RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dear Blurt Community & Followers
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 BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Bernie Madoff was ordered to pay 200 billion in restitution. He was targeted. You can't make him pay that money unless all investment advisors and brokers also are stripped of their money. To only target him because he was a criminal is specific targeting which we can't have.
A small percentage of folks use guns in the commission of crimes. We can't hold those folks responsible for their actions. That would be targeting. ALL gun owners should be the price and loose their ability to possess firearms or we would be targeting those who were the problem which would be wrong.
Some people invade other peoples land and are targeted with violence to repel them. To single those invader people out is targeting and instead all people should be killed.
Do you see the flaw in what you propose from my application of it above?
You can target specific characteristics, and that is the desirable method. There has been a criminal action taken by the exchanges in question, and they and they alone should pay the price, which is nothing as they weren't meant to become enriched for being thieves to begin with.
Discernment is based upon a specific targeting, that is crucial to proper function and correctness.
you're missing the point
the banks didn't convict bernie madoff
the SEC did
your crypto account is like a bank (but way better)
the blurt witnesses are running a network
not a police department
🤬
the telephone company doesn't convict people for bank fraud
This faulty comparison threw me a bit coming from you.
It's like saying apples don't fall from a pear tree.
Of course the phone company doesn't pursue over ban fraud, they didn't create money, the banks did.
Using your analogy here, the founders created Blurt much as the bankers created their fiat, so they would indeed be the ones to target specific destinations that weren't the intended recipient. Just as the bank would if they inadvertently placed money in my checking account that I used earlier as an example.
the federal reserve doesn't convict people of bank fraud
Why do you bring conviction into this? You are reaching to hard again so am going to disengage here with repeating what was already said.
The bank wouldn't convict obviously, that is outside the parameters of their authority. What I said and repeat is if they gave money to the wrong party they would retrieve it once discovered, and using your new introduction here WOULD SEEK lawful charges and conviction IF the money was no longer able to be taken back.
BUT you can be assured that if the money was still held in an account they could access, they would promptly take that money back from the wrongful holder.
Your stance on this comes across to be debating just to debate and not because there is substance or conviction to your position. So again, I'm disengaging and wishing you well with your positions I can't connect with here.
if you look at this as if it were a "real-world-scenario"
the exchange received custodial funds
and the issuer (airdropper) would not be able to "confiscate" those funds
any perceived "crime" would be between the exchange and their customers who (may or may not) want their custodial funds
the blurt network should stay out of this
because it sets a dangerous precedent