The MPEx Rota

Thursday, 29 November, Year 4 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

I. The College.

I.1. Any person with reputation in good standing, an OTC-WOT rating older than six months, with ratings above 3 from respected community members and who was never excluded from the College may apply to be added to the MPEx Rota College of Judges.

I.2. The application will be posted here below, and will consist of a GPG signed document declaring the applicant's intention to participate in the MPEx Rota as a Judge, such as for instance :

I would like to be included in the MPEx Rota as a Judge.

I.3. The application will be signed with the applicant's key of record, as shown on the WOT. If the applicant means to use a different key to sign documents pertaining to his duties as Judge, he is to mention the whole fingerprint of this new key in his application.

I.4. Applications will be published as they are received.

I.5. Applications will be considered by MPEx. Accepted applications will be announced on March the 15th, June the 15th, September the 15th and December the 15th. The accepted applicants will be added to the College of Judges.

I.6. All Judges sit for terms of one year.

I.7. Judges may be expelled by a two thirds majority vote of the College.

I.8. Judges that fail to properly answer summons twice in a row are expelled by default.

II. Jurisdiction.

II.1. The Rota will hear any claims which in any way have to do with either Bitcoins or GPG signed contracts.

II.2. The Rota supersedes the jurisdiction of any other court, institution, group, organisation, corporation, reigning monarch, city fool etc.

III. The Procedure.

III.1. Any party may sue before the Rota any other party identified by its GPG signature, provided the claim against the party being sued is in excess of 100 (one hundred) Bitcoins.

III.2. The plaintiff will post a signed statement here below, indicating the defendant (by GPG fingerprint), the cause of action, the damages sought and a list of any number of Judges he would like to decide the matter.

III.3. The causes of action are : a) breach of contract, for those cases where a GPG-signed contract existed between the parties ; b) breach of fiduciary duty, for those cases where while no GPG-signed contract existed between the parties an equitable obligation does nevertheless allegedly arise for the defendant ; c) public nuisance, for those cases where while no equitable obligation arises for the defendant, the defendant nevertheless is continually acting in a manner allegedly destructive to the wider Bitcoin community.

III.4. MPEx will email the plaintiff a signed statement indicating the Bitcoin address where the plaintiff is to pay the fee. Once the fee is paid the new case will be announced by MPEx. The plaintiff is free to advertise the case in any manner he sees fit.

III.5. The fee for each party shall be 10 BTC.

III.6. Once a new case is announced, the defendant named has two weeks to respond, by posting notice here below that he intends to argue the case, and at his option naming any number of Judges he would not like to be involved in deciding the matter, with cause.

III.7. MPEx will email the defendant a signed statement indicating the Bitcoin address where the defendant is to pay the fee.

III.8. Once the fee is paid by the plaintiff, MPEx will choose one Judge from the list of the plaintiff, or else from the College if plaintiff offered no such list, and another Judge from the College excluding those where the defendant has shown reasonable cause. The two selected Judges will be emailed by MPEx, indicating the parties, the cause of action and the place of publication.

III.9. The Judges have three days to select a third, whomever they see fit, of the College, and announce this at the place of publication.

III.10. Once the third Judge has been selected the parties have three days to make their statements of the case.

III.11. Once the three days have passed, the judges have three days to enter a judgement, which shall be binding. The parties have two weeks to make good on the judgement to the letter.

III.12. If the judgement is reached with unanimity, and one party fails to make good on the judgement, the entire College is held to enter negative ratings in the WOT for the offending party, under pain of exclusion.

III.13. If the judgement is reached with 2/3 majority, and one party fails to make good on the judgement, the consenting Judges are to enter negative ratings in the WOT for the offending party, and the dissenting Judge may not rate the same positively and will have to anull his positive rating if it exists, under pain of exclusion.

III.14. If no two Judges can agree on a judgement the case is considered to have mistried. The matter may be, at MPEx's option, be put in general to the whole Rota. A judgement obtained thus is not binding on any party, but should be used as basis in future cases by the Judges.

III.15. The prevailing party will have its fee refunded. If the judgement splits the responsibility between the parties, each party shall have a proportion of the fee paid refunded accordingly.

III.16. Upon entering judgement each Judge shall receive the case pay of 3 BTC.

