— SteemCN

RE: Who would win the Steemit Standoff in a Court of Law?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Who would win the Steemit Standoff in a Court of Law?

View the full context

baah (61) in cryptocurrency • 5 years ago

The witnesses still seem to think it was OK to freeze someones funds to "protect" the network.

Consensus is law, so if consensus forms to freeze certain funds then that is the law. Exactly like consensus decided that the Eth hack should be rolled back.

With the ninja tokens there is nothing

Yeah, except for Fraud. In your world it seems that courts of law and their juries don't have anything to say unless it's a written, signed in blood contract, otherwise cheating, defrauding and breaking promises don't mean anything. How many idiots will undoubtedly defend cheating and fraud while browbeating witness and invariably community consensus as illegal, claiming that nothing was written down, all the while like a perfectly executed idiotic hypocrisy they think that the witnesses owe them anything. You know, I'm sure you'll find the contract that stipulates that witnesses may and may not. Fucking moron.

cryptocurrency

5 years ago by baah (61)

$0.00

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

blanchy (65) · 5 years ago

The Eth hack was a criminal act and consensus was made to freeze the stolen assets. There is a big difference here. Just because there is consensus on something does not mean it is legal.

$0.00

[-]

baah (61) · 5 years ago (edited)

There wasn't any crime, no funds or assets were stolen. Btw, the witnesses are no party to the "contract" you seem to think exists and the witnesses have absolutely zero contractual obligations, heck, the very reason that all of this technology exists is because contractual obligations are as obsolete and meaningless as you seem to think "promises" made by Stinc would be in a court of law. Finally, the maxim of law for you that blows the lid off the crook pot of nonsense you, steemit, and all other such insufferable moronic nonthoughts keep cooking:

Caveat emptor is a neo-Latin phrase meaning "let the buyer beware." It is a principle of contract law in many jurisdictions that places the onus on the buyer to perform due diligence before making a purchase. The term is commonly used in real property transactions but applies to other goods, as well as some services.

$0.00

[-]

blanchy.sports (58) · 5 years ago

I don't think a contract exists. That's the whole point of the piece. In a court of law. Justin would win. And the 50million Eth was stolen. It was exploitation of the chain but in essence it was theft. Save the name calling . It only brings your argument down to a degenerate level. 😉

$0.00

[-]

baah (61) · 5 years ago

What are you talking about:

I don't think a contract exists. That's the whole point of the piece. In a court of law. Justin would win.

Win what judgement exactly for exactly what crime? You seem to think that there's ANY obligations that the witnesses have to do anything but NOBODY, you twat, agreed to anything. In Writing OR otherwise. At the same time, you seem to think that SunFag is entitled to anything, even to suggest that "he has a contract", so which is it, do such explicit contracts mean ANYTHING and can the witnesses EVER be held accountable for any contract that they are not a party to? Ultimately, no crime. No contract. No JURISDICTION. Que Judgement.

$0.00