mtgox.com has blocked my account with 45 000 USD in it!

[BitterTea]

Good for you.

I will never do business with a company that select a terrestrial jurisdiction for dispute resolution. That's not because I want to stay anonymous, because I am not anonymous. I am both afraid of using coercion, but I am afraid of coercion being brought down upon me.

I am quite prepared to lose money to bad people. I am quite paranoid about the people I deal with in trade. I consider the reputation, the length of time, and so on. Even if he is founded to be trusted, I'll use escrow and other methods.

I don't use terrestrial courts, and neither should my trading partners.

If you do use one to enforce contracts, I won't do business with you.

Exactly this. Can you legally (in the eyes of, say the U.S. or U.K.) waive your right to use the judicial system to mediate disputes? Could I draw up a contract that I use with anyone I do business that says "in the event of a dispute, you agree to use X, Y, or Z dispute mediator", where X, Y, or Z doesn't include state courts?

vlad: Why are you so infatuated with the courts of nation states?

[1713943334]

1713943334

[1713943334]

1713943334

[caveden]

There's one thing called "parallel market", which you're dealing with. I found somehow BTC to have a lot of kids and nerds totally unaware they're in a parallel market. In the parallel market there's no such thing as "refunds", either you've your eyes open or you're eaten. Sorry for the "shower of reality", kids.

Are you suggesting we don't know bitcoin is not under the control of state mafias?
That's the whole point of BTC, not to be easily controllable by governments... why do you think it's P2P in the first place?

And I see no reason why there can't be refunds in a business not controlled by governments. This whole story here may prove you wrong.

By the way, here you are again with this disgusting behavior of blaming the victims instead of the actual criminals. "Open your eyes or your eaten". Everyone has the right to have his eyes as much closed as they will, nobody has the right to steal from them.

No, it doesn't make him a scammer.

Yes, it does. Again... parallel market has some "differences".

Elucidate me. Why, just by operating free of state chains, a market operator that's apparently trying to solve a robbery issue immediately becomes a robber himself, according to you?

And if he love LR, why not acting like LR? Try to file a complaint you were scammed at LR and good luck; knocking your head on the wall that is.

Maybe because he doesn't want to send a big "Fuck you" to his clients and want to help them? Specially if he has strong evidence that there was not such negotiation between Baron and the thief.
By the way, it was not just a scam, an account of his own site seems to have been robbed.

And how can you be sure he hasn't? One is always innocent until proven guilty, by common sense.

I can't be sure, that's why I've been asking for evidence since the beginning.
It's quite clear though that Baron contradicts himself in some of his posts, not to mention the difference in reputation between him and MtGox, what makes me have more trust on the latter "a priori".

[ribuck]

I don't use terrestrial courts.

Nor do I, because I consider it immoral and distasteful to invoke the violence of the state against a fellow human being.

Of course, if someone else initiated court action against me then all bets are off.

[ribuck]

Can you legally (in the eyes of, say the U.S. or U.K.) waive your right to use the judicial system to mediate disputes? Could I draw up a contract that I use with anyone I do business that says "in the event of a dispute, you agree to use X, Y, or Z dispute mediator", where X, Y, or Z doesn't include state courts?

Many people here are familiar with the GPL. I have often wondered if someone could draw up a business agreement that works in a similar way, but refers to state courts.

Something self-detonating, along the lines of "We agree to transact without invoking the power of the state. Each party agrees that if they invoke the power of the state, they immediately and totally release the other party from any legal obligations."

Obviously that's amateurish and no doubt full of loopholes, but it would be interesting to see what a lawyer could come up with.

[FatherMcGruder]

I will never do business with a company that select a terrestrial jurisdiction for dispute resolution.

So, ah, where do you get your groceries?

[BCEmporium]

Let me put this down, for see if some "understand" why the "common moralities" of the "mundane World" can't be applied here.

What has more value here isn't the "Bitcoin", because it hasn't even a physical existence to have any value, but the trust. A market of trust where you can't tell from the start who's to be trusted. So this is my stand! Trust!

Now, why shouldn't mtgox engage his PI hobby?

Because he "knows" his costumers as well as we know each other here; a nickname in a screen. Faceless.
Who can ensure me, or mtgox, or anyone that the "victim" isn't the real scammer here?
Let's say, I sold last month 9000 BTC at 0.30 each, go check this month and find out it worth 3x more now, so I'll file a complaint to mtgox claiming my account to be hacked (let's say I was on holidays and the IP come from Bermudas whereas I normally access the site from UK so mtgox eats the bait) attempting to recover those coins.
Who's mtgox protecting then? A scammer unhappy to sold out his coins for a lower price?

Or what if what was hacked wasn't the mtgox account but the email address used with that account?

Because he can't be 100% certain if the accusation checks or voids, he shouldn't took any action whatsoever. Otherwise he isn't "protecting his costumers" as it may seams, but put everyone who does business with him at risk of fraud.

Got the picture now?

[kiba]

Because I've studied English law, and I find it to be generally to be very fair and reasonable and making things simpler for everyone. I do not really have infatuation with any other state legal system, certainly not with US, or Russian ones, and I do not know much about others.

Ribuck:

I respect your point. I personally do not start lawsuits unless I absolutely have no other choice. Though, in my book, government and banks are fair game. I do not recall ever suing anyone but them. I never lost so far.  

