Topic: Introducing the MPEx Rota - page 2. (Read 5185 times)

Well, if I ever considered investing with MPEX reading this case has disabused me of the notion.  If someone sends you 130BTC and forgets the bitdust it is morally flawed to just keep it.  Return it or at a very minimum donate it to a charity.  You are taking the route modern banks take whereby they gain the majority of their profits from the charges they levy on the mistakes of their customers.  But you are even worse.  If I send a bank wire to a bad address, it comes back to me eventually.  A situation where the institution's gain is the customer's loss soon sets the institution against its own customers and is a recipe for failure since it violates the basic idea of mutual benefit that underlies contract law and capitalist economic theory.

MP, your precedent and abuse argument is specious.  If the number of mistaken deposits becomes an issue, solve it via a fee that discourages abuse but still loses MPEX money.  Because its your d*mn system and if customers can't follow it then losing a bit of YOUR money encourages you to fix it!

And I frankly can't believe you wasted everybody's time on this stupid case.  If I was a judge I would have charged you a penalty.  A penalty for being forced to do the right thing instead of just doing it yourself.

I suspect you haven't fully read about the matter.


If a political angle must be placed on it (which seems dubious) it'd be moreover that he allowed socialists to be judges, and "let's redistribute wealth from the perceived rich to the perceived needy because that's what institutions are for" sort of nonsense soon followed.

But you're welcome. After all, we're here to serve.


In a dead babies sort of way.

Now that's funny.

Already dead?

What I just said yesterday?

Mircea Popescu allowed anarchists to be judges. So it is not a surprise to discover that the judges not even required forensic examination of the evidence to understand what really happened. It is like to go after the politics & society section and ask for the user Myrkul (which is a delusional self-declared anarchist) to settle a dispute. There will be no fair sentence because anarchists despise the very essence of justice. They even consider that data cannot be owned or stolen, including Bitcoins!

By the way, my compliments to Mircea Popescu by the funny time I had following the ROTA (Route Of Total Amusement)!

So, MP lost the first case, which any sane person would have judged against him, and rather than changing policies so that this would not happen again (I actually think he did this, by changing the wording of his terms?) or learning from the experience and being nicer to people in the future, he throw a fit and shuts down the whole court? Seems rather odd.

Too bad Rota turned into Epic Fail.

Hey, why is the IGNORE link on your posts brown, Mr. P?

And it's dead. Or is it?

First case almost closed: Case I - Wences vs MPEx, Breach of fiduciary duty. MPEx lost.

Of course, even anarchists (which despise law and order) can apply to be a judge. The process to select a judge is quite a joke.

...and that background photo of Mircea Popescu reading a newspaper with a serious expression in his face is so funny.

Just imagine a serious court of law with an photo of a business man reading newspaper behind the judge seat.

Oh, that. Yes, bitcoin signed stuff is a mess atm. Needs standardization first and foremost (hey, Bitcoin Foundation, how hard would a -----BEGIN BITCOINd SIGNED MESSAGE----- header have been? But from the get go, cause we're not the sort of idiots who release unencrypted wallets, at least not anymore, yes?) and armoring too.

In any case, pigeons was saying it checks out for him.


You know, anyone could be a judge as it is, the original article linked in the original post reads


What's better, it's a paid job.


You really should read the whole article, I think.

++ 2


BTC\LTC need some form of very light oversight

I think a more community based process instead of appointed judges would be better

Everybody couldbe a judge and also people would upvote others weight in the voting process based upon previous & percieved "Judgyness"

i.E similar to the OTC trust factor... so some peoples vote would be weighted greater than others etc

The GPG messages, I don't usually bother validating.  I've done enough of those that I know that I can, given a little fiddling around.  Unless it is a dramatic revelation, or important to me personally (like my mpex STATs), I just assume that someone will point out if it doesn't work.

That bitcoin signed message from Wences, on the other hand, I got nothing.  I don't know where it starts, I don't know where it stops, I don't know if the linebreaks are real or not, nor what character they are.  If anyone managed to validate that signature, my hat is off to them.  I gave up after trying about a dozen combinations.

It would be as easy as adding an -a to the command line but the problem with ascii armored messages is that they're not readily readable to the naked eye. Does c/p-ing into gpg fail for you on the snippets in that article? Or is it just the gray cruft that bothers?

We seriously need to standardize an armor format for bitcoin signed messages.

And there's a first case before the Rota.

This is actually really cool

The first Roll of Judges (5 people).

Interested parties may sue at their leisure.

Especially seeing how complex some arguments in commercial disputes have become, I think this is both a necessary and unavoidable development. Might even offer a workable solution to the scammer tag problem (as mods have already stated multiple places that they're neither really prepared nor really have the time to hear the various cases).

Nice!

Will probably be better than stare contests and rock-paper-scissors to solve disputes.

Well, philosophically this builds on ideas MP was fleshing out in that article about gpg contracts. Basically, that a world based on people's word and willing enforcement is better than the currently implemented alternative. In a larger sense, failing to live up to this (and implicitly recognize the superiority of BTC-courts) is the scammy thing to do. It specifically aims to make simple scamming as in 419 stuff and "talking to a lawyer" scamming notionally equivalent.

A very important point is that "you". This isn't about trying or even wanting to institute some sort of MPEx/MP monopoly on the resolution of BTC disputes. This is about sinking some available money and intellectual resources into trying to make a working prototype of a BTC court. Once shown to be working hopefully others will follow, some venues will be ridiculous/fake/scams in themselves, some others will be the BTC-justice equivalent of the Las Vegas marriage chapel, some will be quite respectable and eventually overtake and supersede MPEx's Rota much like the current day courts have overtaken and superseded the Apostolic Tribunal. So, in short, this is a natural and necessary outgrowth of Bitcoin: decentralized Bitcoin courts.


The way it works is that you need a signature to sue, but you can register in the WOT five minutes before you sue, no big deal. You also may only sue people who have a registered signature (in fact you're not even suing people/corporations, you're suing signatures), but this isn't arbitrary: anything else would be meaningless.


Thanks. We're kind of curious how it works out.


At least in theory the "backed by guns" method has failed. Even in practice it's not anything anyone really wants.


Even if he did, the entire point of this is voluntary contracts, voluntary enforcement and voluntarism in general.

Thanks everyone for the interest, and please consider registering if you haven't done so already. The first rolls of Judges will be announced December 15th, so in about one week. If you miss that cut-off there's going to be further rolls every three months.