IS SEALS WITH CLUBS DONKDOWN??? (Update: Micon charged with a felony in Nevada)

[::o]

[cmoney]

Exactly my point. Based on this logic the founder of Silk Road should be a free man since all the transaction were done with Bitcoin. However, the government doesnt see it that way and that guy faces min of 30 years in prison.

except the silk road guy dealt in drugs and murder-for-hire which is quite illegal whether bitcoin was involved or not. Guy could have been giving his wares out for free and he'd still be going to jail, bitcoin or not.

And running an online gambling site is illegal in Nevada. The only difference is the degree of the crime. My point wasnt to make them out as equals.

[Crowe Diddly]

except the silk road guy dealt in drugs and murder-for-hire which is quite illegal whether bitcoin was involved or not. Guy could have been giving his wares out for free and he'd still be going to jail, bitcoin or not.

And running an online gambling site is illegal in Nevada. The only difference is the degree of the crime. My point wasnt to make them out as equals.

gotcha. was pointing out that even if bitcoins weren't considered a real, recognized currency (which is kind of micon's argument), while micon might go free in that case, the silk road guy was fucked either way.

[FPS_Russia]

http://antiguaobserver.com/gaming-pr...ne-operations/

Druff n Micon

[DRK Star]

http://antiguaobserver.com/gaming-pr...ne-operations/

[khalwat]

http://antiguaobserver.com/gaming-pr...ne-operations/

Journalistic fail:

Bitoin is a relatively new system. Its most significant appeal are: anonymity, low transaction fees and its decentralized network and authority.

[Shizzmoney]

I wouldn't be surprised if they interrogated the shit out of Micon.

They probably told him, tell us everything and you go home today and we'll put in a good word for you.

Refuse to cooperate, your going to jail and our case is a slam dunk and you'll get x amount of years. Do you want your daughter only being able to visit you in a prison?

He may be in Antigua to hide from his business partners and not the govt. Maybe both, who knows.

Just as a word of advice if any of you are asked questions by the authorities, uilty or innocent: you don't have to (and shouldn't) to talk to the authorities.

[cmoney]

Best case scenario is that Antigua more or less has mercy on him and lets him stay in their shithole country for god knows how long. The problem is that if his new bitcoin poker site doesnt work out he is fucked. Only he knows what is on those computers that were seized, but even he seems to think he is going to be charged.

He can keep saying over and over to himself he has done nothing wrong, but he is using the same sort of warped thinking that the guys behind Silk Road and bitcoin exchanges used before they went to prison. I am not saying there is a moral equivalent between the businesses but these bitcoin guys seems to brainwash themselves into believing that laws dont apply simply because how one interacts with bitcoins is different than how one interacts with real currency. It is a very "cult like" mentality as you can give the person all the evidence to the contrary, pick apart their logic, but they still wont budge. His "math does not bow to guns" line just shows you he doesn't get it. It ISNT about the bitcoin itself. It is about the laws that were broken using the bitcoin as the means to purchase the goods and services. If we are to believe that Micon did nothing wrong, then the guy behind Silk Road should still be free.

100 % agree it is a total warped mentality, here is a quote from the article

He explained that the online gaming company uses Bitcoin, a digital currency, to conduct transactions and further argued that as far as he’s aware, his operation cannot be considered illegal because there are no laws, in the US or elsewhere, governing the use of this new electronic currency.

So does this mean I can just come up with my own crypto currency and set up gambling sites all over the USA and world and profit and it wont be illegal?

[Dan Druff]

It has always been a pet peeve of mine when people complain about the busts against illegal online gambling sites, as if it's indicative that we're living in a police state or oppressive society.

Yes, online gambling should be legal. Yes, the fact that it's illegal is a reduction of our freedom, and the laws against it are unfair, and are often contradictory/hypocritical when comparing them to laws allowing brick and mortar gaming.

However, it is foolish to say that unregulated/unlicensed sites should be able to operate without government interference.

