Slashdot Mirror
Online Gambling Site Bets On Bitcoin To Avoid U.S. Laws
SomePgmr writes with a story about an online gambling site planning to use Bitcoin to sidestep U.S. regulations that effectively ban online gambling. From the article: "Michael Hajduk had sunk one year and about $20,000 into developing his online poker site, Infiniti Poker, when the U.S. online gambling market imploded. On April 15, 2011, a day now known in the industry as Black Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice shut down the three biggest poker sites accessible to players in the U.S., indicting 11 people on charges of bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling. ... Infiniti Poker ... plans to accept Bitcoin when it launches later this month. The online currency may allow American gamblers to avoid running afoul of complex U.S. laws that prevent businesses from knowingly accepting money transfers for Internet gambling purposes. 'Because we're using Bitcoin, we're not using U.S. banks — it's all peer-to-peer,' Hajduk says. 'I don't believe we'll be doing anything wrong.'"
Yep! This'll stop the government from coming after you!
Not!
And good job. Base your business off a virtual currency with ZERO backing and no control whatsoever.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Because the right people don't make money with it.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
yep -and I am sure that Vegas, Atlantic city and the mob are putting their money and politicians into making sure it stays illegal regardless of the currency used
-I'm just sayin'
We should not forget about the plutonium.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Of course the government has to outlaw gambling. It is dangerous and addictive, encourages crime and exploits the poor. Except the state lotteries, of course - those are somehow none of the above.
> Can anyone remind me as to why gambling is illegal?
To ensure a never-ending supply of new daytraders to supply Wall Street's liquidity needs?
I'm pretty shocked by the generally disparaging remarks regarding bitcoin. Nearly *all* currencies are speculative to some degee, just think of the exchange market. Investing in euro's doesn't seem like such a great idea at the moment but that certainly wasn't the case before the credit crunch. As long as the supply is limited (which it is) and there's a demand, bitcoins will have value. Many of you are assuming there is no demand, clearly you haven't visited the silk road. Bitcoin serves a purpose, it's digital cash, pure and simple. As long as people value *relative* anonimity in digital transactions (and there will always be a section of the population that does), there will be a demand.
Sorry, but your entire post is wrong from top to bottom. Don't take it personally, it isn't like they teach this stuff properly in schools.
First, you did appeal to authority, and continue to do so. That you didn't do it in a way that is obvious to you is your problem, and yours alone. I will give you a hint: economics is not a science. There is no proof, there is no truth. If you take physics as your standard for avoiding self-delusion, economics doesn't have theories either. Citing "economics" as a source is automatically an appeal to the prestige of a collection of untested speculation.
Second, you ignore velocity and divisibility. If we assume that the hoarding hypothesis is correct, then you end up in a situation where deflation is forestalled, but acceptance is not. I'm going to skip my angry rant about people not understanding the dynamic equilibrium, but the short version is that virtually everything in your experience is the product of a balance of opposing forces. To the extent that hoarding can raise the exchange rate, the exchange rate tempts people to divest their funds. Acceptance is a product of utility and familiarity. Utility is very high and getting higher every day, while familiarity is very low, but also growing fast.
Third, you appear to have weak grasp on the distinction between money and wealth, and also on the Janus nature of credit and debt. I'm not sure how useful it would be to try explaining how much of your third section is wrong. From your point of view, your analysis appears to be completely correct, but it isn't, because your mind is wrong. In our current system, borrowing money is really damn cheap because most of the cost of your borrowing is paid for by other people (mostly through currency inflation). If you ignore the external costs, then yes, borrowing is the cheapest way to go.
Capital is wealth, you cannot borrow it unless someone has already produced it and is willing to lend it to you. You cannot buy it unless it has already been created and someone is willing to sell it to you. You can, however, create it yourself, but specialization says that your efforts are likely to be better spent doing whatever it is that you do well instead.
Money on the other hand, is merely a system for accounting and exchange. Since it is ruled not by laws of the universe, but by laws of men, it does whatever we say it does. We can create and destroy it at will. And by "we", I mean special people. You and I don't got a vote. Bitcoin is an attempt to more closely approach the platonic ideal of money-ness, and part of that is by deciding up front the answers to the questions "how much money?", "who gets it?" and "when?".
Bitcoin is an agreement among men, made real through software. We agree to follow certain rules, and give up any chance at special privilege, in return, we know that everyone else also has to follow the same rules, and are prevented from ever trying to claim special privileges for themselves (like the ability to shave a bit off of other people's money to make new money for themselves).
I tend to come off a bit harshly, but I hope this post was educational rather than offensive. I hope you (and everyone else) will ponder carefully on what is real, and what is imaginary.
See that "Preview" button?