Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

forumserver.twoplustwo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 402 posts

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#381

Post by kelnos »

bmelton wrote: post #110
cynicalkane wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currency refers to physical money. A gift card isn't "money" because it's only a medium of exchange at a few specific places. Credit cards aren't currency because they are simply pointers to a line of credit, which isn't physical money. The Liberty Dollar guy was found guilty of imitating U.S. currency . The OP believes the application of the law is unjust because, mentally, he's equivocated currency with other numis…

I believe it is you who is wrong. Wikipedia's first sentence on 'currency' is this: In economics, currency refers to physical objects generally accepted as a medium of exchange. I don't claim to have the requisite knowledge on the argument at hand, so I won't speak to that, but it appears that the assertions you're arguing as fact are incorrect.

But when you pay with a credit card, you're not exchanging the card itself for goods or services. You're asking a third party to pay (in real US currency) for the goods and services, and promising to the third party that you will reimburse them.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#382

Post by kelnos »

gst wrote: post #55
j79 wrote: post #6

Viewing Google cache, I noticed ub.com about us page: All financial transactions are processed by Hoop & Javelin Holdings Ltd., Vincenti Buildings, Suite 522, 14/19 Strait Street, VLT1432 Valletta, Malta, owner of this website. Can the FBI seize the domain because it's a .com TLD? Or, because transactions were occurring in the States?

Up until now for all of those seizures that I've checked the registrar has always been located in the US. In such a case I understand that the domain name falls under US laws. However, in this case it is a little bit unclear: The "ub.com" domain itself has been registered with an UK based registrar, but the nameservers point to a US company (UltraDNS). Still, from the evidence available it seems that the US directly…

The retail registrar is irrelevant. Many of the generic TLDs are owned and managed by US companies, so the US government at least believes they have jurisdiction. And since a company like Verisign isn't going to piss off the US government, they'll gladly hand over domains when asked.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#383

Post by mike_esspe »

cookiecaper wrote: post #380
mike_esspe wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardcoded nodes are only needed if that's your first start. After that bitcoin client collects a databases of nodes, listening to "addr" messages from the network. On the next restarts, it uses addresses from that database one by one. And there are about 300 hardcoded nodes right now from different countries.

I see. That's better I suppose. You just need a relatively easy way to update the seed nodes in case all of the included nodes are down. Does this exist? If not, maybe I'll add it to the client.

There is a dns-seeding (currently two domains which respond with multiple A records, pointing to known good nodes).

I think hardcoded nodes are updated only manually via git.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#384

Post by mburns »

blhack wrote: post #248
peterwwillis wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. You don't have to "route around" this currently, just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. Nobody wants to do this, though, as it would destroy the fabric of the internet as we know it or something. But a simpler method would just incur more government push back in an arms race around censorship. Do what the chinese [citizens] do: go c…

This is actually an interesting idea to me. Forgive me for not being very knowledgeable about the DNS, so if somebody could correct me, I would appreciate it. What happens if people start selectively paying attention to the ICANN root servers? For instance, my computer is set to use google's DNS. What happens if the DNS admins at google decide that they're going to just ignore the update from ICANN? And what happens…

This is precisely the goal of projects like p2p-dns[1] and AlterNIC[2]. It is mostly a chicken-and-egg problem of getting users to resolve non-standard TLDs, so that those non-standard TLDs are registered to things users actually care about, etc, etc.

[1] http://dot-p2p.org/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#385

Post by Locke1689 »

shasta wrote: post #360
Locke1689 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read Marbury v. Madison. I have no more time for a 5th grade civics lesson.

You should have revisited the situation after fifth grade. Fifth grade teachers like to simplify things. Marbury introduced judicial review. It's not in the constitution.

Good thing I never mentioned judicial review, right? Appellate reviews satisfies my statement just fine. Also, while judicial review did become reinforced after Marbury v. Madison, you'll note that the power was derived from an interpretation of the Constitution, not the court itself. That the Constitution implies judicial review is in purview of SCOTUS is a long-accepted interpretation of the Constitution.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#387

Post by anigbrowl »

tel wrote: post #374
anigbrowl wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that decision was grounded in the courts' enumerated powers and strangely nobody has seen fit to overturn it by amendment despite having a whole 2 centuries in which to do so.

So if you realize you made a mistake 2 centuries ago it's absolutely too late to fix it?

There was no mistake, in my view.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#388

Post by Stormbringer »

nl wrote: post #361
rorrr wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over financial crimes? Does that ever happen?

It does, especially over money laundering. In this case though it's likely fought pretty strongly since it's possible that what they did weren't offences in their home countries.

Were you not paying attention the other day when the New Zealand govt passed US style copyright laws using "emergency powers"?

Just because you're in NZ, AU, Can, Ireland or $Taxhaven, doesn't mean you're 'safe' from US interference.

The tail does not wag the dog. And it's a bloody big dog.

Arguably the only place safe from gross US interference is the EU, but mainly because as the world's largest government-by-committee they cannot find their arse with both hands and a map. And even then the reality is somewhat different, it isn't hard to play one side off against the other in their internal wrangles.

-----

I would guess most of those places have been leaned on by the US to also ban online gaming.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#389

Post by nhangen »

eropple wrote: post #369
nhangen wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's part of the problem.

I don't disagree that it should be legal, but the fact that the government takes a dim view of bribing bank officials to allow someone to do other illegal things is really not something worth getting indignant about, no? The root cause, sure, but painting it as "everyday business" is rather naively lolbertarian.

You can't fix a problem by slashing at the symptoms. I don't disagree, but it shouldn't have come this far.

Re: FBI seized PokerStars.com, FullTiltPoker.com, UB.com,... domain names

#390

Post by shasta »

Locke1689 wrote: post #385
shasta wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have revisited the situation after fifth grade. Fifth grade teachers like to simplify things. Marbury introduced judicial review. It's not in the constitution.

Good thing I never mentioned judicial review, right? Appellate reviews satisfies my statement just fine. Also, while judicial review did become reinforced after Marbury v. Madison, you'll note that the power was derived from an interpretation of the Constitution, not the court itself. That the Constitution implies judicial review is in purview of SCOTUS is a long-accepted interpretation of the Constitution.

The idea that the courts have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the constitution (as opposed to, say, each branch being independently obligated to adhere to the constitution) is judicial review, not appellate review.
Post reply on HN