III.17. At the regular end of a Judge's term he shall receive the sum of 30 BTC for his services. Excluded Judges receive nothing.

III.18. These rules may be changed at any time, with two weeks' notice, except that the amount of a Judge's regular end of term pay may not be changed after a Judge's term has started, for that Judge.

IV. Evidence and Rulings

IV.1. All signed matter is acceptable as factual evidence.

IV.2. Unsigned matter may be accepted or dismissed, as the Judges see fit.

IV.3. Any dispute regarding statements which one party was required to publish but failed to do so at the proper time will be construed in favour of the other party to the largest extent reasonable.

IV.4. No party may be required by the other party to publish or release any secret or private matter. Discovery is limited to the public record.

IV.4. The Judges may not award damages in excess of what the plaintiff asked for. The Judges are to always award damages actually proved to have been incurred by the plaintiff. The Judges may award damages that reasonably can be believed to have been incurred by the plaintiff even if unproven. The Judges are not to award punitive or other fictitious damages.

IV.5. The Judges may, whether they award damages or not, issue an injunction to the defendant, to the plaintiff or to both. An injunction is an order to either do or refrain from doing something definite. While the injunctions do not have a specific enforcing mechanism attached, they should nevertheless be followed by all parties.

Category: Rota
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

29 Responses

    Hash: SHA256

    I, Dan Miller (pigeons), key id 145681B18C324970, would like to be included in the MPEx Rota as a Judge.
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    kakobrekla would like to be included in the MPEx Rota as a Judge.

    Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Hash: SHA512

    I, smickles, apply to be included as a Judge in the MPEx Rota.
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 29 November 2012

    Ahh, this is going well then!

  5. Again sucking your dicks?

  6. I, Bill Cosby demand consideration as a Judge of all things Bitcoin.

    Bippity bop!

  7. I prefer to see how it really works before participating. Miss clauses how to decide pleas against judge bias and how judges would be selected and who is to decide changes of the rules.

    And rather hilarious thought occurred to me - I guess there's enough eligible WoT members who'd delightedly judge MPOE-PR to be "public nuisance" .

  8. Again sucking your dicks?

    If you so desire, go ahead, do it.

    Hash: SHA256

    Rassah, applying to MPEx Rota as a Judge.
    Version: APG v1.0.8

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  10. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 29 November 2012

    Ahh thanks everyone. With 4 applications it means for sure we're going to have enough Judges to start on the 15th of December.

    Also, I've made some changes to the Trilema so that all signatures and signed PGP messages receive a <code> prefix and </code> suffix. Copy/pasting off Trilema into GPG works directly now.

    @Bill Cosby You'll have to make a signed application like the other people.

    @jurov There's no pleas against judge bias. That's why each party gets a little hand into deciding the judges (plaintiff positively, defendant negatively), which bestows on the judges a little of the jury aspect (which really they are, a judge-jury conglomerate, cause they're also the trier of fact).

    I'll select judges and I'll change the rules, which is all very democratic and also provably fair.

    Will be interesting to see who wants to risk 10 BTC on messing with missy -PR.

    Hash: SHA1

    jcpham is clearly the winner and should be selected as MPEx Rota as Judicator
    key: C71FB5ED6ACE04AF
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  12. I'm a bit puzzled why the plaintiff has a positive impact on judge selection ad the respondent negative impact. Doesn't that mean that the plaintiff is guaranteed to be able to get one vote if they have enough friends to populate their list (of undefined length)?

    I'd have thought more fair would be that BOTH provide a positive AND a negative list and then judges are picked as follows:

    1. Judges who appear on both positive lists.
    2. If insufficent of 1. then Judges who appear on neither positive or negative list.

    That would seem a much better way to get unbiased (in the view of both parties) judges - with priority given to judges both parties believe to be unbiased (or at least one party mistakenly believes to be biased in their favour).

  13. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 29 November 2012

    I guess the plaintiff would be guaranteed a vote provided he does have enough friends in the College so as to be able to find one willing to damn himself. The thing is, one vote does nothing for the plaintiff, he needs at least two.

    The situation is asymetrical, in that the defendant being able to pick positively would in fact allow him to throw a monkeywrench into otherwise legitimate proceedings by doing the usual (irl at least) fillibustering, messing with irrelevant detail and so forth.

