277600+ entries in 0.168s
interviewee: we're on day 4 of evidentiary hearings on a motion
to dissolve
interviewee: if you have a party fighting (like one i am involved with atm)
then its a mess
interviewee: so
the speed in whcih you can liquidate varies based on a number of factors
shinohai: all without
the benefit of flaming
tires in a shitpit.
mircea_popescu: anyway - since crypto governance interests you : bitbet was a reasonably productive bitcoin crop
that split up over disputes inside management, was declared insolvent, had syndic appointed, was liquidated and
the whole process was closed. it was a) an ad-hoc process and b) done within 6 weeks.
interviewee: you'll probably agree with some of my stuff, which is cool. you'll probably disagree with some of my stuff which is cool
too
interviewee: and
trying
to work on some materials
that will be used
to guide businesses
that want
to play with smart contracts
to keep
them from blowing
their own heads off DaoStyle
mircea_popescu is curious what mr hinkes will
think once he gets
through
the logs
to
the bitbet receivership process.
interviewee: i'm doing some more of
the conferences
to
try
to
teach peopel
to not make dao messes again
interviewee: hey! i'm a lawyer who used
to be
tech. go easy on me.
interviewee: i'm
trying
to continue
to learn, watch
the fireworks, and help out where i can.
mircea_popescu: heh. bitcoin is going
to
the following place : i'll be electing
the us president long after nobody remembers what an us dollar used
to be.
interviewee: so,
they just have
to live with
their new reality.
mircea_popescu: their mistaken politico hope
that "it'll end bitcoin" will require blood
to wash off.
mircea_popescu: if
they paid attention when
they should have
they'd have busted pirate when i said
to in 2012, not waited for years on
the case.
mircea_popescu: oh, right,
there's also a whole pile of claims re insider
trading, manipulation etc over
the "price" of "ethereum" at kraken and poloniex.
☟︎ interviewee: and everyone was
told
they'd get what
they get from hitting buttons
interviewee: that would show
that ETH is run by a cabal
interviewee: including
that
there would be efforts
to roll back
interviewee: and guessed right about many of
the
things
that would or would not happen
interviewee: so, i gave a
talk about
this at NYU 3 days before
the exploiter did his/her/their
thing
interviewee: even if you want
to call it "right
to control"
interviewee: if you stole my stradivarious, i'd not lose
title just posession
mircea_popescu: sure, i don't mean "title
to sue" i mean
title as in property
interviewee: in conversion, you don't lose legal
title, just posessory
interviewee: you can sue
to enforce any part of yoru property rights
interviewee: there is no govt actor using police power
to enforce like
the fancy colored linen i used
to buy my coffee
this am
mircea_popescu: anyway.
there is no such
thing as "actual rights" here, nor even as much as
title. nobody has
title
to any cryptocurrency.
interviewee: they are out
there but
they are increasingly being regulated/legislated out
mircea_popescu: this is one of
those million-dollar-opportunities, which i hear are getting rarer and rarer in an ever more crowded lawyer market.
interviewee: there are lots of lawyers who would "just" want
to file
this
to make
their name
BingoBoingo: If
the restaurant offered grant money
to people selling charcoal chain mebbe?
mircea_popescu: but
this is not a restaurant. if you decide
to break into
the democratic convention while sitting in nixon's white house, guess what.
interviewee: if you sign a contract for delivery of 50
tons of charcoal while sitting at
the restaurant and
the other party breaches 2 years later, you
think you have a claim against
the restaurant?
shinohai: of course
they didn't, fork chain so
this never, ever happened
mircea_popescu: in point of fact, ethereum happened in
the mit media lab.
interviewee: Rule 11- can't just sling shit and hope for
the best
mircea_popescu: not going
to.
the factual matter will have
to be established somehow. you allege
they did,
they allege
they didn't. so it's a dispute.
interviewee: what's
the factual basis for
the "forced
the participants
to decide"?
mircea_popescu: the allegation has
to be established by
trier of fact, ie, jury.
mircea_popescu: tortious interference.
they provided
the office space where
the decision was made and allegedly "forced
the participants
to decide"
interviewee: did
they write any part of
the slock.it code or solidity or ethereum?
interviewee: ok, perhaps i am as naive as shinohai suggests, but where's
the claim against MIT?
mircea_popescu: anyway, no way mit senior counsel ever allows
this anywhere near a
trial ; which is why it's fine settle fodder if you're looking
to feed yourself.
interviewee: respectfully you get
to
the jury at
the end and
there's a lot
to do before
the end.
interviewee: you have
to remember
the gatekeeper here is likely
to be a +60yr old conservative christian white male
BingoBoingo: One can not decathalon
to Olympus without jumping over some hurdles.
mircea_popescu: and if mit doesn't distance itself from it post haste, it's definitely open
to a
tort, which... you know, judge awards a billion, of which 0.1% mit's responsibility. so
they have
TO PAY
THRE WHOLE BILLION
mircea_popescu: ~anyone holding as much as a farthing "worth" of ethereum presently has overhead
the possible claim here discussed, with its
treble damages and whatnot.
shinohai: it's already dead, but
this is poking it with stick
interviewee: so yes, i
think
there's a credible arguement
that
the exploiter just lost rights.
mircea_popescu: shinohai
this means
that
the derps are in
the worst case of all : all
the damage of
their "hard fork" is now baked in but nevertheless none of
the
things
they hoped it would achieve were achieved.
interviewee: the collateral damage
tot he platform caused by a public suit would be breathtaking
mircea_popescu: no argument
there. all i'm saying is
that even if
the latter were ordered, it'd still not work.
interviewee: from my analysis of
the
toolbox available
to lawyers, it is much easier
to get a judgment and levy on conventional assets
than
to
try
to compel actors
to change code.
mircea_popescu: ie, even if
the judge orders "to reverse
the fork"
the only practical implementation is a liquidation in cash.
mircea_popescu: also,
there's exactly no difference between cash damages and reversing
the fork.
interviewee: so is about 1/2 of
the voters in
the US so you're in good company
mircea_popescu: no, actually, im in
the business of destroying
the us.
interviewee: so you want cash damages not
to reverse
the fork
mircea_popescu: interviewee you can't be
this naive. "a blockchain" ? you sue mit,
the hedge fund.
mircea_popescu: motion
to dismiss you worry about after
they reject early settlement. if
they do.
interviewee: then you open
the box and deal with
the endless array of new law
to make
interviewee: getting service and past a motion
to dismiss is what i'm
talkign about
mircea_popescu: wouldn't be
the first
time someone files something
that's
then dismissed.
mircea_popescu: standing only comes at proceeding
time. litigation starts with filing.
interviewee: and
then
the unilateral fork deprives rights.
interviewee: then entirely plausible
that permitted action provides
title
mircea_popescu: next q being, are you actually
trying
to position yourself
to litigate
this, or just blogging about it ?
interviewee: US Judges do a really good job considering
the system
they have
to deal with
mircea_popescu: interviewee
the question
to you is still, concretely, which lawyer are you ? otherwise
the situation here is indistinguishable from "bored redditor clicked a webirc link"