You are the only one who would consider suing anybody.

Ribuck and I don't sue, period. We shrugged off our loss and move on.

[rebuilder]

I will never do business with a company that select a terrestrial jurisdiction for dispute resolution.

That's like saying you will never do business with people that scam people. The option to turn to the courts (or scamming in my analogy) is always there, ready to be taken. You can't know for sure if others will turn to it, although past behaviour can offer some assurances.

[ribuck]

We shrugged off our loss and move on.

My company sued another company in 1987, when I was not yet a voluntaryist. I was "only" a libertarian back then.

Since then, I have not sued anyone. But neither have I experienced any loss to "shrug off". Voluntaryism changes your whole way of dealing with other people, in a very positive sense.

Obviously I can't be sure that I'll never suffer a loss from being ripped off. But if it happens, I'll try to make good by non-violent means, and I'll balance the loss against the savings I made by not paying lawyers.

[caveden]

Got the picture now?

Yes, and agree with most that you said in this last post, it's a dangerous thing for MtGox. I said in another post that I thought MtGox actions were probably precipitated.
I hope he's sure the account really was stolen, and I'd like to see why he's that certain.

The thing here is, suppose that the allegedly victim is himself a scammer, like in your examples. Then there should be evidence somewhere that the scammer did sell BTC to Baron as he claims.

It's way too precipitated of your part too accusing MtGox of robbery.

[caveden]

a reasonable legal system (like in UK)

Oh boy....

[BCEmporium]

caveden,

I'm not accusing mtgox of robbery, at least not intentional robbery, but is a risk I think he shouldn't take in the first place.

And yes, there should be some register, like the LR records. But I don't use LR, can't say much here. Don't know if there's or not a limit on how far in the past your history can go.

[kiba]

"I never will sue anyone and will just shrug off the loss and move one" is a very interesting position. I bet lots of people want to sell you bridges.

Suing or not suing is simply a matter of common sense and cost efficiency. If someone, for example,  ripped me off for 1000£ and it cost me 100£ to recover the loss with good chances of win I will sue in a hearbit, after following the correct procedure and giving a plenty chances to other party to put things right. Nothing personal, just biz. Actually, it is my fiduciary duty to my family to do so.

If someone finds it amoral or bad or whatever, not much I can do about it.

We have very different political philosophy and very different conception of what we considered "rights". That's all there is. We don't believe in democracy, social contracts, the use of coercion, etc. Our dealing with people in life are going to be different and our security models are going to be different.

[BCEmporium]

a reasonable legal system (like in UK)

Oh boy....

Dizer isto a um brasileiro quando houve uma "caça ao brasuca transeunte" no metro de Londres é... dose! 

(say this to a Brazilian when there were a "Brazilian pedestrian hunting" at London's subway... hurts!)

[BCEmporium]

What has is to do with anything in this thread?

Never mind... just a small "relief" moment.

EDIT: Nevertheless, there's no reason to "odd out" UK's legal system, taken almost all Western Systems are similar. The major differences would only be noticed either to Dictatorships or Theocracies.

[caveden]

I'm not accusing mtgox of robbery, at least not intentional robbery, but is a risk I think he shouldn't take in the first place.

You might be right there. I'm not sure I would have taken such risk either.

My main point of disagreement is that you seem to be attacking him for having tried to make things right, while I think that, if he's proven correct, he should be applauded. If not, then it was a bad mistake, but not as serious as fraud/robbery if he returns the funds. After all, there's no agreement of "withdraw anytime" when we send him the money.
I think people deserve recognition for helping innocents, and so far that's what it seems MtGox did in this particular case...

[caveden]

EDIT: Nevertheless, there's no reason to "odd out" UK's legal system, taken almost all Western Systems are similar.

I wasn't "odding out" UK system in particular, it's just that I don't see anything reasonable in coercively imposed legal systems.

[BCEmporium]

caveden,

In a market with the liquidity of FOREX or Bitcoin, assets can't be frozen. It's too risky. Whatever happens settle after, not during, otherwise I would see who will take in hands the responsibility of stopping the market.
Let's see, 45k weren't on business, on a market with the size of BTC means BTC worth less because of one frozen investor and the marketplace owner who decided to froze for do a bit of freelance police's work. Such actions have global effect, not just over Baron. As collateral effect it damages the trust on bitcoin.

I know, sounds somewhat immoral and unfair, so it seams immoral and unfair that Gaddafi's family take all the wealth of Libya or the Royal Family on Saudi Arabia... but this is how markets work. The priority is always to keep the market moving, because if it stops the outcome is more disastrous then trample a few moral rules.

[BitterTea]

I know, sounds somewhat immoral and unfair, so it seams immoral and unfair that Gaddafi's family take all the wealth of Libya or the Royal Family on Saudi Arabia... but this is how markets work.

What? Are you fucking serious? That's not a market, that's a coercive entity, also known as a state.

[BCEmporium]

I know, sounds somewhat immoral and unfair, so it seams immoral and unfair that Gaddafi's family take all the wealth of Libya or the Royal Family on Saudi Arabia... but this is how markets work.

What? Are you fucking serious? That's not a market, that's a coercive entity, also known as a state.

But the market, by your views, should then stop to deal with Libya and Saudi Arabia because the ones dealing are robbers, shouldn't it?