Quote from: LegalEagle on October 11, 2012, 02:19:52 AM

Out of "there" depth? Really? I think you're clearly the one who's out of his element here.

Go on .... I was waiting for your eloquent and erudite espousal on the effectiveness AES-256 keys used for wallet protection in Satoshi client (mathematics included) providing a basis for property rights legal arguments.

All I got was ... rant, blah, 9-11, conspiracy, libertarians in the attic, rant, blah, blah.

So I suggest you go back to school (actually to fire your teachers) and then start to unlearn your brain-washed state of what you thought you knew about money and property.

I can really do condescending if that is what you expect?

Most "LegalEagles" need to realise they are out of their depth in the new IT world, more so in the crypto-currency tech. frontier and start with a fresh mind.

We come to steal your lunch, get used to it. Or sharpen up.

Edit :

Quote

Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law. So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes.