Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 02:07:16 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [Mt. Gox Court Case] Do you all know who controls the central bank of France?  (Read 3985 times)
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:02:54 AM
 #1

https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111021.html

In this Mt. Gox debacle, we're dealing with the Rothschilds along with private shareholders that control the central banks of Europe. You know that Wall Street scum and those billionaires everybody is butthurt about right now? Practically nobodies compared to these guys. These are the rulers of our planet we're dealing with. Undisclosed trillionaires. They own practically every nation's debt on the planet through their privatized banking regime and here is their representative from the Banque De France to make sure one of Bitcoin's central institutions, Mt. Gox, is limited.

Let me tell you: Nobody is getting past these guys in court. They'll buy the whole damn thing out if they have to, if Bitcoin becomes big. A decentralized money where profit is available to the rattiest neckbeard with a dozen GPUs is not their ideal world. Whoever controls the money controls everything, people. A pretty presidential seal and a stack of legal documents is bullshit compared to the omnipotent power of a printing press. Bitcoin challenges that. It neuters the banks and gives it power to every individual who owns a computer. That's true wealth redistribution.

Thus Bitcoin is going nowhere in terms of financial legislation, folks. You might as well forget about Bitcoin getting any legal protection against the banks.

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

They are going to fight this thing tooth-and-nail. We have quite a battle ahead. I don't know exactly what this is going to lead to but it's going to be interesting.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
epetroel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 428


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:08:26 AM
 #2

Feels like you should have mentioned the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission in there somewhere.
bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:11:30 AM
 #3

Feels like you should have mentioned the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission in there somewhere.
I also saw no mention of lizard men  Huh
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:17:20 AM
 #4

All you have to do is look where the money flows. There is no conspiracy here; only the inconvenient truth. Feel free to refute me if you have taken the time to understand my position.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:22:23 AM
 #5

Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients.  In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.  Paypal fought this battle years ago throughout the world and ultimately ended up having to acquire financial services licences to continue operating in many places.

Battles yet to be fought are whether BTC and the exchanges will ultimately need to comply with regulations relating to securities and/or commodities, and whether online wallet providers are offering a "financial service".

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:27:38 AM
 #6

Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients.  In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.  Paypal fought this battle years ago throughout the world and ultimately ended up having to acquire financial services licences to continue operating in many places.

Battles yet to be fought are whether BTC and the exchanges will ultimately need to comply with regulations relating to securities and/or commodities, and whether online wallet providers are offering a "financial service".

They can put all the regulations they want on Bitcoin but they can hardly be enforced. Transactions don't have to be tied to any identity, entity nor purpose. That's easy to fudge in terms of accounting to say the absolute least.

The real reigns are the borders:  Where fiat monies move in and out of Bitcoin.
sukiho
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:35:52 AM
 #7

doesnt really matter what its called, if they want it they can just buy it up, very easy for anyone in their financial position right now, not so easy if it was being well used, be an exciting ride if they did decide to buy it out tho
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:37:29 AM
 #8

doesnt really matter what its called, if they want it they can just buy it up, very easy for anyone in their financial position right now, not so easy if it was being well used, be an exciting ride if they did decide to buy it out tho
That would be against their interests. It would only increase the value and adoption of the currency. Considering the whole Bitcoin economy can run off one Bitcoin, destruction by purchase is irrational and impossible. It will not and cannot happen.
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:42:27 AM
 #9

Goldstein huh?!?  Sounds like a JEWISH name!!! Roll Eyes

A secret, elite group is not necessary to explain that banks will operate in their own interests (just as you and I do). Pointing out that some people own and control banks is silly.

Assume that there is an evil Rothschild group behind everything. What benefit is gained from that knowledge? The common criminal down the street with a gun is more dangerous to you than the Rothschilds. In fact, YOU are a greater danger to yourself than the Rothschilds... you're much more likely to kill yourself in a car accident than be in a position where knowledge of the evil Rothschildren will be of use.

Wait a sec, such a terribly distracting course of knowledge and infatuation could ONLY have been created to distract us by ONE group... the Rothschilds!!!!
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:46:34 AM
 #10

Goldstein huh?!?  Sounds like a JEWISH name!!! Roll Eyes

A secret, elite group is not necessary to explain that banks will operate in their own interests (just as you and I do). Pointing out that some people own and control banks is silly.

Assume that there is an evil Rothschild group behind everything. What benefit is gained from that knowledge? The common criminal down the street with a gun is more dangerous to you than the Rothschilds. In fact, YOU are a greater danger to yourself than the Rothschilds... you're much more likely to kill yourself in a car accident than be in a position where knowledge of the evil Rothschildren will be of use.

Wait a sec, such a terribly distracting course of knowledge and infatuation could ONLY have been created to distract us by ONE group... the Rothschilds!!!!
I haven't made any claims to the existence of a secret elite group.

The fact is the Rothschilds are a major private shareholder in these central banks along with many other financial institutions. I am not making claims to anything that isn't certain.

The fact is when you have the power to manipulate the production of money to your whims, you're omnipotent in regards to political and financial affairs. The incentive to maintain this power is clear. The true motives are undefined.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:47:22 AM
 #11

If you think the Rothschild's are bad, you'd better hide your rigs from De Beers.  I hear they're going to set up a mining pool and take control of the block chain.  Blood Bitcoins are just around the corner. Roll Eyes

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 03:48:52 AM
 #12

If you think the Rothschild's are bad, you'd better hide your mining rigs from De Beers.  I hear they're going to set up a mining pool and take control of the block chain.   Roll Eyes
History has shown that people will not be irrational enough to allow their computing power to form a pool that has more than 51% of the power.

