Comment by gerbal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gerbal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm confused to why this project is a good idea. It seems like they are collecting funds on behalf of a third party without that third parties consent and then distributing those funds, again without third parties knowledge or consent.

As much as the project seems to have good intentions, insisting that It's BitCoin, BitCoin is different doesn't mean your product is actually exempt from rules and law. Or that Bitcoin is all that different.

There is no reason someone couldn't build a similar project using traditional currency. But then they would run afoul of the many laws designed to protect depositors, investors, and the financial system writ-large. As someone remarks in TFA, holding the amount of currency on ones balance sheets this project would, if successful, is a terrible idea. It's ripe for fraud and abuse. There is a reason services like Gittip assist in transferring fund, and act as the debiter and depositor.

This whole thing is emblematic of the problems with Bitcoin culture, which seems to think it doesn't have to follow any of the rules. Sorry lads, if Bitcoin is currency, you have to behave like banks and investment firms if you are going to act like banks and investment firms.

I think that the project is a bad idea because you can't impersonate me and take donations in my name without my consent, no matter which currency is being used.

Can you explain how they have given that impression? I still don't fully understand what's going on here, but my first impression (Which seems to be the issue you have, that they are masquarading or implying that they are operating on behalf of the developer) is that they let people put bounties on bugs.

That means they are independent and third party and in no way necessarily affiliated with the project. I understood that right from the start, but I only have a 3rd person perspective on this, are the private messages different?

Could you go into more detail on your position?

The big text on the landing page says

> Contribute to Open Source

> Donate bitcoins to open source projects or make commits and get tips for it.

The language used is "donate to projects". If you click the "See projects" button, you get to a page with the header "Supported projects", which suggests some kind of agreement between the project and Tip4Commit.

If you click a project, you get to a page with text like "Project sponsors", and even "No sponsors yet. Be the first to support this project.". The implied "... on Tip4Commit" part is not obvious.

The only thing suggesting that Tip4Commit is not affiliated with the projects is a low-contrast message at the bottom of each page, which was added after this blew up.

Can you point to where they believe they are immune to the rules because they're using Bitcoin?

To me it just looks like a badly implemented concept that happens to use Bitcoin. I'm not seeing any Bitcoin exceptionalism here.

The Bitcoin exceptionalism is clear in this bit:

----

arsenische - Do I need to learn all the laws of all the countries before publishing anything online or may I just use the common sense and conscience please?

mitsuhiko - To be honest: when it comes to handling money I would assume so. If this website would be dealing with a real world currency you would have a bunch of problems on yourself at this point. Most people would avoid holding funds on their books for an unlimited amount of time.

Don't build software you have to opt-out of and you have a lot less problems on your hand. Right now, this is dangerously close to being sued by someone.

arsenische - That's why this kind of project is hardly possible with traditional money. This project was created during a 48 hour rails rumble competition. The beauty of Bitcoin is that everybody can use it to create something during a weekend.

This is not a commercial project, we don't have resources to hire lawyers and accountants.

---

From this it seems that not only do they think it avoids legal issues, but they do not consider publicly raising bitcoin to be a commercial project that needs lawyers or accountants.

Hmm. I can partially agree with that take on what they're saying.

Though it seems more like they're saying "We have no resources but were able to this because it uses Bitcoin" than "We're immune to laws because we're using Bitcoin".

Although this situation points out that there is a fundamental conflict with Bitcoin and the established systems that's going to require an adjustment period.

While it's certainly true that laws governing money, accounting, finance, etc. can, will, and do apply to Bitcoin, the fact still remains that it's really easy to move money around electronically outside of institutional controls. Previously, the laws controlling electronic transfer have been enforced via the institutions, and that's no longer entirely possible.

Some things will have to change, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

There's no fundamental conflict. Due to the existence of hard cash, I can set up a stall on the street selling stuff. However the tax and licensing folk might still want to talk to me, so just because I have only spent a weekend making a market barrow with a nice tarp, doesn't mean I shouldn't check out the legal ramifications before heading into town with my wares.

edit - Also, if they are actually someone else's wares and you haven't yet asked anyone for their permission, buy several lawyers and some duct tape and apply them as full-body protective padding.

You're responding to something other than what I'm talking about.

Of course the laws still apply, but the enforcement mechanisms (which have thus far been administered via institutions) can now be circumvented to a certain extent.

It is a fundamental conflict and adjustment will be required.

I was trying to address directly that point. Pre-bitcoin, you could avoid the enforcement mechanisms with hard cash and a barrow. There was a long running British sitcom called "Only Fools and Horses" that dealt with this quite thoroughly.

edit - If fleshed out a bit, the premise behind this project might actually make quite a good 21st century sequel episode. Del Boy would love bitcoin.

Except you know it would be a complete balls up, of course. Rodney would be all excited about the idea of Bitcoin, convince Del Boy on it, and then they'd start up their own TITcoin (Trotter's Independent Traders, of course) which would totally fall on its arse ;-)

Well, despite containing fictional characters, I think this may be a more convincing explanation of what occurred behind the scenes at MtGox than any that has so far been publicly announced.

Sounds like they have a variety of the BS "Freemen on the land" concept ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land ).

The first point has nothing to do with bitcoin. Any internet entrepreneur has to consider that question at some point and the answer is mostly: no, I do not need to learn all the laws of all the countries before starting a business online.

I sell a service online. I know that I do not need to transfer VAT to the US government when selling to American citizens. I know I need to transfer VAT to my EU government for any sale to a citizen of an EU country. So far so good. Do you honestly think I know what to do when a Kenyan or Vietnamese citizen makes a purchase? Do you think most small US-based companies transfer VAT to the EU? Do you think anyone bars citizens from countries they don't want to deal with from purchasing their services?

The internet is still the wild west for many things, because governments of the world still haven't caught up with internet commerce. Nobody, except for the larges companies, can reasonably be expected to be able to deal with the laws of a few hundred countries.

Hm, how old are these people? Because from what I understand, they don't have a clue about what they are actually doing or how businesses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com