Simple yet effective way to troll white rich American people

Friday, 09 August, Year 5 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Here's the how :

    1. You move somewhere in their general neighbourhood.
    2. You start turning tricksi in exchange for Monopoly dollars. You advertise this in the local newspaper, maybe even put a sign on your door.
    3. You will be arrested, and once you are, everybody who has a Monopoly board in the house, or else has participated in a game of Monopoly is now guilty of about fiddy million federal crimes.

Did they mortgage Park Avenue ? Whoa, illegal. Did they play the bank lending people Monopoly dollars ? Also illegal. The list is literally endless, and a prosecution by the "hard on crime"ii SEC not entirely impossible.

Here's the why :

Some retard in the poorest part of Texas came up with this brilliant piece of nonsense. The best parts :

First, the Court must determine whether the BTCST investments constitute an investment of money. It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money.

And since it is clear hammers may be used as dildos, it therefore follows by this kangaroo court's contorted logic that hammers actually are dildos. For that matter since children can be used as prostitutes it probably is the case that children are prostitutes. You know, in Texas, East District.

Since paper could in principle be smoked it then follows that all paper sold anywhere should be charged the tobacco excise. If there's any doubt on the matter one could always roll up the court's docket and smoke it, resolving the problem. Because water could be drunk it is therefore imperative all public fountains get on the phone with the FBI, as it seems they are publicly dispensing alcohol without the proper permits.

It's sad they took away the requirement that magistrate judges go to school at all, obtain as much as an equivalence degree or even have the most cursory understanding of the law whatsoever. At least nurses (the approximate equivalent of the magistrate judge in the hospital environment) are expected to have some cursory understanding of medicine past what the average McDonalds cashier might display. It is generally the case that TAs are at least marginally versed in the subject matter of the professor they assist. Why exactly are magistrates extempted from having a clue in the US ?

But all that aside : the relevance of the United States is still slipping away, exactly for the reasons explained before. Like it or not like it, I am the regulatory authority of Bitcoin to a much larger degree than the SEC ever was or ever will be. As tempting as it may be, butthurt and posturing is not the solution to this set of problems. The actual solutions are described in that same place : shut up and start investing.

———
  1. This means having sex. []
  2. So very hard on crime, in fact, that the large banks and Wall Street insiders have never had such an easy time stealing. But hey, they spend the time prosecuting penny ante Internet scams in rural Texas. That's what the SEC really is for. []
Category: Bitcoin
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

15 Responses

  1. phooey thats much better than my idea. I was gonna go buy a truck load of apples, trade a few for a bottle of water (thirsty work truckin) then maybe sell a box to get gas to get them to market. Then apples would be money, and pigs would fly.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Friday, 9 August 2013

    It's funny mostly because last decade's simple yet effective way to troll white rich Americans was to send them a link to child porn. Once they click it they can never be truely sure they don't have a copy of it cached somewhere on the hard drive. Thus... their life is ruined.

    Apparenlty there's one of these invented each decade, and they get more and more remote. By now no interaction is even necessary at all, your brand of pen could be used as a colon probe thus therefore you're a colon probatologist practicing without a license.

  3. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-petrodollar-foreign-interference/89hHV2dS

  4. Looking through the docket- complaint plus pile of emergency motions filed 07/23, orders granting the whole pile issued same day, summons issued that same day, application to appear phv Moustakis filed same day, application accepted same day. Then the next day order setting hearing for 08/05, almost two weeks later. It would appear kangaroo court is right on the money- there's not even proof of service for the love of Christ.

    Considering the paucity of evidence gathered in support of the complaint it'd seem the SEC has spent about two weeks since August last obtaining the banking records of the defendant and the entire rest of the year venue shopping. That the best they could find during that whole year is Amos Mazzant speaks volumes really.

  5. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    5
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 10 August 2013

    For shits and giggles :

    How long does it take to be admitted to the Eastern District?
    It usually takes from one to two weeks.

    via http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=attorney:faq_admissions

    Everything takes up to two weeks in the Eastern District of Texas. Maybe BFL should move there.

  6. Interestingly enough, according to the calendar of hon Mazzant he cut his vacation short just to humour Mr. Moustakis. The hearings for 12th August and on were scheduled a little more than a couple of weeks ago.

  7. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    7
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 10 August 2013

    I wonder how long would it take the average American to hire a lawyer.

