Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:38:07 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:21:10 AM

Quote from: nullius on October 04, 2020, 10:22:30 PM

[edited out]

Whereas this forum is NOT the court. And I am not an attorney-at-law representing the BitMEX (HDR) corporation and/or its executives.

Thus, I will take a stand and say, first of all, explain just why the fuck the United States is pretending to have jurisdiction here. What is the American CFTC, a god?

Of course, I am NOT even proclaiming such a possible strategy to be unreasonable or impracticable.

Clients and attorneys discuss these kinds of strategic matters on a regular basis, and probably some teams of attorneys are more resourceful and creative than other teams.

Personally, I believe Bitfinex has done pretty well through the years, and surely we cannot always know whether some of the positive outcomes were products of skills or luck.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:38:07 PM

Why am I so vehement about this? Besides general principle, that is.

Nothing wrong with arguing from principles.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:38:07 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:21:10 AM

On the other hand, it is possible that you and I (or one of us) might find out that Bitmex's behavior was more egregious than we had earlier considered, and we might adjust our opinions or maybe the strength of our opinion(s) might change with the learning of new facts and logic.

I do NOT like scammy exchanges. Indeed, earlier this year on this forum, I got booted out of DT2 because I was gunning too hard for Yobit. (A DT1 who was previously on good terms with me suddenly ~attacked me in another thread within 2 hours of starting to defend Yobit from me; the timestamps make the motive quite transparent.) Now, that is a scammy exchange—but I digress...

BitMEX has always had a sterling reputation. Now, due to this American action, I suddenly see people convicting them in the “court of public opinion”—it seems just because “American CFTC said so”.

Of course, in some sense, you are preaching to the choir, nullius.

We have already seen quite a few nonsense arguments wanting to presume Bitmex to be criminally guilty, and I doubt that those proclaimers are more aware of the facts and/or arguments of the case than you and me.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:38:07 PM

If BitMEX were doing something really wrong, and if the evidence were brought out, then I would be the first to condemn the wrongdoing. (Whether or not the Americans have the right to prosecute it would be another matter—they are NOT the world-police.) But that is not what I have been seeing, these past few days.

Again.. I don't disagree with any of that.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:38:07 PM

Meanwhile, just yesterday, I popped into the BSV thread for the first time (Loyce.club archive, just in case). And today, what do I there behold?

Third post by a “Newbie” account, obvious shill:
Re: [ANN] [BSV] BitcoinSV - Satoshi's Vision for Bitcoin

Quote from: YuniYuni on Today at 06:42:38 AM

Quote

https://coingeek.com/coingeek-live-2020-regulating-the-digital-assets-industry-is-key-to-future-growth/

CoinGeek Live 2020: Regulating the digital assets industry is key to future growth

The days when digital assets were considered a lawless wild west which was beyond the reach of regulators is way behind us. On Day 1 of the CoinGeek Live conference, some of the leading minds in the legal industry discussed the regulation of the digital asset industry, letting us in on how to build a compliant Bitcoin business in the U.S., Japan and the European Union.

While regulators started off on the back foot in policing the digital assets industry, most of them are now catching up, Joshua Ashley Klayman told the virtual audience. Klayman is a senior counsel at Linklaters LLP, a London-based law firm with over 3,000 lawyers across the world. Based in New York, Klayman works with digital asset companies that are seeking to get into the U.S. market.

“It’s been said many times that there’s a lack of regulatory clarity. I think at this point, that’s just an excuse. I think if you engage with the regulators, you can find a path forward,” she remarked.

[...]

The subject is interesting, without trust no regulation... without regulation... no state therefore no existence. All open and in conformity with the laws. This is not the case for many other coins.

Compare:

Quote from: Biodom on October 03, 2020, 08:16:07 PM

Bitcoin is a 'common good'.
Bitmex was damaging it by 100x margin, as easy as this.
btc going down 1% wipes out the 100X long position.
can a 1btc account spoof? No. can a 10K-100K btc account do the same on mex? Absolutely.
We have speed limit signs on most highways, right? Same idea.
Bitmex is no autobahn.

I would not shear a single tear if mex is gone or curtailed (after allowing outgoing btc transfers, of course).

Resistance to the “ZOMG we need to regulate it!!! kowtow to the regulators” attitude is a major Bitcoin issue—and resistance to American world-police megalomania is a major issue to anybody who does not want to be a slave.

I cannot say that I disagree with any of that, either.

Battles for the mindspace can take a lot of time, and people are not necessarily going to agree, and surely I hope that Bitmex and their various agents are making great efforts in regards to the counsel that they seek.