Quote from: johnj on September 28, 2011, 04:58:24 AM

... so you don't have anything other than rhetoric.

Okay, thanks for playing.

What I have is the truth. What you have is a lack of understanding. From the wikipedia article I linked, since you seem to lack the basic ability to click and read:

Quote

The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).
California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself.
One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.
One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gunleaving two sets of fingerprintsand then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.
It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.

Of course I doubt any amount of posting will satisfy you. There is enough there to prove my point, and I am not your paralegal/secretary/bitch. Go use Google and look it up if you care past trolling.

Quote from: Bobnova on September 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM

I didn't read it, hell I missed the entire part about 7 million coins being pregenerated!
You assume much.

Newsflash: Nobody reads EULAs, either.

Newsflash: you are still liable for the EULA, whether or not you read it. Ignorance is not a defense under the law.

Quote from: Lolcust on September 28, 2011, 05:49:00 AM

Ha ha ha haha.

Boy, this is absolutely hillarious. Could you please post this to Twitter or something ? (I can't pwomise a bounty, tho :-P )

No bounty, thx. I don't want to install a client and help further your continuing criminal enterprise. Thx, tho.

Quote from: MaGNeT on September 28, 2011, 05:55:28 AM

I understand the part about "money laundering".
But how do you dry it without wrinkling it.

With Bounty, of course Grin