|
FatherMcGruder
|
 |
February 23, 2011, 06:01:58 PM |
|
The question isn't so much about righting a wrong, it is about who gets to decide who did what, and what constitutes a wrong. Don't we all have that right? |
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
Nefario
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:04:57 PM |
|
(lets see, which country do I want to offend today....)
China's a good choice for this, taking into account the recent Canada hack. |
PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com |
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:09:15 PM |
|
Our legal systems haven't caught up with the Internet. What's the proper jurisdiction for somebody in Iceland using a bitcoin exchanger in the US who got ripped of by somebody living in (lets see, which country do I want to offend today....) a seasteading community?
And they're not going to. Which is why we here might want to see about setting up our own. It doesn't need to mirror the legal systems in modern states at all. As I said, I'm partial to the Common Economic Protocol and the system of magistrates proposed therein. A short summary: The CEP is a bare-minimum legal framework, basically it just states that interfering with the property of another person without their consent is not allowed, and "property" is understood to mean possessions as well as personal, physical wellbeing. Contracts can be made which stipulate they will conform to the CEP with or without modifications. Such contracts would also stipulate the process to be undertaken for dispute resolution. Disputes could be referred to a magistrate, which is basically just some person who offers the arbitration services. There can be any number of such magistrates. They operate on trust built over time by passing out verdicts generally considered fair. When making a contract, a magistrate is chosen that both parties agree is unbiased, and in case of dispute both parties agree to be bound by the decision of said magistrate. Whatever decision the magistrate makes, they make public (assuming that is allowed by the original contract), and should either party fail to honour the decision, the magistrate will publish that, too. Any operator who trusts a given magistrate is likely to want to avoid doing business with anyone who refuses to honour decisions given out by them. It's probably too early for this kind of thing, still. Where we are right now is kind of monarchistic in a sense. There are a few operators trusted by many who can operate on whim. I want to make it clear I'm not trying to rile people up against mt gox. I personally have a lot of trust in them. I just think that in the long run, this can not be how we resolve disputes. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
Bimmerhead
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1291
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:24:23 PM |
|
The question isn't so much about righting a wrong, it is about who gets to decide who did what, and what constitutes a wrong. Don't we all have that right? Well, if I'm holding $10,000 for you in an envelope in my house because we are trustworthy friends, and I ask you where you got the money and you say "selling widgets on the internet", and I inform you that I am against the distribution of widgets and so I'm giving your $10,000 to a charity of my choice, how does that fit into the postmodern notion of anyone getting to define right/wrong? (Pardon the run on sentence) |
|
|
|
|
jimbobway
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1304
Merit: 1014
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:30:46 PM |
|
In American courts a jury decides what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is based on personal experience. So, FatherMcGruder is right, in my opinion.
MtGox's opinion pretty much represents the opinion of the people on the forums of bitcoin.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nefario
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:32:51 PM |
|
The question isn't so much about righting a wrong, it is about who gets to decide who did what, and what constitutes a wrong. Don't we all have that right? Well, if I'm holding $10,000 for you in an envelope in my house because we are trustworthy friends, and I ask you where you got the money and you say "selling widgets on the internet", and I inform you that I am against the distribution of widgets and so I'm giving your $10,000 to a charity of my choice, how does that fit into the postmodern notion of anyone getting to define right/wrong? (Pardon the run on sentence) Possetion is 99% of the law rebuilder, have you read the Common Economic Protocols? It's just a big list of words or sentences that don't seem to mean anything. I'm not a lawyer so... The only thing I did understand was we should do what we say or promise to do. |
PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com |
|
|
Bimmerhead
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1291
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:39:08 PM |
|
In American courts a jury decides what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is based on personal experience. So, FatherMcGruder is right, in my opinion.
MtGox's opinion pretty much represents the opinion of the people on the forums of bitcoin.org.
Juries do not decide right and wrong. They decide guilt or innocence. The law (poorly attempts) to define right and wrong. If members of this forum are going to start deciding the guilt and innocence of various participants in the bitcoin economy and deprive them of their property, based on some discussions on a message board, then we are all in trouble. |
|
|
|
|
|
FatherMcGruder
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:50:13 PM |
|
In American courts a jury decides what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is based on personal experience. So, FatherMcGruder is right, in my opinion.
MtGox's opinion pretty much represents the opinion of the people on the forums of bitcoin.org.
Juries do not decide right and wrong. They decide guilt or innocence. The law (poorly attempts) to define right and wrong. If members of this forum are going to start deciding the guilt and innocence of various participants in the bitcoin economy and deprive them of their property, based on some discussions on a message board, then we are all in trouble. Whining is wrong and I hereby find you guilty of whining. For your punishment, you get to imagine me playing a tiny violin. |
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 06:56:29 PM |
|
Possetion is 99% of the law
rebuilder, have you read the Common Economic Protocols? It's just a big list of words or sentences that don't seem to mean anything. I'm not a lawyer so...
The only thing I did understand was we should do what we say or promise to do.
