I wouldn't use the word "theft", this is more like "fractional banking". I think it's dishonest to use customer funds to support one side with votes in a conflict without the customers consent, but probably not illegal, and not "theft".
Are you saying that fractional banking is not theft? When I say theft, I do not mean legally theft. When I say theft, I mean a different kind of theft then the kind you speak of.
Fractional banking is not theft. The bank does not steal my money when I deposit them there. I know all I get from putting my money into the bank is an IOU-note.
Watching a film on Popcorn-time is not theft, no matter how much some people in the film industry and "anti-piracy business" claims it is. (as a side note, piracy is robbery om the sea, and nothing else than that).
Borrowing a bike without permission and putting it back before the owner notices it is not theft. Things may be morally wrong even if it's not theft.
Murder and corruption is also not theft.
If I would have steem on the exchanges, I would not expect this holding to be used to support one side in a conflict, I would expect that I should be able to withdraw the funds anytime without problems, and I think the actions done by the exchanges are morally wrong. But it's not theft.
Attempts on redefining the language based on personal opinions on what is wrong and what is right is morally wrong, in my opinion.
Rothschild agrees with you. So, that means you hate Steem. Because Steem was created to go against Rothschild. Murder is the theft of life. Corruption is a fuel that can cause theft as a symptom in some cases. We can talk about money. We can talk about gold. We can talk about what FDR did in the 1930's. You mentioned Popcorn. We can talk about copyright. We can talk about brain phones. Robbery and theft can be similar depending on how a person CHOOSES and DECIDES to define those words. And different people have different meanings and definitions assigned for words. It is extremely complex. And then they try to force people to go to public mainstream education, schools, to be forced to only believe in the definitions that they teach. Your belief in how exchanges can do what you call not theft is pretty scary. In the 1920's, many people tried to withdraw from banks and were unable to. We should be talking about that as that alone destroys your arguments, what you are trying to say. Understanding what happened in the 1920's in America is critical to understanding what is and is not real money backed by gold and fake money not backed by gold and/or other things. People redefine words. Every person does it. Kings would do it historically. We can talk all day about how history was generally written and redefined by the winners and stuff.
No. They took their customers money and exercised ownership control of it, and still do. The money is still in their possession today, and not in the possession of the rightful owners thereof.
They stole, and kept it. They committed a crime, and worse, had agreed to protect that money from thieves, committing yet another crime. Theft, fraud, and extortion. You might find that acceptable, but I don't.
I don't find it morally acceptable, but I still refuse to call it "theft", and I don't even think it's against the law (though, of course, different laws may apply in different jurisdiction. I expect the successful exchanges to end up in jurisdictions that are "friendly" to the exchanges).
When depositing tokens into an exchange, all you get back is an "IOU". For most exchanges, the tokens won't be held in any special wallet dedicated you as a customer, the tokens ends up in some common wallet owned by the exchange. There may be an expectation that the exchanges don't do "fractional banking" and always keep sufficient funds to deal with the withdrawals should absolutely all the customers simultaneously decide to withdraw - but I don't think the exchanges are legally obliged to keep all the tokens available (again, different jurisdictions, different laws). The consequence of not being able to process withdrawals may be bankruptcy.
A company A may deposit money to the bank, and the same money may be lent out to competitor B. An organization advocating for legalization of drugs may deposit money to the bank, and the same money may be lent out to an organization advocating for a harder "war on drugs". Etc. Most people would deem it acceptable.
Overbookings are also normal. Airline companies expects some cancellations and may throw out passengers from the plane if needed. It's comparable, one may argue that the customer "owns" a seat on that particular flight. It's totally unacceptable to get plans and connections ruined as one is thrown out from the plane, but it's still not "theft", it's not illegal, and in general overbookings are deemed acceptable as the alternative would be to fly with empty seats.
Internet providers do a lot of overbooking - hundreds of customers may promised 50 Mbps of downstream capacity, but they are sharing a 5 Gbps line. One may argue that I've paid for 50 Mbps of capacity and hence the ISP should have 50 Mbps of capacity reserved and ready for me, but ... it's not theft if my bandwidth temporarily falls down to 5 Mbps due to upstream capacity issues.
One notable exception - in the linux kernel, the nomenclature is indeed "CPU theft" when one virtual machine does not get the CPU share it's being promised due to overbooking.
On a related note, it's absolutely not "theft" to watch a movie that one haven't paid for, and "piracy" is robbery on the sea and nothing except for that. I'd also argue that "hacking" is to find novel though not necessarily elegant ways to solve problems, often involving using things in completely different ways than what they were intended for, but that's probably a lost battle. It's a general problem that people are twisting language to suit their agendas. That's a misappropriation ... though I wouldn't go as far as calling it "theft of words" :-)
Well, if I take your money from you, you're going to bitch. If anyone takes your money from you you're going to bitch. That's because it's your money and they took it from you.
It's also why I don't use banks or exchanges. Because they're thieves.
When theft is legal, government is a crime.
The real problem is not your keys, not your crypto. I have learned that lesson the hard way. Now Binance customers have too. Bet Binance loses customers.
Perhaps a majority of binance customers doesn't know or care what's going on. They will bitch if and only if they try to withdraw Steem and can't because Binance is lacking the liquidity to do so. Just like ordinary people won't bitch that the bank is lending their savings to other parties (but will bitch if the bank is unable to fullfil it's obligations), airline passenges won't bitch if the flight is overcommited (but will bitch if it's actually overbooked and they are the unlucky ones that won't be allowed on the flight), etc.