The fear was incredible when it was discovered how powerful Deepbit was once getting. I can only imagine the tremors in a more active future.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2011, 06:26:15 AM
 #13

Uh huh. The most powerful people in the universe are going to buy the case, but mayyyyyybbbeeee if we just don't mention (anymore) that Bitcoin is money, we can still win the case.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
 #14

I doubt they can buy a lot of things with debts  Cheesy
Horkabork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:03:38 AM
 #15

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

What we call it won't matter. Obviously, we're all here not out of some social purpose but because bitcoin is a currency. Miners like using bitcoin to make money. Others like it as a mid-or-long-term investment. Day traders and bot-makers like it because trading here is less complicated and doesn't require $25K while under a strict ruleset that fucks the small guy. Lastly, some like it only to buy stuff or to be hip.

Most people are actually a mix of the above, but very few are using bitcoin for a purpose other than as a currency.

You do have a good point buried in there, however. Namecoin, as a vehicle for speech, might actually be more protected in the US and other free-speech nations than Bitcoin.

If we can sell the idea that bitcoin is money, but money is speech (Hello, occupy wall street), then you've got some protection. Attach Bitcoin to a messaging system and you've got a constitutional conundrum. It would be interesting if bitcoin could piggyback p2p messaging on every transaction. It would be slower than email, but obviously with some advantages.

Bam! Now bitcoin is both a currency and a form of speech. Include the ability to send messages to multiple addresses, and now it's a form of the press (e.g., if I can publish a newsletter by essentially sending small transactions to every subscriber, it's press).

Hell, let's try to hit as many constitutional protections as possible:

1.1 Religion. Quick, someone found a church that uses bitcoin and this new messaging system as the sole means which the church congregates (desseminates religious communication). The principle of semi-anonymous community, wherein one believer is not elevated above others (such as to a priesthood), is actually within the domain of Jesus' teachings.

1.2 Assembly. At this point, twitter itself is probably bulletproof for this reason alone. The equivalency of virtual assembly would be a supreme court decision, but it's one more for the fire. The more that bitcoin could be used for any form of virtual assembly, the better.

1.3 Press (already covered the right to publish).

2. Guns. Uh. Crap. Well, there is a small debate that does exist as to whether newer, stranger forms of arms are covered. For example: hacker tools.

3. Homeowners forcibly housing soldiers. Shit. I don't know.

4. Search and seizure. People pay a lot of attention to the search part of this, but it's also part of the argument against eminent domain being used without judicial involvement or for a third party's advantage, which possibly applies to bitcoin.

5. 6. 7. 8. Rights of the accused, etc. I don't know how this could apply to bitcoin.

9. Other rights may exist and just because they're not in the constitution doesn't mean they can be violated, or something like that. This one is lovely for bitcoin use on the shoulders of such arguments such as freedom of privacy, free movement, biased enforcement of laws, etc.

10. Federalism. Crap. Okay I'm going to give up on this line of insanity right there.

I did those amendments off the top of my head, so they might be off a bit.

Me: 15gbWvpLPfbLJZBsL2u5gkBdL3BUXDbTuF
A goat: http://i52.tinypic.com/34pj4v6.jpg
FreeTrade
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854



View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:11:12 AM
 #16

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

This is good advice and has the occasionally useful advantage of being true.

An accurate (and probably the least controversial description) of Bitcoin is that is a record of public statements. I don't see that you can outlaw keeping such a record, nor outlaw making new public statements (that others may or may not add to their record) without going head to head with free speech.


The internet is freedom to communicate without permission. Crypto is freedom to trade without permission.

HODLCoin ANN - Interest rate 0.000015% per block for every balance. Term Deposit Rate 2500% - http://hodlcoin.com/
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:12:04 AM
 #17

Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients.  In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.

+1
And it is not even be a bad thing. Bitcoin is in dire need of some trusted service companies, some exchanges or wallet services or whatever being regulated and audited I would see like a positive step, not a negative one.  As the saying goes, trust but verify. Also keep in mind bitcoin doesnt depend on such oversight, and you are free to use whatever company you want, licensed or not. But Mt Gox getting a license would inspire trust among many, I really cant see how that would be a bad thing.

Dansker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 740


Hello world!


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:43:59 AM
 #18

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

This is good advice and has the occasionally useful advantage of being true.

An accurate (and probably the least controversial description) of Bitcoin is that is a record of public statements. I don't see that you can outlaw keeping such a record, nor outlaw making new public statements (that others may or may not add to their record) without going head to head with free speech.

It's always funny how some people assume the legal system and judges to be like computer scripts: If I feed this information X into it, then according to the script, result Y should appear.

It doesn't work like that. Law texts are interpreted. Judges call bullshit.

pusle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 89


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 10:53:31 AM
 #19


Conspiracy nut or not, anyone who doesn't think money rules the world has been watching the disney channel too much.
Since the banks have monopoly, its obvious they will fight to keep it.

I for one welcome those who see things through the looking glass. Without them I would still be walking around like an ignorant puppet.
jago25_98
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 871


http://moneybutnofixedabode.blogspot.com


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2011, 03:36:05 PM
 #20

This article shows how networks create clumps:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

...which has led to the unbalance of humanity due to money. It happens to grains of sand on a vibrating disc and it happens to money and people in cities. 

Bitcoin is no different. Regardless of Bitcoin bigger internet nodes are more powerful than less connected ones.

We have the opportunity now, to build into the algorithm now measures to balance this back out. However that opportunity must be incorporated when we next find the next big improvement to match adoption, such as blockchain pruning etc.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!