I would also remind you that no decentralized market will be ever allow to operate by law enforcement as proven by 'Operation Onymous' last month (17 people arrested in several countries, millions seized). So the whole thing is just a trick to get investors' money without any real-life use, much like "anon" was a few months back and decentralized cloud storage seems to be now. None of that shit will ever have any real life use.
I do not support illegal activities and I think that the problem here was the illegal activities, not that it was a decentralized market. Law enforcement wouldnt particularly care if it is centralized, decentralized or distributed, if it is illegal they go after it. If it is not illegal, then why would they go after it.
Privacy is something that the world needs. If you are content with the govt knowing everything you do, spend, etc. that is your choice. However there are some people that dont particularly want all their personal details available to any low level clerk (or whoever bribes them) and if the data is in a govt database it will be low level clerks that have access to it.
Anyway, you are pro-govt rights, thats fine I have no problem with you having your own views on that, just let me have my own. Fair enough?
James
P.S. I suppose you feel that online poker is a horrible crime that SWAT teams should be sent to shutdown, since it is illegal in your USSA. Let us ignore the giant bribes that lasvegas peoples are paying the politicos to make online poker illegal, such things only happen in third world countries.
Oh I "let" you have any personal views you want, what I don't "let" you is getting away with the INEVITABLE consequences of bot decentralized markets and storage since, inevitably, they will attract illegal activities and, therefore, law enforcement with disastrous effects for everyone involved, including those dealing in legal activities (loss of money and loss of stored property).
I am well aware of the pitfalls of government and democracy itself, but history teaches us that even with those pitfalls it triumphs over anarchy -which is totally inviable- and dictatorship so as long as people support democracy in the US -which is where I live, but not "mine" in any way shape or form- and most of the rest of the world, the world is going to have to live according to laws and rules supported by evolving and alternate majorities. That is a FACT, especially in Law Enforcement, regardless if I like it or not.
As you are fully aware of, regulation is coming imminently to crypto in both the US and Europe. Necessary and positive in the end so, yes I fully support it. And, as long as those are set by democratically elected governments, I support the enforcement of the laws against those who provide playing fields for the crooks and deranged of the world under the cover of "protecting privacy". Every individual I know of, except maybe Howard Hughes, through history, has been more than willing to give up any trace of privacy in exchange for fame and fortune, so, in the end, it is all fake and a monumental lie...
But those are higher philosophical matters not necessarily appropriate for discussion here. What should be discussed, with facts at hands -as I have tried- are both the inevitability of illegal activities in any decentralized environment and the corresponding Law Enforcement action that will follow, since they will have dire effects in the quality of people's investments.
What is your feeling about the Internet? It enables all sorts of crimes, shouldnt it be shutdown? What about the telephone? What about automobiles? What about restaurants?
I think this tendency to criminalize anything that criminals use is quite a bit of overreaction. Why not just go after criminals? Presumably you believe in the right to free speech? Arguably most things on the internet is similar to free speech, but for criminal activity at some point it morphs into a physical thing. [some exceptions, but you understand what I say] So, why not criminalize the physical instantiation of the crime, not the technology that is shared by the criminals and the innocents.
Anyway, I can see we are very far apart on this, so I will stop with this. No sense in taking this thread further offtopic.
Back to my original posting here, it sounds like the bitmarkets is already live? So they are first to the market before the BAY using the same/similar tech.
James
Don't bother with barabbas, he's an angry ignorant shill of IconicExpert
Any coin out there which have more volume compared to his shitcoin (Bytecoin) is flamed by him, should be regularized to death, etc.
He is a little version of Hitler. Some kind of natzi US version.
I dont think that is fair to barabbas. Maybe he exaggerates at times, but since the official thread for Bay is pretty much a fanboyfest, I figured I would get some more objective answers here.
Q1. Isnt bitmarket tech quite similar to BAY in the key aspects of using bitmessage and double deposit escrow
Q2. If BAY has no exclusivity to the tech, even if bitmarket is already competing with similar tech, what is to prevent half a dozen more competitors? In fact, could people just use BlackHalo?
This is my confusion over BAY. Granted the tech appears to be real, but the dev is distancing himself from it and since it has been available in other projects, it would seem that without 110% commitment from the dev, there isnt much chance of keeping up with bitmarket, nor from preventing blackhalo to also be competing maybe with the dev supporting that even more.
So, the value for BAY would be all the non-tech things it has, but the 3000 BTC was raised for....
If not for the tech, what is the need for all the BTC? I guess we will see a massive global something something soon?
Maybe this is a good time for some friendly wager between yourself and barabbas? You can even use a double deposit! who gets to be the lucky one to lockup twice the bet amount when you use it for wagers?
James
. Probably in your children's room 
. LMFAO. Get a life.