335600+ entries in 2.74s
dub: scam tags issued by
a scammer are not useful
dub: to
a magical samurai rabbit boy girl person no less
smickles: rdponticelli: IKR, and I discussed it in
a non-binding fashion, outside of arbitration! How dare I?!
BTC-Mining: It had to start with that specific string and be followed by
a number... pretty harsh.
rdponticelli: You do deserve
a scammer tag, smickles. How do you dare to expect
a payback on
a bitcoin loan? That's scamming!
BTC-Mining: I also wanted
a number/capital letter following the letters
smickles: funny thing is, there are
a few people who owe usagi btc who are willing to pay this debt, usagi just has to agree
mircea_popescu: but as
a general principle, it's hard to ask for any third party action on
a contract with
a dispute resolution clause that wasn't met.
smickles: and the scammer tag is
a warning mechanism, not
a settlement process, this augustocroppo was assusing me of breaking the contract by calling for
a scammer tag
smickles: because i recall them giving scammer tags to people who agreed to judge.me resolution w/o there even being
a claim filed
smickles: if they want the judge.me result for
a scammertag, they are changing the way they do things
mircea_popescu: but i can see how the forum people would go, well, come with
a judge.me result first.
mircea_popescu: now, it's not
a matter of YOU being
a scammer, or the disclosure being improper or anything
smickles: he admitted it to me. but this is
a side issue. agreeing to arbitration concerns the legal aspects of dispute resolution. not labels on
a forum or private discussions
smickles: how does that reach out to
a scammer tag on bitcointalk?
smickles: mircea_popescu: that's arbitration tho, this is not
a dispute resolution
smickles: someone clearly violates
a signed contract, and people accuse the violated party of scamming
mircea_popescu: there's
a lot of problems to be accounted for. it's difficult to make
a secure api in the first place. even if you do, making
a chain of two be comparably fast to one alone is not trivial.
smickles: why would you do high frequency trading w/o
a 'maker rebate'?
smickles: jurov: is there
a 'stop-loss' feature?
BTC-Mining: I'd consider their inaction as
a poor choice, but would not consider them responsible.
mircea_popescu: but anyway, this isnt
a "oh im so much bettert than anyone else" thing
BTC-Mining: Aye, but I'm pretty sure at some point, it caused harm to its own citizen under one law or another. Although I guess that's not
a receivable argument.
BTC-Mining: Even so, would you claim your government has done absolutly zero hostile acts toward mankind for all the time you were
a citizen?
BTC-Mining: If I applied that logic for anyone who is
a citizen of
a government I held responsible for crimes, I'd have to execute everybody on Earth, including myself.
mircea_popescu: the only way to get the lazy bums out of their bubble of confort and don't-give-
a-shit
BTC-Mining: Well, yes, many country are FAR from being in such
a mess as the US.
mircea_popescu: but yes my example was
a hyperbole. problem is, it's
a matching one
EskimoBob: US laws have turned in to
a pile of shit and same happens all over the world
EskimoBob: my point is, your example was
a hyperbole
EskimoBob: can
a law be criminal? Probably not but i sure can be absurd and instead of protecting people it harms them. But still, can you call it criminal?
BTC-Mining: I'm pretty sure if even if they don't abound, we could at least find
a few falling under that definition of yours in romanian laws.
BTC-Mining: That's like me saying you doing business like dinning out in
a mob's restaurant is being actively engaged in
a criminal enterprise. You have dealings with it, it doesn't mean you know or support what they do. You simply pay them for
a service. Same with citizens paying taxes.
mircea_popescu: but they are actively engaged in
a criminal entreprise
BTC-Mining: The state just decided by itself to consider you
a citizen based on it's own set of rules, without your accord.
mircea_popescu: if you're not
a citizen and are paying taxes i dun care, you're not liable.
BTC-Mining: I don't see how you could reasonably expect someone who object to any single law in
a country to be able to move somewhere that has no rules they disagree with.
mircea_popescu: people that dare organise into such
a state are hostes humani gener
BTC-Mining: Eh, "americans" are just born in the US, not
a direct cause of everything that happens in the US
BTC-Mining: eh, and I wasn't really serious, just pointing out it was
a rather harsh and excessive stance.
BTC-Mining: [03:10] <mircea_popescu> it is now
a crime to be american.
mircea_popescu:
a. i am going to pluck any bird i feel like ; b. i am going to make soup out of any turtle i get my hands on.
thestringpuller: smickles: yes that do, but they also think that if 15-20% of the companies they invested in give them that ROI it's
a "good year"
Diablo-D3: smickles: theres
a few that are fucking retarded, but they're known
noagendamarket: I can double my investment inn 2 years simply by buying
a house and living in it lol
Diablo-D3: not
a bunch of fucking aspies flailing their arms because they invested in something they didnt understand wouldnt pay out their original investment for 2+ years
Diablo-D3: but everyone decided to just be
a bunch of faggots, so fuck it
smickles: thestringpuller: well, to justify 30 btc, you'd probaby have to use margin and make
a good call, eh?
smickles: thestringpuller: do you have an mpex account? they're expensive, although i thing coinbr.com setup
a brokerage site for mpex
thestringpuller: heh "Bitcoin is in fact first and foremost
a wonderful community of highly skilled, intelligent and open minded people which tearfully reminds one of the old days of the pre-September Internet." heh
thestringpuller: I might as well just make
a business instead of trying to bu y one
Azelphur: talking to yourself like
a pro there :p
smickles: yeah, not that i know exactly what we're liquidating at, but buying SS @ 2.5 is probably
a loss
Azelphur: so
A) GLBSE puts info out and then you get bought out and it's over
smickles: then did
a 100 for 1 split some time later
Azelphur: thestringpuller: my history with SS is basically, I bought
a buttload at launch at 1.0, sold em all for between 1.8 and 2.5, then bought again at 2.0 in the second issuance
Azelphur: I sold
a bunch of shares at 2.5 before the second issuing
Azelphur: the IPO value was 1.0 then they did
a second issuing at 2.0
smickles: and it was
a good plan, util glbse folded
Azelphur: sometimes I think it'd be cool if you could hire someone to steal
a scammers car and sell it in order to pay back people who had been scammed, or something
dub: I know
a contract killer in SA :)
dub: well, SA is
a REALLY cheap place to have someone whacked ;)
Azelphur: dub: seems like he's en route for
a scammer tag
Azelphur: that would be such
a travesty to loose xD
mircea_popescu: may seem expensive, but
a great way to build
a community FOR REAL.
mircea_popescu: dub the way i see it, the scams are actually
a passive benefit
smickles: Diablo-D3: i would assume you would not do something like that.
A little communication goes
a long way
midnightmagic: that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. For
a cashier's/certified cheque?!
smickles: although, now, i think they take
a fingerprint to do it
thestringpuller: that is if the check is as liquid as
a moneygram/moneyorder
smickles: btc -> cash in pocket in about one biz day w/o needing
a bank account, i think it'll work