It seems he hast lost his confidence in BTC, at least he says so. So if he just changed his BTC into cash, left without giving any reason and BTC collapse a bit later, he would be blamed even more for not telling anything.
Dude are you serious. The price crashed because of his FUD which has been on display on teh biggest newspaper out there, and he sold before he crashed the market, this is just a big bad joke. 
Topic: Mike Hearn lawsuit (Read 576 times)
Seeing all this ratting about lawsuits, shouldn't you guys instead go after someone who might have said, about thirty years ahead of it, "I bet that on October 13th 2008, sharemarkets will be so overvalued that you might as well sell off half your holdings, because that is the most probable day in a long time for when everyone else does."
Now, when do people think the next big adjustment day is likely?
Now, when do people think the next big adjustment day is likely?
Considering the brevity of Mr Hearn heavy handed, disgruntled slanderous public opinion I do wonder if any lawsuits will follow.
I personally could care less. My Satoshi are my Satoshi regardless of current prices. And more importantly my Satoshi are in no way tied to any if the world's problems and liabilities.
But fundamentally speaking anyone publicly dumping 100% of a world platform security followed by slandering, which resulted in a 20-30% market cap drop (as of this minute) usually gets the attention of regulators.
And that's without consideration towards other powers or interests losing patience.
Rule #1 don't mess with other people's money.
In Mr Hearn case that would be, you were better off shutting your big mouth because it likely comes at a price selfish people are never willing to pay.
Emdebted to regret in the least.
I personally could care less. My Satoshi are my Satoshi regardless of current prices. And more importantly my Satoshi are in no way tied to any if the world's problems and liabilities.
But fundamentally speaking anyone publicly dumping 100% of a world platform security followed by slandering, which resulted in a 20-30% market cap drop (as of this minute) usually gets the attention of regulators.
And that's without consideration towards other powers or interests losing patience.
Rule #1 don't mess with other people's money.
In Mr Hearn case that would be, you were better off shutting your big mouth because it likely comes at a price selfish people are never willing to pay.
Emdebted to regret in the least.
He was already killed, nevermind about that clown.
You can check here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-i-have-to-say-about-the-current-bitcoin-situation-watch-1329377
the second video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKhCeu0JENA
please don't take me that seriously
my name does not end Hearn
thank you for letting me think out loud
I highly value the community at large
BTW the RSI bounced above 30
price should stabilize now the tree is shaken
if BTC had failed as much as Mt long winded Hearn suggests we would be below RSI 20 and chasing $100 range
no worries
next
my name does not end Hearn
thank you for letting me think out loud
I highly value the community at large
BTW the RSI bounced above 30
price should stabilize now the tree is shaken
if BTC had failed as much as Mt long winded Hearn suggests we would be below RSI 20 and chasing $100 range
no worries
next
He sounds like a spoilt brat, who because he cant get his way is taking his ball home so no one can play.......... 
What would it mean if it was against a privately or publicly held company or entity? Bitcoin being decentralized surely prevents lawsuits against any one individual but what it it was not? The guy's comments certainly contributed to the price going down. Many people surely lost A LOT of money which is not cool.
I am simply thinking out loud because there are usually repercussions in other markets for this level of stupidity.
I fully understand the "limitations" of btc and it's still a maturing product.
That is wholy different that publicly dumping your coins and calling a product dead.
Bit coin may not be everything to everyone but it is still a legitimate portal of fiscal security. It was never created to be all things for all people eternally.
But yes I do see big investors like overstock.Com having a serious problem with their portfolio being manipulated by disgruntled influences acting with malice for personal reasons.
Bit coin is no more dead right now than it wasn't a few days ago.
So his statement is completely false and fully influential to the tune of hundreds of millions.
I fully understand the "limitations" of btc and it's still a maturing product.
That is wholy different that publicly dumping your coins and calling a product dead.
Bit coin may not be everything to everyone but it is still a legitimate portal of fiscal security. It was never created to be all things for all people eternally.
But yes I do see big investors like overstock.Com having a serious problem with their portfolio being manipulated by disgruntled influences acting with malice for personal reasons.
Bit coin is no more dead right now than it wasn't a few days ago.