I have. I agree it is unfortunately rather obtusely worded. I'm not saying we should take that document as is and start using it as law. I just think the basic principle is sound, and I do also think there is valuable insight in that document, as it represents the results of some amount of thought on the matter of arbitration without coercion. What it boils down for me personally is this: Arbitration can not be just if it is not done on terms agreed to by all involved parties. This leads to the need to determine the terms of arbitration prior to any transactions that may result in disputes. This leads to a need to have a simple, standardised framework for the purposes of determining what is and is not acceptable and how disputes are to be resolved. So, if you and I were to conduct business under such a system, we'd need an arbitrator. It can be anyone we both trust. Any contract that may be subject to arbitration would need to have clear terms the arbitrator can pass judgement on. We would both agree to be bound by the decision of this arbitrator, and if either party failed to do so, they would lose standing in the community, as the arbitrators judgements would be public. That's about it in a nutshell. The language of such contracts and the way an arbitrator operates are definitely areas of difficulty, which is why I think referring to prior work would be advisable. In the end, though, I think this will just need to be tried out to see where it goes. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:38:11 PM |
|
This raises questions. Is it the place of a marketplace operator to act as judge? I'm not sure about that. Part of me feels less secure having my assets on mt gox if they take it upon themselves to hold funds when they say they suspect foul play.
If he can really prove that it was a thief, I see no problem at all. Actually, I'd congratulate MtGox for that. But, I'm expecting the evidences... |
|
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:43:14 PM |
|
Well, if I'm holding $10,000 for you in an envelope in my house because we are trustworthy friends, and I ask you where you got the money and you say "selling widgets on the internet", and I inform you that I am against the distribution of widgets and so I'm giving your $10,000 to a charity of my choice, how does that fit into the postmodern notion of anyone getting to define right/wrong?
Like you or not, everybody has the right to sell widget on the internet. But nobody has the right to steal. This is basic ethics. |
|
|
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:46:50 PM |
|
If he can really prove that it was a thief, I see no problem at all. Actually, I'd congratulate MtGox for that.
But, I'm expecting the evidences...
My only problem with that is that I haven't agreed to let mt gox decide on such matters. I'm probably letting my anal retentive side show here, but all I'd ask for is a simple TOS when registering for the service that states they may hold funds if they have what they consider to be sufficient evidence of foul play. As things are, I'd be fine with trusting mt gox to make those calls, although further down the road, if a marketplace had a better defined TOS and clear-cut rules for dispute arbitration, I'd seriously consider taking my business there. I just think it's important for people to agree to be subject to disciplinary action if such action is to take place. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
|
Nefario
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:49:15 PM |
|
My only problem with that is that I haven't agreed to let mt gox decide on such matters
Not exactly, once you deposit bitcoins to mtgox(or usd) you are essentially giving all power to him. You had better trust him. I do. |
PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com |
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:54:17 PM |
|
Not exactly, once you deposit bitcoins to mtgox(or usd) you are essentially giving all power to him. You had better trust him. I do.
True. If there was an exchange that agreed to put limits on what they can do, I'd consider that a big plus in favor of that exchange, though. Mtgox has such strong standing (and power) in the community right now that they have a lot of elbow room. If the market grows, other exchanges will gain importance as well, and clear terms of service might be a competitive advantage. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
Bimmerhead
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1291
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 07:55:01 PM |
|
Well, if I'm holding $10,000 for you in an envelope in my house because we are trustworthy friends, and I ask you where you got the money and you say "selling widgets on the internet", and I inform you that I am against the distribution of widgets and so I'm giving your $10,000 to a charity of my choice, how does that fit into the postmodern notion of anyone getting to define right/wrong?
Like you or not, everybody has the right to sell widget on the internet. But nobody has the right to steal. This is basic ethics. Thank you, that is exactly my point. Just because I don't like what you're doing doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't mean I can suddenly take your money. We don't get to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, nor do we get to rain our own justice down on others arbitrarily. There has to be an agreed-to process to handle disagreements. |
|
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 23, 2011, 08:02:19 PM |
|
No, Bimmerhead, it seems you didn't understand what I meant.
Nobody has the right to steal, so, if Baron is proven guilty of theft, he's not the rightful owner of the stolen bitcoins. If MtGox can really prove that, he has all the right to retain such coins - and the rightful owner could reclaim them.
Now, we must wait for the evidence...
|
|
|
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 08:12:02 PM |
|
No, Bimmerhead, it seems you didn't understand what I meant.
Nobody has the right to steal, so, if Baron is proven guilty of theft, he's not the rightful owner of the stolen bitcoins. If MtGox can really prove that, he has all the right to retain such coins - and the rightful owner could reclaim them.
Now, we must wait for the evidence...
An argument for universal morals, then? Good luck with that... |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 23, 2011, 08:28:59 PM |
|
An argument for universal morals, then? Good luck with that...
 You were defending a voluntary court system in this very topic... if that's not an ethical base (voluntary is ok, coercive is not) than what is it? |
|
|
|
|
gusti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 08:29:50 PM |
|
If Bitcoin is a descentralized, people's for people money, justice must be done in such similar a way.
If MtGox suspects that any amount is stolen, and can prove that, it's doing good in blocking.
|
If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
|
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 23, 2011, 08:34:36 PM |
|
You were defending a voluntary court system in this very topic... if that's not an ethical base (voluntary is ok, coercive is not) than what is it? It is pragmatic. I don't expect to be able to apply coercive measures against anyone when I can not identify them. I do not hold enough sway in this community to declare anyone pariah. If, then, I am to have any recourse against someone in a dispute, it seems best to me to only conduct business with people who will voluntarily declare their willingness to follow certain rules, and to conduct my business in such a way that it can be proven whether the rules have been followed or not. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
|