    I mean it could be as much as three months to get a plumber in New York, there's plenty of medical conditions with an associated wait list over a season long, it stands to reason it might take a while for random Joe Blow to find a lawyer specialising in SEC stuff somewhere in or around Tyler, Texas.

  8. While it's clear that hammers have a primary use outside of jamming their handles in various orifices, it's no so clear that bitcoin has a primary use outside of being an token of value used for the exchange of goods or services.

    1 BTC is "money" in the sense that a Traveller's Cheque for $100USD is "money". The TC isn't cash, per se, but its primary usage scenario combined with the ease of conversion to USD means that it's treated as such; in fact, US Federal Reserve includes unredeemed TCs when estimating the size of the money supply.

    I'm sure a New Yorker could get a plumber within 24 hours, for some definitions of "plumber". Likewise, you could find a "lawyer" pretty quickly in Tyler, TX, but this is not the sort of situation in which you'd want quotation marks around the word.

  9. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    9
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 10 August 2013

    This doctrine of "primary use" is fascinating but perfectly irrelevant for the discussion. Were it somehow relevant it would still not control, because merely not knowing what the primary use of Bitcoin is does not make some arbitrary use primary. Finally, it's the creator of things that states their intended use, which you may well be confusing in that "primary" notion. In this case the creator is silent, so you may as well go contemplate what the "primary use" of the Sun is.

    1 BTC is not money in any sense whatsoever. That aside, a traveller's cheque is an instrument of payment, representative of a contract between parties. Bitcoin is no contract between no parties. The holder of a traveller's cheque holds title to his cheque. Nobody holds any title to any Bitcoin nor could anyone ever hold any title to any Bitcoin. A less apt comparison could not be devised, you might as well say sand is prune jam.

    I suspect your thinking suffers from too liberal a use of quotation marks.

  10. Bitcoin may or may not be "money" in the eyes of the Talmud-scholars, but it is very clearly an instrument for "sticking it to the man." This fact is obvious even to the dullest chair-warmers. Barring the honeypot hypothesis, it is a straightforward declaration of war.

    It seems like you have a problem with the bureaucrats not rolling over and giving up fast enough. Why should they? Would you, if you were a loyal servant of the dear führer?

    They can proclaim BTC to be "money," or even "contraband" (consider 'warez.') What practical effect this will have is debatable, but there is nothing to stop the nomenklatura from doing so. What, their keyboards will jam?

  11. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    11
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 10 August 2013

    It absolutely is a declaration of war. This is barely news,

    Which, as an aside, takes us to something that will probably become the most important question of the XXIst century, once Bitcoin replaces fiat currencies and wreaks all the havoc on the rest of modern culture & civilisation that it is going to unavoidably wreak - all that good stuff I’ve been hinting at such as the end of compulsory taxation (not as a practice, but outright as a possibility) and the irretrievable dissolution of the welfare state.

    What's here discussed is whether the pretense of a legal state may be preserved while figting against Bitcoin. The fact of the matter is that it may not.

    This isn't to say the totalitarian regimes of today will necessarily abandon the pretense - as all totalitarian regimes they'll claim exactly what seems more beneficial to claim while doing exactly what seems more beneficial to do, whether related or not. Wir sprechen nicht, um etwas zu sagen, sondern um eine bestimmte Wirkung zu erzielen and all that.

    It is however to say that on the tough rock of Bitcoin that pretense will be provably pretense and nothing more. Much like it did for gambling, Bitcoin makes politics provable, too.

    It seems like you have a problem with the bureaucrats not rolling over and giving up fast enough. Why should they? Would you, if you were a loyal servant of the dear führer?

    Yes, actually. The time to drop a hand of cards is immediately upon discovering they can't win, not immediately upon being able to "afford" doing so.

  12. MP, yes, they know they can't win in the usual sense - and are still holding their cards. Why? My guess is that the losers' plan is, approximately: to flip the table over and draw the pistol before the fellow with the winning hand does.

  13. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    13
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 11 August 2013

    This seems likely, on the grounds that it being provably the worst strategy, it is then necessarily the most likely to be selected. This flows from the definition of bureaucracy.

  14. I would not be so sure they do 'know they can't win'. You are therein making the questionable suggestion that the bureaucracy has some sort of brain, and judgement. I do not believe this is so. It is more like a giant amoeba simply following instinct.

  15. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    15
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 11 August 2013

    Well one would hope that instinct is the conservation instinct in which case... hm. Maybe you're right.

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.