    The fact that it's both much easier for the defendant to mess up the proceedings by corrupting one judge and that it is much harder for the corruption to be exposed in his case than in the plaintiff's case is the cause for the asymetry in picking judges.

  14. bill cosby`s avatar
    bill cosby 
    Wednesday, 5 December 2012

    Please send tha badmen to bitcoin jael

  15. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 5 December 2012

    It's spelled jale, you hampster son of a silly person.

  16. If you want to be all fancy shmancy Old English, it's actually gaol..

    Will this thing be organized in any way, or just a collection of e-mails you send out like a Bat Signal when judges are needed?

  17. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Friday, 7 December 2012

    Judges will get mails, what you mean by organised ?

  18. A central place to see current prices, open/ongoing cases, results of previous cases, descriptions and ratings of judges, etc. I'm assuming you're just starting this up, and that will be forthcoming, instead of you just making a blog post, and hope it works out on it's own through direct e-mail?

  19. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 8 December 2012

    I was going to make a special category here, that'd be the central place to see charter & eventual changes/discussions, the list of open and closed cases, the Judge rolls. I don't imagine either descriptions or ratings of Judges make much sense other than maintained by a 3rd party. I guess if someone wants to start a blog as a sort of Rota Reporter or else include commentary on their current blog that'd be a great way to do that part.

    The way this would work is that the plaintiff posts his statement (as described in III.2), and is then contacted via email with the address to pay his fee (as per III.4). Once he's paid a special article is made, anyone can comment on it, the OP can respond (as per III.6/7 - and once the OP responds & pays his fee the response is added to the article), the selected Judges are emailed (as per III.8), they will eventually enter their judgement (and once they do they receive their fee and the judgement is also added to the article) and then the case's closed (but still anyone who wants may comment on it indefinitely).

    Seems pretty reasonable, you see a problem with that ?

  20. The main problem I see is it's not as easy to find this whole thing as a page on a blog site, as it would have been if it was a separate domain name. It just seems a bit shoddy and slapped together if it's just based on a blog and e-mail correspondence. Ideally, it would be a site people can easily find, where they can easily get a lit of prior and current public cases, and open a new case with their own description and payment. Doing this through e-mail will be not that dissimilar from herding cats.

  21. But then again, it may be WAAAAAAAAY too early for any of that.

  22. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 11 December 2012

    I think it'll work just fine, but if not the thing's easily remedied anyway.

  23. PsychoticBoy`s avatar
    Friday, 14 December 2012
    Hash: SHA1

    PsychoticBoy is the judge you need.
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tuesday, January 15th at 9:55pm GMT I sent BTC 130 to MPEX to the address 1Fx3N5iFPDQxUKhhmDJqCMmi3U8Y7gSncx by mistake and hereby ask if it would be possible to be refunded. These are the transaction details:

    Thank you,

    Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
    Comment: GPGTools -

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  25. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 16 January 2013

    Wences : the problem with this is that you fail to identify a cause of action. Is it "b) breach of fiduciary duty, for those cases where while no GPG-signed contract existed between the parties an equitable obligation does nevertheless allegedly arise for the defendant" ?

    Hash: SHA1

    I, the undersigned, having received the attached DEPOSIT slip from MPEx
    (GPG fingerprint 8DDE 8C2B 4DE2 278A 95C3 D65B 9214 FC6B F1B6 9921), for
    the sum of 130.04256216 mistakenly sent 130.00 BTC instead.

    Attached further is a statement signed with the originatig BTC addresses
    19StxPcpGtY4vcqLNoU76hBfKUwhUR7Xst to this effect.

    This action is for recovery of the sum of 130.00 BTC under the Breach of
    Fiduciary Duty cause.
    Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
    Comment: GPGTools -

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  27. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 17 January 2013
    Hash: SHA1

    Having received notice of these proceedings I will be answering to the court. I request the exclusion of no judges from considering the matter.
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  1. [...] - December 2012 Duminica, 16 Decembrie, Anul 4 d.Tr. | Autor: Mircea Popescu As per the original article, a number of 7 interested bitizens applied for the position of Judge. One application was [...]

  2. [...] recredited to the proper account). In this case, the argument escalated quickly and resulted in an ad-hoc court (which was created by the exchange operator) being called upon to decide who should rightfully possess the said bitcoins. As long as there are [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.