barmar Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I heard on "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" today that a couple of Las Vegas casinos have started accepting Bitcoins. http://www.usatoday.com/story/dispatches/2014/01/21/las-vegas-casinos-accepting-bitcoins/4713243/ Currently it's only for purchases in select areas of the hotels, not for purchasing chips in the gambling area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted January 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Well, the Feds have decided to take bitcoins seriously and try to make them out to be some sort of underworld conspiracy to undermine the banks, it would seem, as they have just charged the CEO of the company who started them (? is that the right term?) with money laundering for the undersirables..which on the face of it is like charging the CEO of General Motors because a bank robber used a GM vehicle to escape in. In the meantime, a couple in Kelowna BC have put their 3400 sq foot luxury home up for sale for 1650 bitcoins or if cash, $1.45 million. http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/front-page-news/digital-currency-believers-offer-house-for-sale-for-1650-bitcoins-or-$145m-12514.html So all you computer wizards... here's a chance to get a pretty nice house for doing some "mining".. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Well, the Feds have decided to take bitcoins seriously and try to make them out to be some sort of underworld conspiracy to undermine the banks, it would seem, as they have just charged the CEO of the company who started them (? is that the right term?) with money laundering for the undersirables..which on the face of it is like charging the CEO of General Motors because a bank robber used a GM vehicle to escape in.I think that's a poor analogy. Suppose GM put features in their cars that are specifically designed to make them useful as getaway cars -- they might be charged as accessories or conspirators or something like that (IANAL, don't quote me on the specifics). This is similar to the clause in the DMCA that prohibits manufacturing technology whose primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Another good comparison is to property purchases or the stock market. They is a legal responsibility to ensure that money is not laundered through such trades. It is not unreasonable to expect the company behind bitcoins to take on a similar responsibility. The Kelowna BC property that onoway mentions is an interesting case in point - do banks in America take on this responsibility? Presumably bitcoins would be considered the bank for the purposes of such a transaction. On the auto analogy, how about if GM sold a car with machine guns attached as standard. Would you consider them in any way responsible if your child was gunned down using such a car? After all, it is not like the perpitrator could not have gotten the guns separately, so everything should be just fine right? Would it also be ok if the car was an off-roader and someone drove it onto an island full of teenagers and started killing them? Bad taste? certainly. But so is the idea that setting up a money laundering scheme and covering it with a legitimate business (hotels, casinos, etc) should be acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I must confess to some enthusiasm for Car Wars. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Have you played it Ed? There was a regular game in my university rpg/wargame club although I only tried it out once myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I must confess to some enthusiasm for Car Wars. B-)I delibately avoided using a gun analogy to avoid inevitable replies like this, or a tangent on how the 2nd Amendment would protect them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 On the auto analogy, how about if GM sold a car with machine guns attached as standard. Would you consider them in any way responsible if your child was gunned down using such a car? After all, it is not like the perpitrator could not have gotten the guns separately, so everything should be just fine right? Would it also be ok if the car was an off-roader and someone drove it onto an island full of teenagers and started killing them? Ok now you HAVE opened up a can of worms. If the CEO of bitcoins is responsible for money laundering that his clients engage in, why are the people who make assault rifles not being charged with murder for the people killed in events such as the mass murders in the theatre or the school children in Sandy Hook? And don't bring hunting into it; the ONLY purpose of assault rifles is to shoot people with. Or is it just that money is really of more interest to the banks and politicians than people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Ok now you HAVE opened up a can of worms. If the CEO of bitcoins is responsible for money laundering that his clients engage in, why are the people who make assault rifles not being charged with murder for the people killed in events such as the mass murders in the theatre or the school children in Sandy Hook? And don't bring hunting into it; the ONLY purpose of assault rifles is to shoot people with. Or is it just that money is really of more interest to the banks and politicians than people? Because the US congress passed a law that grants gun manufacturers immunity from this type of liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Because the US congress passed a law that grants gun manufacturers immunity from this type of liability. So. Mass murder is just one of those things (if regrettable) that nothing can be done about, but allowing people to move their own money around without Fed approval/permission and bank fees must by definition be associated with terrorism or nefarious activities and must be stopped. What an odd world we live in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Have you played it Ed? There was a regular game in my university rpg/wargame club although I only tried it out once myself.A very long time ago. Not the greatest game in the world, but it was fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I delibately avoided using a gun analogy to avoid inevitable replies like this, or a tangent on how the 2nd Amendment would protect them.I won't speak for anyone else, but I will not be going