Yu-Gi-Oh was a fun show.
soon all the US will belong to steem.
yes i'm a prophet
Yes. Steem will soon be greater than Bitcoin. Accumulate and hodl.
hodl 4 life, then be shocked
I wouldn't use the word "theft", this is more like "fractional banking". I think it's dishonest to use customer funds to support one side with votes in a conflict without the customers consent, but probably not illegal, and not "theft".
Are you saying that fractional banking is not theft? When I say theft, I do not mean legally theft. When I say theft, I mean a different kind of theft then the kind you speak of.
Fractional banking is not theft. The bank does not steal my money when I deposit them there. I know all I get from putting my money into the bank is an IOU-note.
Watching a film on Popcorn-time is not theft, no matter how much some people in the film industry and "anti-piracy business" claims it is. (as a side note, piracy is robbery om the sea, and nothing else than that).
Borrowing a bike without permission and putting it back before the owner notices it is not theft. Things may be morally wrong even if it's not theft.
Murder and corruption is also not theft.
If I would have steem on the exchanges, I would not expect this holding to be used to support one side in a conflict, I would expect that I should be able to withdraw the funds anytime without problems, and I think the actions done by the exchanges are morally wrong. But it's not theft.
Attempts on redefining the language based on personal opinions on what is wrong and what is right is morally wrong, in my opinion.
Rothschild agrees with you. So, that means you hate Steem. Because Steem was created to go against Rothschild. Murder is the theft of life. Corruption is a fuel that can cause theft as a symptom in some cases. We can talk about money. We can talk about gold. We can talk about what FDR did in the 1930's. You mentioned Popcorn. We can talk about copyright. We can talk about brain phones. Robbery and theft can be similar depending on how a person CHOOSES and DECIDES to define those words. And different people have different meanings and definitions assigned for words. It is extremely complex. And then they try to force people to go to public mainstream education, schools, to be forced to only believe in the definitions that they teach. Your belief in how exchanges can do what you call not theft is pretty scary. In the 1920's, many people tried to withdraw from banks and were unable to. We should be talking about that as that alone destroys your arguments, what you are trying to say. Understanding what happened in the 1920's in America is critical to understanding what is and is not real money backed by gold and fake money not backed by gold and/or other things. People redefine words. Every person does it. Kings would do it historically. We can talk all day about how history was generally written and redefined by the winners and stuff.
A rock cannot fly. You cannot fly. Hence, you are a rock.
Also, JP Morgan. He is a big big rock. Also, crony corporatism which is not free market capitalism.
No. They took their customers money and exercised ownership control of it, and still do. The money is still in their possession today, and not in the possession of the rightful owners thereof.
They stole, and kept it. They committed a crime, and worse, had agreed to protect that money from thieves, committing yet another crime. Theft, fraud, and extortion. You might find that acceptable, but I don't.
I don't find it morally acceptable, but I still refuse to call it "theft", and I don't even think it's against the law (though, of course, different laws may apply in different jurisdiction. I expect the successful exchanges to end up in jurisdictions that are "friendly" to the exchanges).
When depositing tokens into an exchange, all you get back is an "IOU". For most exchanges, the tokens won't be held in any special wallet dedicated you as a customer, the tokens ends up in some common wallet owned by the exchange. There may be an expectation that the exchanges don't do "fractional banking" and always keep sufficient funds to deal with the withdrawals should absolutely all the customers simultaneously decide to withdraw - but I don't think the exchanges are legally obliged to keep all the tokens available (again, different jurisdictions, different laws). The consequence of not being able to process withdrawals may be bankruptcy.
A company A may deposit money to the bank, and the same money may be lent out to competitor B. An organization advocating for legalization of drugs may deposit money to the bank, and the same money may be lent out to an organization advocating for a harder "war on drugs". Etc. Most people would deem it acceptable.
Overbookings are also normal. Airline companies expects some cancellations and may throw out passengers from the plane if needed. It's comparable, one may argue that the customer "owns" a seat on that particular flight. It's totally unacceptable to get plans and connections ruined as one is thrown out from the plane, but it's still not "theft", it's not illegal, and in general overbookings are deemed acceptable as the alternative would be to fly with empty seats.
Internet providers do a lot of overbooking - hundreds of customers may promised 50 Mbps of downstream capacity, but they are sharing a 5 Gbps line. One may argue that I've paid for 50 Mbps of capacity and hence the ISP should have 50 Mbps of capacity reserved and ready for me, but ... it's not theft if my bandwidth temporarily falls down to 5 Mbps due to upstream capacity issues.
One notable exception - in the linux kernel, the nomenclature is indeed "CPU theft" when one virtual machine does not get the CPU share it's being promised due to overbooking.
On a related note, it's absolutely not "theft" to watch a movie that one haven't paid for, and "piracy" is robbery on the sea and nothing except for that. I'd also argue that "hacking" is to find novel though not necessarily elegant ways to solve problems, often involving using things in completely different ways than what they were intended for, but that's probably a lost battle. It's a general problem that people are twisting language to suit their agendas. That's a misappropriation ... though I wouldn't go as far as calling it "theft of words" :-)
Well, if I take your money from you, you're going to bitch. If anyone takes your money from you you're going to bitch. That's because it's your money and they took it from you.
It's also why I don't use banks or exchanges. Because they're thieves.
When theft is legal, government is a crime.
The real problem is not your keys, not your crypto. I have learned that lesson the hard way. Now Binance customers have too. Bet Binance loses customers.
Perhaps a majority of binance customers doesn't know or care what's going on. They will bitch if and only if they try to withdraw Steem and can't because Binance is lacking the liquidity to do so. Just like ordinary people won't bitch that the bank is lending their savings to other parties (but will bitch if the bank is unable to fullfil it's obligations), airline passenges won't bitch if the flight is overcommited (but will bitch if it's actually overbooked and they are the unlucky ones that won't be allowed on the flight), etc.