It is especially foolish for poker players to say this, because we've been through so many horrible scandals related to lack of regulation, including AP, UB, Full Tilt, Lock, and countless others.

Unregulated and unlicensed sites are run by people who have no problem breaking the law and risking jail time. Therefore, they are often very shady and untrustworthy characters, and have no qualms about stealing the money or rigging the game. The government can't just sit back and ignore this, just because a few operators (like Pokerstars) manage to operate mostly honestly. It is often very difficult to tell the difference between the legitimate operators and the shady ones. Who would have thought in 2010 that Full Tilt had stolen all of our money?

Furthermore, as Grenada Roger pointed out earlier in this thread, the fact that it's illegal actually creates a lucrative opportunity for those that choose to break the law and offer it anyway. So let's look at Joe, Mark, Bill, and Dave, all of whom have the technical expertise and poker knowledge to start a bitcoin gambling site in the US.

Joe does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Mark does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Bill does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.

Dave DOES start one, and because he isn't facing competition from Joe, Mark, and Bill (which he would if it were legal), he has a virtual monopoly on his bitcoin gambling site, and makes FAR more money than if he had a lot of competition.

So you can't just say "Dave was a visionary. Dave was a freedom fighter. We must support Dave."

The only thing that separated Dave from Joe, Mark, and Bill was his willingness to break the law and risk prison time. And that's fine if you support Dave and use his site, but you can't cry for him when his risk doesn't work out and he gets busted. The fact that Dave made so much money before he got busted is directly related to the fact that he was offering an illegal service that others were afraid to offer.

Seals was successful because its operators were willing to take the legal risk of allowing bitcoin poker in the US (while others were afraid to do it), and of the few sites willing to take the risk, they did it the best. But they were lacking the competition from countless other operations which could have (and would have) existed if it were legal.

I play on Bovada, which is also illegally operating. It will be personally frustrating to me if they get busted and/or shut themselves out of my state, but at the same time, I'm not going to blame the government for doing so.

[FPS_Russia]

I hope Micon clocks some serious fucking bank for the lulz.

Do you guys think Micon reads this thread? How can he not right?

[GrenadaRoger]

I hope Micon clocks some serious fucking bank for the lulz.

Do you guys think Micon reads this thread? How can he not right?

I believe Micon only reads/listens to what he knows will agree with him...and that has contributed to the breakup of his friendships

he is not reading this, it's too threatening to his brittle sense of self

[simpdog]

It has always been a pet peeve of mine when people complain about the busts against illegal online gambling sites, as if it's indicative that we're living in a police state or oppressive society.

Yes, online gambling should be legal. Yes, the fact that it's illegal is a reduction of our freedom, and the laws against it are unfair, and are often contradictor/hypocritical when comparing them to laws allowing brick and mortar gaming.

However, it is foolish to say that unregulated/unlicensed sites should be able to operate without government interference.

It is especially foolish for poker players to say this, because we've been through so many horrible scandals related to lack of regulation, including AP, UB, Full Tilt, Lock, and countless others.

Unregulated and unlicensed sites are run by people who have no problem breaking the law and risking jail time. Therefore, they are often very shady and untrustworthy characters, and have no qualms about stealing the money or rigging the game. The government can't just sit back and ignore this, just because a few operators (like Pokerstars) manage to operate honestly. It is often very difficult to tell the difference between the legitimate operators and the shady ones. Who would have thought in 2010 that Full Tilt had stolen all of our money?

Furthermore, as Grenada Roger pointed out earlier in this thread, the fact that it's illegal actually creates a lucrative opportunity for those that choose to break the law and offer it anyway. So let's look at Joe, Mark, Bill, and Dave, all of whom have the technical expertise and poker knowledge to start a bitcoin gambling site in the US.

Joe does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Mark does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Bill does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.

Dave DOES start one, and because he isn't facing competition from Joe, Mark, and Bill (which he would if it were legal), he has a virtual monopoly on his bitcoin gambling site, and makes FAR more money than if he had a lot of competition.