there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 It's a waste of time to ask "Why do we have a law against X when we don't have a law against Y, which is more serious?" You can also find many instances where the punishment for one crime is more severe than for some other crime that's obviously more serious. When lawmakers are debating a particular law, or the punishment for a crime, do you seriously think that they have a chart of all the other laws on the books, so they can determine where it fits in the spectrum? Laws are enacted in a context where they're just thinking about that particular circumstance -- trying to make all the laws consistent would be an impossible task (you think we have a do-nothing Congress now, imagine if they had this constraint on them as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Well,of course, but when elected people are making laws it should be possible to expect them to have some sense. It would seem that it's perfectly legal to buy whatever sort of weapon you can afford intending to (illegally) shoot however many Americans you can manage to hit as long as you do it in the U.S. If you take the exact same money and use it to buy weapons to blow away Americans in some other country, then that's a crime. I imagine most Americans would prefer it to be the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Well,of course, but when elected people are making laws it should be possible to expect them to have some sense. It would seem that it's perfectly legal to buy whatever sort of weapon you can afford intending to (illegally) shoot however many Americans you can manage to hit as long as you do it in the U.S. If you take the exact same money and use it to buy weapons to blow away Americans in some other country, then that's a crime. I imagine most Americans would prefer it to be the other way around. One would think so, but then there would exist the political will to do something about America's gun problem, despite the enormous lobbying power of the NRA. The problem is that there was a time when the vast majority of American men were ritually mutilated at birth, even if their parents had no religious reason for wanting to do so. I think readers can see where I am going with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 It's a waste of time to ask "Why do we have a law against X when we don't have a law against Y, which is more serious?" You can also find many instances where the punishment for one crime is more severe than for some other crime that's obviously more serious. When lawmakers are debating a particular law, or the punishment for a crime, do you seriously think that they have a chart of all the other laws on the books, so they can determine where it fits in the spectrum? Laws are enacted in a context where they're just thinking about that particular circumstance -- trying to make all the laws consistent would be an impossible task (you think we have a do-nothing Congress now, imagine if they had this constraint on them as well).I kind of liked an idea of Hayek's: a bicameral legislature, the job of the lower house to make laws, the job of the upper house to unmake them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I delibately avoided using a gun analogy to avoid inevitable replies like this, or a tangent on how the 2nd Amendment would protect them.Don't blame me. I was replying to Zel; blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 It would seem that it's perfectly legal to buy whatever sort of weapon you can afford intending to (illegally) shoot however many Americans you can manage to hit as long as you do it in the U.S.What utter nonsense. Shooting someone illegally is not the issue - that is already handled by existing laws. Shooting somebody legally should not be prevented by the government. Self defense is a natural right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 What utter nonsense. Shooting someone illegally is not the issue - that is already handled by existing laws. Shooting somebody legally should not be prevented by the government. Self defense is a natural right. And the utmost restraint in exercising this right is a natural duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well, I live in a country that had .04 gun homicides per 100,000 people in 2010, and the US had 3.6 in 2011. I don't think it's a stretch to say it is pretty clear which country's gun control laws are better. I got these figures from Wikipedia; sorry I cannot provide a link. I do not know how to cut and paste my mini iPad. Edit: can do it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well, I live in a country that had .04 gun homicides per 100,000 people in 2010, and the US had 3.6 in 2011. I don't think it's a stretch to say it is pretty clear which country's gun control laws are better. I got these figures from Wikipedia; sorry I cannot provide a link. I do not know how to cut and paste my mini iPad. Edit: can do it now. if the measure is deaths by gun....you make a very strong point...if the measure is other then not. ------------------------ . Clearly the measure is not death by gun is rated most important. In the USA the measure in unclear but it is not guns by death. I wish you would discuss what measure is best but you never do. ------------------------ Vamp let me put this out since your posts seem not to understand this. Death by guns is not the most important issue in usa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Death by guns is not the most important issue in usa. I am sure you are right. Why are you addressing this comment to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 The largest Bitcoin broker suspended trading. http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/06/22/152206/bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox-halts-usd-withdrawals They are claiming a protocol vulnerability, but there is widespread suspicion of a liquidity crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Bitcoin Exchange Mt. Gox Says Users Can Withdraw Cash as Normal http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo Later Article: Bitcoin prices plunge as problems persist http://finance.yahoo...-124100565.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 is there a George Bailey in this scenario, or are they a Mr. Potter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.