So his statement is completely false and fully influential to the tune of hundreds of millions.
slander is if they said something with their voice to your face infront of other people who would treat it as negative against you.
libel is the written word version..
secondly saying apple stocks are crap. and apple wont be around in 5 years does not constitute libel
even if apple does have a fundamental ownership, they would have a hard time sueing someone for their opinion. even if that opinion made their share price tank.
as for bitcoin.. bitcoin is just code.. it has no owner. it has no brain, or mouth or feelings. you cannot hurt bitcoin. it doesnt care because its just code. not emotion.
you cannot libel a stone. a leaf, a blade of grass.. you can certainly say you hate nature and its going to burn.. but nature doesnt care
unless your personal life and reputation has been tarnished.. you have no backing to say it affected you.
if you say that world events has caused financial loss.. not personal reputation loss.. the world would just say.. thats life..
so unless hearne has named you personally as the destroyer of worlds and ruined your rep, personally.. just get on with your life
libel is the written word version..
secondly saying apple stocks are crap. and apple wont be around in 5 years does not constitute libel
even if apple does have a fundamental ownership, they would have a hard time sueing someone for their opinion. even if that opinion made their share price tank.
as for bitcoin.. bitcoin is just code.. it has no owner. it has no brain, or mouth or feelings. you cannot hurt bitcoin. it doesnt care because its just code. not emotion.
you cannot libel a stone. a leaf, a blade of grass.. you can certainly say you hate nature and its going to burn.. but nature doesnt care
unless your personal life and reputation has been tarnished.. you have no backing to say it affected you.
if you say that world events has caused financial loss.. not personal reputation loss.. the world would just say.. thats life..
so unless hearne has named you personally as the destroyer of worlds and ruined your rep, personally.. just get on with your life
But no one would know he sold.
It's not like Bitcoin has private shareholders and 10q reports.
So now that the world does know, how much did he donate to the bid, what repercussions did that have on the short Really how stupid can one be to not consider those items and pile on with a negative public statement.
Even disgruntled programmers are not that oblivious.
Harmful intent could absolutely be argued in court. It was a rash and selfish move, nothing more. My only hope is that other heavily invested programmers understand legal action could follow if you decide to act in a manner that results in hundreds of millions dollars, euro etc etc of loss. This wasn't even a legitimate problem for crying out loud.
It's not like Bitcoin has private shareholders and 10q reports.
So now that the world does know, how much did he donate to the bid, what repercussions did that have on the short Really how stupid can one be to not consider those items and pile on with a negative public statement.
Even disgruntled programmers are not that oblivious.
Harmful intent could absolutely be argued in court. It was a rash and selfish move, nothing more. My only hope is that other heavily invested programmers understand legal action could follow if you decide to act in a manner that results in hundreds of millions dollars, euro etc etc of loss. This wasn't even a legitimate problem for crying out loud.
Are you suggesting a class action lawsuit brought by bitcoin owners against Mike Hearn? Not sure if that is even feasible would have to have one of the attorneys who hang around here discuss the merits. Absent malice I doubt there are grounds for a suit.
Hmm, I'm not a lawyer so I can't really know for sure but my guess is that if there's not any ill will in his words and he's just disgruntled with the current state of Bitcoin then it's all fair. To be honest, I share some of his complains and many more, for me Bitcoin can definitely be labeled as a failed experiment, it had time, everybody uses smartphones now but it's still be hard to get common people to use it, it's just too much of a hassle and too complicated. It hasn't solved that problem yet and if it is unable to do it in the near future it will die and something else will replace it, is that simple.
It seems he hast lost his confidence in BTC, at least he says so. So if he just changed his BTC into cash, left without giving any reason and BTC collapse a bit later, he would be blamed even more for not telling anything.
Considering the brevity of Mr Hearn heavy handed, disgruntled slanderous public opinion I do wonder if any lawsuits will follow.
I personally could care less. My Satoshi are my Satoshi regardless of current prices. And more importantly my Satoshi are in no way tied to any if the world's problems and liabilities.
But fundamentally speaking anyone publicly dumping 100% of a world platform security followed by slandering, which resulted in a 20-30% market cap drop (as of this minute) usually gets the attention of regulators.
And that's without consideration towards other powers or interests losing patience.
Rule #1 don't mess with other people's money.
In Mr Hearn case that would be, you were better off shutting your big mouth because it likely comes at a price selfish people are never willing to pay.
Emdebted to regret in the least.
I personally could care less. My Satoshi are my Satoshi regardless of current prices. And more importantly my Satoshi are in no way tied to any if the world's problems and liabilities.
But fundamentally speaking anyone publicly dumping 100% of a world platform security followed by slandering, which resulted in a 20-30% market cap drop (as of this minute) usually gets the attention of regulators.
And that's without consideration towards other powers or interests losing patience.
Rule #1 don't mess with other people's money.
In Mr Hearn case that would be, you were better off shutting your big mouth because it likely comes at a price selfish people are never willing to pay.
Emdebted to regret in the least.
Jump to: