A federal judge this month ordered Mark Karpeles to appear in Dallas on April 17 to explain how his company, the bankrupt bitcoin exchange MtGox, lost at least $400 million worth of customer deposits. It’s a safe bet that Karpeles won’t turn up in Texas anytime soon.
According to lawyers involved in the bankruptcy process, Karpeles would likely be snatched up by law enforcement as soon as he set foot on American soil, reports Gigaom.com
Roger Townsend of Breskin Johnson & Townsend speculated, according to Gigaom.com that the FBI may already be sitting on a grand jury indictment for Karpeles, and pointed out that the FBI has already arrested Karpeles’ friend, Charlie Shrem, for alleged money-laundering associated with Silk Road.
Townsend represents a Seattle company Coinlab, which sued MtGox for $75 million last year over a soured deal to offer bitcoins to the North American market.
Bitcoin is just IP, so Karpeles is not guilty of crime because it's not ACTUAL property that he's taken.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is declaring Bitcoin property, so you are a statist if you agree with them.
Bitcoins are just units floating around cyber space with no physical nature in and of themselves(except a few that were actually made into physical coins). If the boundaries that you set up to protect these abstractions failed and you lost these abstractions, you haven't had a crime committed against you because they aren't property to start!
Uh, unless of course you are pro-IP, in which case you are a statist!
"Government is declaring Bitcoin property, so you are a statist if you agree with them."
DeleteIf the Government declares the sky blue, am I a statist for agreeing with it?
What an absurd argument
But that's one of the argument used by those that are anti-IP, are you saying you are pro IP?
DeleteI'm pro freedom of association, which means I'm pro contracts - if party A contracts with party B to buy B's book on the condition that A won't disseminate it, then that's all well and good
DeleteBut what if C comes along and takes A's IP, what then?
DeleteAssuming that C trespassed on B's property or otherwise circumvented protections of the secret information B is contractually required to maintain then the liability of B for failing to meet the contractual obligations is null, and C gets responsible for it (because it's part of compensating B (and through B, A) for the damage created by the original C's crime of trespass). OTOH if D gets it from B or C, D has no obligations to A since he didn't violate any contractual terms not being a party of contract between A and B. D is free to disseminate this information as much as he wants, and B (or C) have to bear the consequences of violating the contract.
DeleteBitcoin is for those libertarians who get an instant hard-on for technology (of which there are many). Libertarians are funny that way. It's funny that they bash Peter Joseph for his idiotic technological views, but then they turn around and treat it the exact same way.
ReplyDeleteHe needs Jon Corzine's lawyer or his connections
ReplyDeleteYeah, but Corzine's lawyer won't want to be paid in bitcoins.
DeleteLOL @Robert's reply.
Delete