Bitcoin Laws Imminent(nerdr.com)
nerdr.com
Bitcoin Laws Imminent
http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-laws-imminent-bit-coin-soon-to-be-illegal-in-us/
2 comments
Sorry, I had not seen it submitted previously and your link says deleted, but not by whom.
It's not blatant spam selling counterfeit footwear or similar and I'm inclined to think it was the submitter who deleted it fearing downvotes from the bitcoin mob rather than a good old flagging (it has 4 upvotes right this minute and is worth a read).
It's not blatant spam selling counterfeit footwear or similar and I'm inclined to think it was the submitter who deleted it fearing downvotes from the bitcoin mob rather than a good old flagging (it has 4 upvotes right this minute and is worth a read).
Bunk article.
- no sources - since when do the courts make legislation? - courts are doing research and the courts are "laws from the top"? - search for bitcoin on the uscourts.gov website brings up zilch.
Totally made up and false article if you ask me.
http://www.uscourts.gov/SearchResults.aspx?IndexCatalogue=Al...
- no sources - since when do the courts make legislation? - courts are doing research and the courts are "laws from the top"? - search for bitcoin on the uscourts.gov website brings up zilch.
Totally made up and false article if you ask me.
http://www.uscourts.gov/SearchResults.aspx?IndexCatalogue=Al...
He mentions sources in the comments section and clears his intention with:
"This article highlights US laws are imminent based upon an increase in research activity into Bitcoin by the US courts service."
We've been discussing this article on the Bitcoin forums and I think we all know it's coming whether we agree with it or not. We can see any law passed against Bitcoin will affect it's market value.
Point 5 at the bottom of the article (Further Work) is worth a look.
"This article highlights US laws are imminent based upon an increase in research activity into Bitcoin by the US courts service."
We've been discussing this article on the Bitcoin forums and I think we all know it's coming whether we agree with it or not. We can see any law passed against Bitcoin will affect it's market value.
Point 5 at the bottom of the article (Further Work) is worth a look.
It is a pure speculation that any law is imminent. There is still no source that says the US courts are "doing more research". Lastly, "we all know" is his own opinion, not the opinion of any group, let alone the bitcoin forum.
You really think the US will sit idly by as Bitcoin use increases?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2705077
With regards items being resubmitted and repeatedly flagged dead, I offer the following quotation:
(Copied from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana)
Last time I pointed out that an item had been submitted earlier and flagged dead I got downvoted, so I then provided a further explanation. I reproduce it here - it will be slightly disjointed as I don't have time to go through and re-edit it for a single comment.
========
Firstly, this item is a repeat submission. It was submitted earlier, and so there is some earier "discussion" to reference. I thought it would be of value to point that out.
I especially thought it would be of value since it that discussion seems to highlight some concerns about the item in question. Rather than simply repeat them here, I thought it better to point to it over there.
The quotation was intended to point out a problem with items like this getting flagged. Several times in the past I've seen items get flagged dead, only to be submitted repeatedly, then flagged dead each time. Deleting the items by having them flagged dead just means that the same thing is submitted over and over again, and hence came to mind the given quotation. Paraphrased:
If you delete things, you can't learn from them, leading to the potential for repeating the same errors over and over.
I thought people would find that interesting, relevant, and potentially a useful tidbit.
Spam certainly should be flagged - no question.
The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting, but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine.
But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that way we learn from history.