4 ms·
Users sent bitcoins to SR to hold for them, in return for a promise to return them on demand. So SR's assets and liabilities both increased with each deposit. T
by topynate 12y ago
Users sent bitcoins to SR to hold for them, in return for a promise to return them on demand. So SR's assets and liabilities both increased with each deposit. Then USG seized SR's assets (under what right? That SR was an illegal enterprise established to facilitate narcotics sales). SR still has liabilities to its users, but now it can't meet them. Note that SR's liabilities are no concern of USG.
Come on guys, is it so hard to understand that if you exchange an asset for a security, you don't own the asset anymore?
- mpyne 12y ago> Come on guys, is it so hard to understand that if you exchange an asset for a security, you don't own the asset anymore? In this case this fact is directly contrary to a worldview held by many at HN, so I suspect everyone pointing out how property law actually works is in for a long slog.