@Bubbles seems clear he isn't, lots of pieces of evidence pointing in that direction. Is it enough for NO to you though? lmk

@Bayesian what? I've seen no evidence suggesting he isn't, have only seen evidence that suggests he is, though nothing concrete yet

the fact that there's nothing concrete is evidence that he isn't

What would proof of him not being a Russian agent look like?

@Arky we don't know what proof looks like until we have it?

@Lorelai I meant there's really no way to prove conclusively that he's not a Russian agent. If no evidence of him being a Russian agent emerges by the end of the year, would that resolve this market to NO?

@Arky no it wouldn't – I'll extend the market. There needs to be proof that he isn't

@Lorelai What would be an example of evidence that proves Kim Dotcom is not a Russian agent?

@Lorelai lol then that would make this a highly asymmetrical market that would most likely get extended in perpetuity.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. It's shoddy epistemics and prediction setup to extend the market until one side has to disprove the claim, especially since nobody in the US would be considered 'credible and official' and motivated enough to disprove the claim, and you presumably would be skeptical of a Russian source disproving it.

@Maniuser I don't consider a russian source proof, no. don't bet on it if you don't like it?

@Lorelai So this is a completely pointless market

@Creagle no, if there's proof in either direction it will be resolved. But if you consider it pointless feel free to not participate. Have a nice day!