448800+ entries in 0.12s
mircea_popescu: we waited a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow"
mircea_popescu: more constructively, do you have something better than that, i'd want to know
mircea_popescu: that's kinda absurd, we'll never be done if we go that way
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, they will be slight, by today's measure. cause today the scent is still fresh. but in 9 years it will seem reasonable to wait 100 rather than 10.
mircea_popescu: smickles degree of magnitute more than the smallest contractual breach
mircea_popescu: smickles well we agreed on principle but not on the actual interval so far.
mircea_popescu: i don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry the day
mircea_popescu: still doesn't indicate why six months is more reasonable than six weeks
mircea_popescu: if nothing happens in am onth, better wait two. if nothing happens in two better wait six
mircea_popescu: cause it's purely arbitrary. yes, the chances to get something decrease with time. so, if nothing happens in one week, better wait a month.
mircea_popescu: in principle the same could be said of 10 years vs 1000 years.
mircea_popescu: some time limit will have to be enforced. why this rather than that ?
mircea_popescu: we only got into that cause smickles brought it up, but otherwise, the point is more along the lines of,
mircea_popescu: and at any rate the whole involuntary bailee point is mostly academic, it just rehashes the obvious "tough tits" line
mircea_popescu: anyway, even the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and glbse into A.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining there's no limitation that you can only be ib if you can divest in a manner convenient to all partsi nvolved
mircea_popescu: while C may be entitled to that claim, it's really not much of B's business.
mircea_popescu: this makes B the involuntary bailee of C's claim, because B never leased to C any such thing as "future claims to the office space conditional on A's performance in court"
mircea_popescu: smickles no, it's more complicated. person A leases a building to person B. person B leases office space to C. person A is arrested and the building confiscated. C demands from B that B ensures C gets the office space at a future time if the building is returned to A.
mircea_popescu: it has in practice been replaced by a vague sort of claim thing.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because the vehicle for my ownership was the glbse share
mircea_popescu: conveniently BTC-Mining is taking the other side, i'm not sure i'd prefer anyone else for it.
mircea_popescu: it is a pretty important point for btc in general, which is why i'm taking the time
mircea_popescu: but even if i forfeit this entitlement, i can only do it in a time-limited way
mircea_popescu: in law i'm perfectly allowed to not do it at all (hence the discussion of involuntary bailee, you purport to make me the depositor of a 2' device which i never should have to hold)
mircea_popescu: i might extend something like this as a courtesy, and for a limited time
mircea_popescu: once 2 goes away, you propose that it is my obligation to create a 2' vehicle to bridge this gap.
mircea_popescu: well, let it be on record that what i mean by "GLBSE's mining thing" is Gigamining shares, issued and traded on GLBSE
mircea_popescu: again, if i had off-glbse private bonds this entire discussion would be moot.
mircea_popescu: 1. giga made a mining thing ; 2. glbse listed the mining thing ; 3. i own shares in the glbse mining thing ; 4 i made a mpex thing ; 5 you own shares in the mpex thing.
mircea_popescu: so, i made thing A. thing A is no longer. you want me to be the holder of substitute-thing B until such a time that you're satisfied.
mircea_popescu: i wonder who should get it this time, pdpc got it last time...
mircea_popescu: i guess if i end up with a windfall it'll just make some worthy cause rich.
mircea_popescu: You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds <<
mircea_popescu: if i had 1k bonds this discussion wouldn't exist, i'd be paying dividends on them lol.
mircea_popescu: i have (indirect) claims on about 1k (more like 1.1 iirc) of gigaminign shares.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because you can't force somebody to hold something for you at their expense ?
mircea_popescu: there's no dispute that in law i can drop the entire thing on oct the 5th.
mircea_popescu: i mean, BTC-Mining : i received recently a request from neustar to prove that indeed i am entitled to hold a .us domain
mircea_popescu: smickles afaik that's always been limited to real property.
mircea_popescu: showing that it's not convenient in this particular case isn't much.
mircea_popescu: but the only way to quash this would be to show that a two month delay is not acceptable in principle.
mircea_popescu: you keep refering to nefario as if he's relevant. i don't see why he is relevant at all.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i don't dispute, a long delay. why's 2 months not a long delay tho.
mircea_popescu: smickles in any event, i don't think escheat would be the controlling doctrine. more like treasure trove or somesuch
mircea_popescu: you think we'll just change the terms based on each low-life that happens to blow this way ?
mircea_popescu: man, but this subject can'tbe decided based on nefario. nefario is below a negligible quantity.
mircea_popescu: and it was "an obvious ponzi" pretty much to three people iirc.
mircea_popescu: if those next few months are november, then absolutely.
mircea_popescu: this notion that they hang on the hope of pirate repaying 30 years later...
mircea_popescu: no but in general, people will have to start reading up on write-offs.
mircea_popescu: didn't you just say above you understand there will have to be some limit ?!