and a redeemable "private key" on the inside, underneath the hologram.

Now this would be an agreement. Or something similar, especially if it's signed.

An arbitrary token of an IOU with no terms attached is not. I would have broken an agreement if I used Ripple to send BTCs where I had redemption / repayment terms, and broke that.

Ripple is the same thing. It's OpenCoin Inc's fault for saying "send money" on their website, when Ripple is incapable of sending money other than XRP.

[BadBear]

Bulanula pulled that kind of stunt often as well, every scammer case that was marginally popular was totally relevant to his case because x.

There's already a dozen threads about your scammer case, try to keep it there. Not everything needs to be about you.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I think it would be relevant, but there's an obvious response (which I've replied):

It's not even about your particular (completely inappropriate) prank, it's about Theymos' criteria for scammer tags and his exact wording:

"I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements." -Theymos

What he's actually saying is, "I'm okay with any kind of fraud and scam so long as the transfers only happen inside Ripple as IOUs".

There's already a dozen threads about your scammer case, try to keep it there. Not everything needs to be about you.

Please refrain from posting off-topic in this thread BadBear. I'm sorry that my bet hurt you and lessened your opinion of me. This has nothing to do with that. We're talking about the ridiculous thing Theymos said, which basically equated to "I will choose to ignore any fraud that happens so long as the scammer utilizes the Ripple IOU system".

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I think it would be relevant, but there's an obvious response (which I've replied):

It's not even about your particular (completely inappropriate) prank, it's about Theymos' criteria for scammer tags and his exact wording:

"I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements." -Theymos

What he's actually saying is, "I'm okay with any kind of fraud and scam so long as the transfers only happen inside Ripple as IOUs".

There's already a dozen threads about your scammer case, try to keep it there. Not everything needs to be about you.

Please refrain from posting off-topic in this thread BadBear. I'm sorry that my bet hurt you and lessened your opinion of me. This has nothing to do with that. We're talking about what Theymos said.

Ripple IOUs them alone may not be recognized as binding agreements, but there may be a separate agreement (ie your bet, terms and how it's worded). Just because you use IOUs doesn't mean your other agreements don't count.

I don't think there's much for me to say that is on topic here actually, given it is "Moderator mistake or sign of corruption and bias?"

[Matthew N. Wright]

Ripple IOUs them alone may not be recognized as binding agreements, but there may be a separate agreement

Theymos is the one who needs to clarify what he said, not you. It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

This is absolutely absurd to me why someone would not get a scammer tag for promising value over a medium they knowingly have no intention of paying through. In your case, we all know it was a prank (many knew my pranks were pranks as well), but many might not have. For those few, I think it's is Theymos' duty (as well as other moderators) to stick with the principle of being anti-deception in general, not selective as Theymos' statement clearly paints.

A good start to that would be a simple and clear response from Theymos, not having your responses deleted by moderators seconds after making them.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Ripple IOUs them alone may not be recognized as binding agreements, but there may be a separate agreement

Theymos is the one who needs to clarify what he said, not you. It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Obviously anything I say is my own interpolation / opinion.

Also, is this topic about "a sign of corruption and bias" or is it about theymos' interpolation? 

[Matthew N. Wright]

Ripple IOUs them alone may not be recognized as binding agreements, but there may be a separate agreement

Theymos is the one who needs to clarify what he said, not you. It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Obviously anything I say is my own interpolation / opinion.

Also, is this topic about "a sign of corruption and bias" or is it about theymos' interpolation? 

Originally (not knowing who in fact deleted the topic), it was a topic about potential corruption and bias. Thanks for reminding me though, as the topic should be changed as the circumstances clearly have (turned out it was BadBear's personal interested to remove my comments, not Theymos').

[theymos]

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Yet somehow you managed to do so.

[Matthew N. Wright]

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Yet somehow you managed to do so.

Well, when you have a moment to type a meaningful response, could you explain exactly your stance on people scamming others of expected value through Ripple IOUs, with TradeFortress' thread as an example?

[theymos]

I don't recognize Ripple IOUs themselves as binding agreements. Alone, a Ripple IOU is meaningless. You can obviously have separate agreements that define Ripple IOUs to mean something. It would be ridiculous for anyone to say that just because you're using Ripple IOUs, other binding agreements are invalidated.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I don't recognize Ripple IOUs themselves as binding agreements. Alone, a Ripple IOU is meaningless. You can obviously have separate agreements that define Ripple IOUs to mean something. It would be ridiculous for anyone to say that just because you're using Ripple IOUs, other binding agreements are invalidated.

Thank you for the more in depth response. What I meant is, is it okay for someone to promise delivery of "bitcoins" through Ripple IOU as part of *any* agreement here on the forum, with full knowledge that those people will not in fact be able to receive them (thus scamming of expected value)?

[theymos]

You can't send bitcoins through Ripple. You can only send Bitcoin IOUs. The agreement needs to explicitly say what these IOUs mean. Saying that you'll send "Ripple bitcoins" or even "bitcoins via Ripple" is meaningless. You need to say something like, "I'll send Ripple BTC IOUs that can be redeemed from me for actual bitcoins at any time."

[Matthew N. Wright]

The agreement needs to explicitly say what these IOUs mean.

Do you feel the agreement by TradeFortress explicitly said what the IOUs meant? If so, why did a moderator need to give warnings all over the post at a later date?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206948.0

I'm trying to get a better idea of the reasoning behind the actions (and sometimes lack of action in some cases). It will help the rest of the community know what is and what is not acceptable. It is my sincere hope that none of these issues will be explained using double standards (or removed completely by other mods).

[myrkul]

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Yet somehow you managed to do so.

I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept."

Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs."

[Matthew N. Wright]

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Yet somehow you managed to do so.

I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept."

Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs."

He's an admin, what he says here publicly is reflective of his policies in moderating. This is why I am asking for clarification. It simply struck me an odd thing for an admin to say in relation to whether something was considered a fraud or not. It deserves further clarification, and I am awaiting his response.

[myrkul]

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."

Yet somehow you managed to do so.

I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept."

Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs."

He's an admin, what he says here publicly is reflective of his policies in moderating. This is why I am asking for clarification. It simply struck me an odd thing for an admin to say in relation to whether something was considered a fraud or not. It deserves further clarification, and I am awaiting his response.

Without getting too involved here, has anyone come forward and said they have not gotten their ripple bitcoin? Not an actual bitcoin, the ripple bitcoin promised in the thread.

'Cause all he said was that he'd give people ripple bitcoins.

[Matthew N. Wright]

'Cause all he said was that he'd give people ripple bitcoins.

We're not talking about TradeFortress here though, we're asking Theymos for clarification of his response in one of those threads as it carries with it some complicated implications.

That said, I believe TradeFortress's original thread said "send you Bitcoins through Ripple".

[myrkul]

we're asking Theymos for clarification of his response in one of those threads as it carries with it some complicated implications.

Seems pretty simple to me.

If I agree to send you a RippleBTC and don't send you a RippleBTC, I'm a scammer. If I refuse to redeem that RippleBTC for actual BTC, I'm not a scammer, and you're just an idiot for accepting a debt-based currency that anyone can inflate.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If I agree to send you a RippleBTC

Irrelevant.

That said, I believe TradeFortress's original thread said "send you Bitcoins through Ripple".

We can discuss this in another thread (maybe one of the many TradeFortess ones?) but here I'd like to have Theymos respond to the question and not get sidetracked by off-topic discussion because I think the question is a very fundamental one to the way thing are done around here and deserve a clear answer.