978700+ entries in 0.733s
dub: the judges ruled
that
their
time was wasted with
triviality
dub: again because
the 'wisdom' does not suit you, its not invalid
mircea_popescu: for
that matter, expectign people
to be
thrown in a pond supposed
to be above and beyond
the collected wisdom of a good
third of all humans
that ever lived is also a bit off.
dub: mircea_popescu: just because it didn't go your way doesn't mean
that didnt happen
markedathome: then isn't
that
the jurisdiction, and should be used as
the basis? and if so which if any of
the ruling matched?
mircea_popescu: once you start
trying
to prop
things with fiat-type arches you'll collapse in fiat mess.
mircea_popescu: yeah but a large part of
the appeal was
the philosophical purity of its general open nature
markedathome: I
think
that it does show
that
the rota needs
to have area of jusrisdiction and contracts specifically stated, either in
the case,
the rota site/faq and in nominating
the selection of
the judges
jcpham: oh my bad for missing
that sentence on January 5th at 10pm
markedathome: doesn't have mpex deposit so would be difficult
to find?
jcpham: i was peronally aware of
the idea of it, yes
jcpham: not
to me, not searchable in
the faq
to
the public
jcpham: i
think if you go out of your way
to make
that sentence known
markedathome: jcpham:
the q5 syntax deposit doesn't have
that addition,
the output of
the command did.
jcpham: because i read it
then
jcpham: it would've been
the first incarnation of any site you debuted
jcpham: that sentence was
there at one point in
time
jcpham: i have
the
type of memory where i read
things and usually cannot forget
them
mircea_popescu: eported as profits and distributed
to MPEx shareholders.
mircea_popescu: DEPOSIT|{sum}, where
the sum is an integer, written in BTC (note
that you can not deposit less
than 10 BTC). You will be quoted an exact sum, which you must send
to
the exchange address (1Fx3N5iFPDQxUKhhmDJqCMmi3U8Y7gSncx). Don't round anything,
the decimals are
there
to identify you as
the beneficiary. You will be credited
the full amount. Incoming Bitcoin
that doesn't exactly match a quoted sum will be simply kept, r
markedathome: I
thought it was with
two deposits of 130btc and only one order, along with not being able
to sign with
the originating key.
jcpham: throwing
the
term "fiduciary responsibility" changes
things
jcpham: it was never at question who
the present owner of
the 130 btc was
mircea_popescu: thios was proofed like 8
times. STILL SPELLING ERRORS IN IT OMG
jcpham: my bad for not disabling google
translate
mircea_popescu: By defition
the rightful owner of any coins is "he who can send
them". If you
take issue with
that, please stick
to fiat. You are not ready for Bitcoin yet.
mircea_popescu: 23. What will you do about stolen coins ? How will you help
the rightful owner ?
markedathome: rota peeps - faq q24, whilst not strictly mentioning deposits, isn't
this also relevant?
jcpham: but
the case is in english
jcpham: i'm dependant on google
translate
jcpham: other
than mircea_popescu's blog
jcpham: i suggest a new irc channel for
this discussion should it arise again
pigeons: it shouldnt have gone
to rota because he made it clear
to you he paid
the money
mircea_popescu: Before sending
the sum quoted you have
to send an email containing at
the very least
the address you want benefits (through either
the later exercise or sale of your contracts) forwarded
to and
the sum quoted
to you.
This allows you
to be identified. If you fail
to do
this it may be impossible
to ever identify you as
the owner of
the respective contracts/bitcoins, and so
they may be forever lost.
pigeons: only reason (other
than bad faith wanting
to promote rota) would be you didnt want
to pay
jcpham: i would like
to re-read it if it still
there
pigeons: why should
this have gone
to rota?
pigeons: because you had all
the info we had
mircea_popescu: pigeons why would i "settle before
the rota" ? what bs is
that?
jcpham: there was a sentence saying you didn't return deposits
that were wrong
jcpham: I
thought you had specifcs, like
pigeons: which costs, your
time was unavoidable here, but you didnt have
to pay
the fees if you settled before rota
markedathome: the /faq.html entry for DEPOSIT{sum} I
thought would have had
the same
text as
that of
the command (in fact all of
the commands should)
mircea_popescu: what's unreasonable
tho, is
to expect me
to pay
the costs of doing so.
pigeons: i knew
this was policy, but in
this particular case, it was reasonable
that mircea_popescu credit
the amount showed
to have been sent
jcpham: because
this fact was discussed
jcpham: i'm still looking for
the actual wording on MPEX (now)
pigeons: because
the intent of
the contract is obviously what's material
pigeons: no but even a written contract saying
that mistakes in deposits are kept would have resulted
the same
mircea_popescu: i can clearly see in retrospect how
this "obvious" point was only obvious
to me.
mircea_popescu: reading
the above, i now regred i didn't more clearly stress
the supremacy of contract point
jcpham: i would seem
that due
to
the lack of rules,
the rota can make all sorts of WILDLY INACCURATE decisions
pigeons: well
then how come you lost?
pigeons: you had
the obligation
to fix
that for him
pigeons: he fulfilled his contract, sent
the money, but he made a mistake
mircea_popescu: the court can't substitute its own moral judgements for
the contract between
the parties.
pigeons: its pretty well established in law actually
that you don't pay for mistakes
jcpham: if
the guy hadn't send
the correct amount
jcpham: the implication is
that
the "mistake" was not returning
the funds
mircea_popescu: pigeons except
the loser is
the party
that made no mistake.
pigeons: if another case it works out differently fine,
that doesnt have
to be a precedent, but in
this case
the fees were clearly incurred by mircea_popescu being unwilling
to work out
the issue despite having
the facts beforehand
jcpham: it wasn't necessary
to frame
this case
this way imho
jcpham: but i don't like
the winner/loser description
jcpham: it seems
the real precedent is
the loser pays
the fees
pigeons: this was just clearcut mircea_popescu you owed him
the money, he won, loser pays fees
jcpham: the fees are
the only way you have been harmed
pigeons: yeah you always run
the risk of unilateral sidetaking
jcpham: the next case may be unilateral against
the claimant
mircea_popescu: i mean, why ? run
the risk of purely unilateral sidetaking...
to what avail ? makes no sense.
mircea_popescu: but i squarely don't see how anyone would ever consider responding
to a case, ever.
jcpham: i
think everyone had
the best intentions
jcpham: i wouldn't
think so either
mircea_popescu: turns out
this banal case was actually incredibly fucking intricate huh.
jcpham: if you relegate me
to customer service, I'm going
to serve your customers
jcpham: yes but i
thought
there was wording
that said something along
the lines of "if it is wrong, you do not get it back"
pigeons: even if a contract spells
that and
this happened a court rules
this way
jurov: the court isn't above
the contract... who decided, you?