The discussion going on in this thread about limiting US-based investors is a perfect example of a good use case;
I fail to grasp how you imagine implementing some sort of p2p exchange attempt is going to resolve or even allow limiting users by geographical accident.
Here it would be relatively trivial to build a client that interfaced with the btc protocol but added an extra layer of complexity
And also relatively trivial to bypass. What are you on about?!
Did he really just use that excuse? If the investors trusted the company enough to invest in their shares they could also trust them to store the blockchain and run an SPV node on their client. No need to worry about the blockchain.
Then by your standards MPEx already is a p2p exchange. Problem solved, go use it.
It is conceivable that someone could build a model for this, and when a company wished to issue shares, they would modify the conditions, much like the process in creating an alt cryptocurrency.
Everything is conceivable. The point of the article is that what you "coinceive" isn't worth two shits, because that's not what the game is. We're not ALL a bunch of stoners hanging about "conceiving" fucking "ideas". Does this get through at all?
I feel like he isn't thinking outside the box here.
Srsly now.
MP doesn't think "outside the box". MP tells you where the box you should be thinking in is. If you fail to follow that you lose, and if you don't believe so go ahead and convince yourself. The entire forum pretty much consists of the life stories of people who verified this point for their own needs so far.
They are withstanding, though. Not to mention their argument about the 'issuer', which I admit is a clever reading of the law, will not hold up in court. As we saw with FinCEN guidence earlier this year, they made a stipulation for the issuer problem and just did a side step around it. This will most likely happen with the SEC as well.
Nobody cares what US regulatory agencies say, outside of the people working for those very agencies. This is what happens when a state goes rogue.
Let me drive this point home with a number of illustrations. Clapper vs Amnesty International:
Before the process Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. denied that a ruling the U.S. governments favor would immunize the surveillance program from constitutional challenges. "That contention is misplaced," Verrilli wrote in a brier. "Others may be able to establish standing even if respondents cannot. As respondents recognize, the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived from" the surveillance authorized by the 2008 law "against a person in judicial or administrative proceedings and that person may challenge the underlying surveillance."[8] The USCC then stated in its ruling: "If the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from" surveillance authorized by the 2008 law "in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition."
The opposite of Verrilli told the Supreme Court happened since then in actual criminal prosecutions. Federal prosecutors, apparently unaware of his representations, have refused to make the promised disclosures. In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance. Prosecutors in Chicago have taken the same approach in a prosecution of teenager accused of plotting to blow up a bar.
Hedges vs Obama:
In this hearing, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's provision -- one that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial -- has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world -- AFTER Judge Forrest's injunction.
Obamacare:
The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law.
The US administration cannot be taken at its word, and that includes the opinions of its administrative courts. (Here's a hint: Mazzant is a
magistrate judge, not an
actual judge, as magistrature is an Article I tribunal in the US, as opposed to actual courts, which are Article III tribunals).
tl;dr: Nobody cares what the Soviets say, or what they misrepresent the law into saying. This is equally true whether we're in the 1980s CCCP or in the 2010s USSA.
edit: on second thought i may be making too many presumptions with my analysis. i dont know how easy/hard this would be to do in reality, so take what i have said with a grain of salt.
So if you don't know, then why are you talking?
Erik Voorhees was wise to sell SDICE and pay back all the investors before the same thing happened to him.
FYI that would necessarily devoid him of any responsibility. If I started a casino then sold it to jimmy that I still broke the law and profited from the crime and could still be prosecuted.
In theory but in reality no smoke less chance of a fire.
The chances of a prosecution go down (especially over time) if the operation is wrapped up and there is no complaint. While yes if the staute of limitations is 7 years they could wait until 2021 and prosecute him them but that probably isn't going to happen. This is the government we are talking about. There is always some new dumbass to go after which is still in the news and seen as a "bigger deal".
There's two kinds of people in this world, of which arguably only one kind actually is people.
Consider your own case, rather than the distant one of Erik, as similar as it may be. You had a business, you were damned good at it, you were doing something useful and being appreciated by your peers for it.
Then one day you shuttered the whole thing,
out of fear of your own government. Not because you were doing something wrong, not because what you were doing wasn't worth doing, but simply because you live in a country which terrorizes its citizens as a matter of common policy (and would try its darndest to terrorize foreign nationals, too, in the hopes they may respond in kind which then can be used as "proof" of the putative "terrorism" which the government "is defending" people from. By creating it, by doing it in the first place.) So what do you have now? As much gin at The Chestnut Tree as you can stand? Well ain't that something!
Do you see anything wrong with the picture? Sure, you don't want to go to jail. I have news for you, Gerald: you're already in jail. This is what jail is, this is what jail means, this is what it feels like. You're already there. Whether you move from the large jail cell hosting everyone else you know to one of the smaller cells isn't even up to you, because, again, this is what jail is. When your keepers decide to move you they will move you, and that decision has absolutely nothing to do with you. Sure, they'll represent it otherwise, especially if they may extract amusement out of you by doing so, much like a cat will play with a captured mouse. Go ahead, argue with me, explain how wrong I am and how great it all is. Make our day, mine and theirs equally, as that's the one bridge that unites the free people and the gaolers of the world: their equal contempt for that other kind of people.
нe coздáй cвoю coбcтвeннyю тюpьмy.
