> (...) but this whole story demonstrates that I went to extreme lengths to never break any laws,
No, not really. It shows that you went to great lengths to find ways to exploit a loophole where, even though you are clearly breaking the spirit of the law, you argue that it doesn't break the letter of the law.
I get it that you have a vested interest in keeping up the plausible deniability thing, but you know it and everyone knows it that you went through great lengths to put up a tech infrastructure which meets absolutely no requirement other than exploiting a loophole.
I mean, you explicitly expressed your personal concerns in this very discussion regarding what you personally chose to describe as testing "legally grey areas". Who do you expect to fool?
I just really wanted to launch my software. Which when I began coding it, seemed completely legal and possible in Costa Rica. As the laws started to change - and even before Bitcoin came on the scene - I looked for how to do it without running afoul of anything. So it's not like I set out with a plan to exploit all the legal loopholes in the world, I just adapted my code and split it apart as necessary. I never even meant to take Bitcoin, let alone make it the only currency in the casino. It was just the only option if I wanted to launch. I had very little money and had written a giant gaming platform. I wanted it to see the light of day.
> Which when I began coding it, seemed completely legal and possible in Costa Rica. As the laws started to change - and even before Bitcoin came on the scene - I looked for how to do it without running afoul of anything. So it's not like I set out with a plan to exploit all the legal loopholes in the world, I just adapted my code and split it apart as necessary.
You are clearly and unequivocally stating that you set to exploit all the legal loopholes once your "grey area" was made black and white in Costa Rica.
Please, spare the thread from all that nonsense. You're not fooling anyone.
What you say I stated "unequivocally" is precisely the opposite of what I stated. I was quite clear - what I said was that I didn't want to pursue the business into a legal gray area. Therefore, I did what I had to do to keep it legal, including turning away 95% of the hits, retaining lawyers, and not violating any local laws. Moreover, it would have been perfectly legal to run the whole thing from Costa Rican servers at any point in time. I just didn't see a future in it, because they didn't offer full licensing, and the credit card companies pulled out while the software was in alpha. The IoM paper was intended as a step on the road to licensing.
I didn't exploit anything. I worked within the legal options that were available. In any case, I don't understand the accusation.
My only regret is that I didn't have the capital to buy a full license in the IoM or Malta outright. But the truth is, I wrote the whole thing from scratch and I was determined to launch it. You're free to your opinions, but you ought to avoid judging people's intentions while misreading their words.
No, not really. It shows that you went to great lengths to find ways to exploit a loophole where, even though you are clearly breaking the spirit of the law, you argue that it doesn't break the letter of the law.
I get it that you have a vested interest in keeping up the plausible deniability thing, but you know it and everyone knows it that you went through great lengths to put up a tech infrastructure which meets absolutely no requirement other than exploiting a loophole.
I mean, you explicitly expressed your personal concerns in this very discussion regarding what you personally chose to describe as testing "legally grey areas". Who do you expect to fool?