Quote from: jordaninthesky on July 24, 2013, 08:02:38 PM

Yeah, that's how you interpret the bottom line. But if you were measuring the bottom line based on gold, then no. I'm not questioning that you are getting ahead in terms of $. I'm questioning the integrity of the process. If I traded someone 5 flawless diamonds for a machine that they personally valued at $55 million, but they never gave me the machine. I'd be entitled to my 5 flawless diamonds back, right? But if the value of diamonds decreased while waiting on the machine, and then the person said never-mind, and gave the diamonds back, I possibly have a lost opportunity-based lawsuit.

Darkmule has an excellent point, because it can be calculated that BFL were in it for the money and not BTC. However, they were intentionally deceptive in appearing like they were fully supporting the BTC network, and they have said contradicting things: from one being that they are going to secure the value of your investment, to then saying that BTC is a gamble; no liability! So the grey area allows for many victims to be exploited.

Contracts only work because the government enforces them. And the government only enforces them in dollars, nothing else. You can sign a contract that says you'll provide X BTC at their price in March, 2016 - and if you default you'll have to pay the march 2014 prices. But the government will allow you to pay in dollars. If they go up in price even more you don't have to buy them, you just need to pay the march 2016 value, even if the lawsuit takes years.

The only way you could legally get your BTC back is if you had a contract with BFL stating you had the right to request a refund in bitcoin, and even then at most you could get would be USD worth the current value of bitcoin.