So you can't just say "Dave was a visionary. Dave was a freedom fighter. We must support Dave."

The only thing that separated Dave from Joe, Mark, and Bill was his willingness to break the law and risk prison time. And that's fine if you support Dave and use his site, but you can't cry for him when his risk doesn't work out and he gets busted. The fact that Dave made so much money before he got busted is directly related to the fact that he was offering an illegal service that others were afraid to offer.

Seals was successful because its operators were willing to take the legal risk of allowing bitcoin poker in the US (while others were afraid to do it), and of the few sites willing to take the risk, they did it the best. But they were lacking the competition from countless other operations which could have (and would have) existed if it were legal.

I play on Bovada, which is also illegally operating. It will be personally frustrating to me if they get busted and/or shut themselves out of my state, but at the same time, I'm not going to blame the government for doing so.

DAVE! (only ppl with kids will get this)

 

[limitles]

It has always been a pet peeve of mine when people complain about the busts against illegal online gambling sites, as if it's indicative that we're living in a police state or oppressive society.

Yes, online gambling should be legal. Yes, the fact that it's illegal is a reduction of our freedom, and the laws against it are unfair, and are often contradictor/hypocritical when comparing them to laws allowing brick and mortar gaming.

However, it is foolish to say that unregulated/unlicensed sites should be able to operate without government interference.

It is especially foolish for poker players to say this, because we've been through so many horrible scandals related to lack of regulation, including AP, UB, Full Tilt, Lock, and countless others.

Unregulated and unlicensed sites are run by people who have no problem breaking the law and risking jail time. Therefore, they are often very shady and untrustworthy characters, and have no qualms about stealing the money or rigging the game. The government can't just sit back and ignore this, just because a few operators (like Pokerstars) manage to operate honestly. It is often very difficult to tell the difference between the legitimate operators and the shady ones. Who would have thought in 2010 that Full Tilt had stolen all of our money?

Furthermore, as Grenada Roger pointed out earlier in this thread, the fact that it's illegal actually creates a lucrative opportunity for those that choose to break the law and offer it anyway. So let's look at Joe, Mark, Bill, and Dave, all of whom have the technical expertise and poker knowledge to start a bitcoin gambling site in the US.

Joe does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Mark does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.
Bill does not start one because he is afraid of going to prison.

Dave DOES start one, and because he isn't facing competition from Joe, Mark, and Bill (which he would if it were legal), he has a virtual monopoly on his bitcoin gambling site, and makes FAR more money than if he had a lot of competition.

So you can't just say "Dave was a visionary. Dave was a freedom fighter. We must support Dave."

The only thing that separated Dave from Joe, Mark, and Bill was his willingness to break the law and risk prison time. And that's fine if you support Dave and use his site, but you can't cry for him when his risk doesn't work out and he gets busted. The fact that Dave made so much money before he got busted is directly related to the fact that he was offering an illegal service that others were afraid to offer.

Seals was successful because its operators were willing to take the legal risk of allowing bitcoin poker in the US (while others were afraid to do it), and of the few sites willing to take the risk, they did it the best. But they were lacking the competition from countless other operations which could have (and would have) existed if it were legal.

I play on Bovada, which is also illegally operating. It will be personally frustrating to me if they get busted and/or shut themselves out of my state, but at the same time, I'm not going to blame the government for doing so.

Yes but it's your government that surreptitiously made online gambling a risk for any U.S. based sites to operate due to payment processing b.s.. Instead of licensing and regulating the industry they turned some of their citizens against them. I know the law is the law, but when the laws are bogus it's nice to know some people won't stand for it. The rest of the world is a pretty big place where many countries deal with this situation quite nicely. The U.S. government bullied their own citizens into submission, a tactic they've emplyoyed around the world for decades.

Say what you will about Antigua but they stood up to the bully and won.
This trend will continue as more countries develop and begin to be less cooperative with the big brother.

