Bitmain Rival’s Founder Arrested as War of Crypto Miners Heats up(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Bitmain Rival’s Founder Arrested as War of Crypto Miners Heats up
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-16/crypto-miner-war-heats-up-with-arrest-of-bitmain-rival-founder
44 comments
Given that rule of law does not exist in China, it's safe to assume this is politically motivated. Who in the government wants him out of business, and why?
I do not know how it works in China, but could someone in the government be paid by Bitmain to care enough? In the US they call that move lobbying...
Lobbying in the US is a kind of corruption, but I don't think there's any way to lobby to have someone arrested, unless that's in slow motion, where you'd pay lobbyists to press for a law that could be used to arrest your opponent.
Lucky 10000: Lobbying in the USA is constitutionally-protected free speech. [0] It sure does feel corrupt, doesn't it? But it's part of the right to demand that the government listen to and consider our grievances. You can try lobbying today: Pick something that you care about, and write a letter about it to somebody in the government who represents you.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
“Dear constituent, after reading your carefully written letter and thinking long and hard about the merits of each position of this tricky issue I have decided to side with the people who donated the most to my re-election campaign. Thank you for writing to me, your voice has been heard”
Heard != acted on.
... But it also doesn't equal null.
... But it also doesn't equal null.
It wouldn't be the government but the CCP. The CCP pretty much has ultimate authority on everything, so there's probably some close ties between people in Bitmain and people in the CCP that don't exist with MicroBT. Also a lot of it is based around favors more generally not just money.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi
Seems more like a tactical lawsuit, if they win they kill of competition, if they lose - they end up delaying competition and in a market in which things move fast, it may well end up killing this competition.
I can just see it now:
"Competition is bad, arrest him immediately!"
"Competition is bad, arrest him immediately!"
is mining bitcoins still profitable with the value being this low?
Yes. The only reason people are still doing it...
Any way around the paywall?
Also remember China does not have a real bail system. If you get arrested, you are very likely end up in prison directly. You also can be disappeared (better than be suicided) during the process.
Edit: No. I wasn't referring to the Epstein case.
Also, Chinese police has a habit of using force to rob the corpse of the victim from the family who want to send the corpse to the 3rd party for examination. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishou_incident
Edit: No. I wasn't referring to the Epstein case.
Also, Chinese police has a habit of using force to rob the corpse of the victim from the family who want to send the corpse to the 3rd party for examination. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishou_incident
There is rumor Bitmain (creaters of Antminer, see Ant Financial aka Alipay) was really owned by Jack Ma. Now everything that was Jack Ma is now owned by CCP I would bet Bitmain is the CCP.
Any pointers on why / how everything that was owned by Jack Ma is owned by CCP?
Jack Ma is on the record that this is nonsense:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing...
Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing...
Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
>Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
These kinds of characterisations frustrate me. It's a horrible simplification that leads one to a whole set of conclusions that are probably way off target. No complex society runs without rules. By and large, if members of the society do not follow those rules then the result is chaos. Clearly, China is not a lawless state where people do whatever they choose and the strongest one wins. It is a country with real laws and and vast majority of people need to follow those laws. These laws are, of course, not applied universally. However, we can point to examples of this non-universality of law in every single country on Earth. The question is the extent of that non-universality.
The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me).
So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me).
So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
I think you're totally wrong. China is not a nation of laws the way the US or European countries strive to be. It's a different philosophy. They have laws, but the laws are not supposed to be supreme over the rulers.
And there are TONS of examples of official lies, especially on the subject of the ownership and control of large enterprises.
And there are TONS of examples of official lies, especially on the subject of the ownership and control of large enterprises.
Here in NL our laws are also not supreme of the rulers. Frustrating but true and as much as I would like to believe that in a court of law our king would be held to the same standard as I would be I'm just about 100% sure that that would not be the case.
Worse still, there is this file called 'crimes committed by the royal family' that is classified until 100 years after their death.
This is why to this day we don't know the exact details of Bernhard van Oranje's many escapades and crimes, some of which were quite significant and yet ended up covered up.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld...
The combination of politicians and structural lying is unfortunately not limited to China either.
Worse still, there is this file called 'crimes committed by the royal family' that is classified until 100 years after their death.
This is why to this day we don't know the exact details of Bernhard van Oranje's many escapades and crimes, some of which were quite significant and yet ended up covered up.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld...
The combination of politicians and structural lying is unfortunately not limited to China either.
When I've heard people question or say there is no rule of law in China, usually it's followed up with how their court system isn't independent of their political system by design, not that it's lawless/a free for all for the CCP.
Not that I disagree with a large chunk of what you said either, but it's just not hyperbole that China has no rule of law per a common definition of the word because of party and worker judicial supremacy.
Rule of law definition: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
Three Supremes: http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b...
Not that I disagree with a large chunk of what you said either, but it's just not hyperbole that China has no rule of law per a common definition of the word because of party and worker judicial supremacy.
Rule of law definition: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
Three Supremes: http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b...
That's an interesting distinction. I don't know how this is expressed in English, but the Norwegian language has a term called "the principles of a state that follows law/rights", (the word 'law' is the same word as 'right', as in French - full term "rettsstatsprinsippene").
This term is commonly translated as "the rule of law", but strongly implies the distinction that you're saying the English term does not.
Central parts of "rettsstatsprinsippene": Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, laws cannot be reteroactive, the accused is innocent until proved guilty, the arrested must be presented to a court within 24 hours, the accused have a right to a state-appointed defender.
This term is commonly translated as "the rule of law", but strongly implies the distinction that you're saying the English term does not.
Central parts of "rettsstatsprinsippene": Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, laws cannot be reteroactive, the accused is innocent until proved guilty, the arrested must be presented to a court within 24 hours, the accused have a right to a state-appointed defender.
[deleted]
First Russia with nginx just a few days ago, now this.
I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.
I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.
As if any other country is better.
Surely you’re trolling. This is not the place for it because, by any objective measure, despotic regimes are worse places to live.
Unless you're the despot. In which case they are the best place to live.
Except for the tendency for despots to be violently overthrown (relative to non despotic countries at least)
Good while it lasts though.
Would you trade places with Kim Jong-un? I sure wouldn't.
First reply to a comment about Russia is a whataboutism, shock