3 ms·

OK, and do you call shutting down the entire online poker industry, and ensuring that people didn't receive their money for 3 years, "good"? His actions prior

OK, and do you call shutting down the entire online poker industry, and ensuring that people didn't receive their money for 3 years, "good"? His actions prior to Black Friday actually created the primary problems at Full Tilt. They were trying to honor customer withdrawal requests, even after Preet et al shut down their ability to collect deposits, thinking that the ability would eventually be restored. So they wound up with a huge hole in their books. Their good customer service combined with Preet's lust for another headline is what caused millions of American players to be without their money for 3 years. Oh, and how about his anti-Bitcoin efforts? Are those "good"? Your list also conspicuously leaves off the countless drug mules that his office has obtained might-as-well-be-life sentences for. He has done nothing in the way of diversion programs that other federal districts have adopted. Why? Because, despite their effectiveness, those don't create headlines that he can show in campaign commercials in a few years.

tzs 13y ago
> Oh, and how about his anti-Bitcoin efforts? What anti-Bitcoin efforts? I'm aware of two things he was involved in that were tangentially related to Bitcoin, and one that is more directly related to Bitcoin. 1. The Silk Road case. This is only tangentially related to Bitcoin. The Silk Road defendants are in trouble for their alleged dealing in illegal substances and alleged involvement in murder-for-hire schemes. They would be in the same amount of legal trouble if they had been using any foreign currency for their transactions instead of Bitcoin. 2. The Charlie Shrem case. Also only tangentially related to Bitcoin. He is in trouble for allegedly purposefully participating in money laundering. He would be in the same trouble if he had been money laundering by exchange US dollars for Euros, instead of for Bitcoins. 3. The subpoena of Mt. Gox. We don't know what action the prosecutors are considering, if any, since this is just a subpoena (basically, it means they want more information to figure out what, if anything, Mt. Gox might have done wrong). If Mt. Gox is eventually charged, it will almost certainly be for something like fraud or theft, although since the fraud or theft involved Bitcoins themselves, one could make a somewhat passable argument that at least this case is more than tangentially related to Bitcoin. It's pretty hard to make a rational argument that any of these are anti-Bitcoin, unless you think that the point of Bitcoin is to be able to money launder, commit fraud, and steal Bitcoin from other Bitcoin users who trust you to hold their coins for them.
jib 13y ago
Come on. Full tilt decided to run a Ponzi scheme when they were unable to collect funds in the us due to online poker being illegal in the us. They gambled with all their customers funds and lost. That is not good customer service, that is immoral and illegal. Poker stars is the company that had good customer service in that they didn't touch the deposits, as promised, and so we're able to be back in business almost immediately.

tzs 13y ago

> Oh, and how about his anti-Bitcoin efforts? What anti-Bitcoin efforts? I'm aware of two things he was involved in that were tangentially related to Bitcoin, and one that is more directly related to Bitcoin. 1. The Silk Road case. This is only tangentially related to Bitcoin. The Silk Road defendants are in trouble for their alleged dealing in illegal substances and alleged involvement in murder-for-hire schemes. They would be in the same amount of legal trouble if they had been using any foreign currency for their transactions instead of Bitcoin. 2. The Charlie Shrem case. Also only tangentially related to Bitcoin. He is in trouble for allegedly purposefully participating in money laundering. He would be in the same trouble if he had been money laundering by exchange US dollars for Euros, instead of for Bitcoins. 3. The subpoena of Mt. Gox. We don't know what action the prosecutors are considering, if any, since this is just a subpoena (basically, it means they want more information to figure out what, if anything, Mt. Gox might have done wrong). If Mt. Gox is eventually charged, it will almost certainly be for something like fraud or theft, although since the fraud or theft involved Bitcoins themselves, one could make a somewhat passable argument that at least this case is more than tangentially related to Bitcoin. It's pretty hard to make a rational argument that any of these are anti-Bitcoin, unless you think that the point of Bitcoin is to be able to money launder, commit fraud, and steal Bitcoin from other Bitcoin users who trust you to hold their coins for them.

jib 13y ago

Come on. Full tilt decided to run a Ponzi scheme when they were unable to collect funds in the us due to online poker being illegal in the us. They gambled with all their customers funds and lost. That is not good customer service, that is immoral and illegal. Poker stars is the company that had good customer service in that they didn't touch the deposits, as promised, and so we're able to be back in business almost immediately.