[Sanlmar]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

The irony of you posting almost simultaneously both sides of the regulation argument here and in the net neutrality thread.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They gave government the excuse to inject themselves. They were punished and now it doesn't exist. Likely never will. Not really.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

Did you buy a California lottery ticket today, Druff?

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

[DRK Star]

Im sure Druff will block all IP's coming from Antigua for laughs.

micon is likely vpn'ing anyway, but..

[limitles]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They were punished and now it doesn't exist.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

You're aware of the situation in Australia are you not?
The freemarket that was, still is, just not in your neck of the woods.

[FPS_Russia]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

The irony of you posting almost simultaneously both sides of the regulation argument here and in the net neutrality thread.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They were punished and now it doesn't exist.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

Did you buy a California lottery ticket today, Druff?

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

This guy needs a audit, forced medication, gun rights revoked. lol jk

[Dan Druff]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

The irony of you posting almost simultaneously both sides of the regulation argument here and in the net neutrality thread.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They gave government the excuse to inject themselves. They were punished and now it doesn't exist. Likely never will. Not really.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

Did you buy a California lottery ticket today, Druff?

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

I don't support overburdensome regulation of online poker sites.

There needs to be regulation which provides a fair game, punishes cheaters (both players and operators), and provides assurance to customers that the money being held is actually there.

Short of this, we will have more Full Tilts and UBs, and the perpetrators will repeatedly get away with it.

The fact that so many of the major poker sites turned out to be thieves/cheaters shows that the 1999-2011 model of self-regulation/free-market-regulation was not working.

[4BET]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They were punished and now it doesn't exist.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

Did you buy a California lottery ticket today, Druff?

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

So true, Pokerstars should be able to run in the U.S like now, These bull shit state to state online poker sites will remain a fucking fail for many many years to come, TBH when someone in the past would talk down the U.S I would be the first to cuss them, Now I agree the U.S is shit, Land of the free my ass, I cant play a poker tournament for a few hundred buyin with a shot at a few hundred k every weekend, With my money? FUCK YOU UNCLE SAM

[ToasterOven]

Government regulation is almost never the answer Druff.

The irony of you posting almost simultaneously both sides of the regulation argument here and in the net neutrality thread.

If you think regulating the online poker industry is necessary then at the very least the taxpayer should not foot the bill. The poker sites should fund that oversight.

Then imagine what kinda rake would be necessary to pay for the inevitable bloated beaurocracy.

This ship sailed long ago, but early on a site should have differentiated themselves by advertising that they had retained a big ten accounting firm and that their books were transparent.

The free market that was poker failed miserably. They gave government the excuse to inject themselves. They were punished and now it doesn't exist. Likely never will. Not really.

I promise you that if your wish for legislated poker in California comes to pass it will be an epic fail. It is impossible for free enterprise of this sort to coexist with government. At the very least they will tax the ever lovin shit out of it to the point of being extremely -EV.

Did you buy a California lottery ticket today, Druff?

There is no reason on gods green earth PokerStars - a publicly traded company with open accounting - shouldn't be able to launch today. Except that political agendas & political greed are involved.

Gotta protect the children, right? Fuck that. There is no reason kids shouldn't learn about losing and get their noses bloodied. Valuable life lessons. If the parents can't monitor their children (or are simply not present) and coach them about life and restrict their activities - then chaulk it up to social Darwinism at work and deal the next hand.

I don't support overburdensome regulation of online poker sites.

There needs to be regulation which provides a fair game, punishes cheaters (both players and operators), and provides assurance to customers that the money being held is actually there.

Short of this, we will have more Full Tilts and UBs, and the perpetrators will repeatedly get away with it.

The fact that so many of the major poker sites turned out to be thieves/cheaters shows that the 1999-2011 model of self-regulation/free-market-regulation was not working.

Why do so many republicans believe in small government up to the point where they need government to help them?

The whole Republican philosophy is that the market will weed out the scammers and bad actors allowing the "good" sites to flourish.