Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

news.bitcoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 199 posts

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#141

Post by barrkel »

ploxiln wrote: post #77
barrkel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... > There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizu…

Oh I think there have been terrible injustices, and appeal ought to be easy and swift. There are injustices everywhere in law enforcement; innocent people get killed in the US by police because of the policy of carrying guns, combined with rules of engagement covering their use that minimize discretion. But that doesn't mean I'd advocate disarming police in the US, not without a lot of other changes too.

The point I'm making is that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. There are tradeoffs in public policy, and organized crime is a particularly tough omelette to fry. I'm OK with targeting their binding protein, their assets, with a reduced presumption of innocence, because I think it's works. I'm thinking of the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland in particular.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=28

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#142

Post by barrkel »

rl3 wrote: post #65
barrkel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

Alternatively, the cops could do actual police work instead of robbing people of their cash at random. > And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me, because ... Statements such as those aren't sufficient justification for shredding freedoms that have existed for hundreds of years. It's also worth noting that the seized cash usually benefits the organization seizing it, creating a perverse in…

Do you think tax is robbery too?

The people are sovereign in a democracy. That's how it works.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#143

Post by barrkel »

XorNot wrote: post #87
barrkel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

Conflating cash seizures with reporting standards is silly - one is not the other and they stem from very different problems in the US.

The two are strongly related. Large cash transfers are an indicator of some quid pro quo in the other direction. If it's a legitimate transaction, it can be reported on. For one thing, that'll help ensure that the correct taxes get paid, whether now or in the future in an audit. Without reporting, it's deeply suspicious; the other half of the trade is probably illegitimate, or someone is evading tax, which is an attack on the state and its people.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#144

Post by astrodust »

mirimir wrote: post #46
wolco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy bitcoin using cash at local bitcoin atm. Put bitcoin in a mixer. Cash out bitcoin and declare the income.

The last step doesn't work. I mean, you might as well declare the cash as income. You'd be pressed to explain where either came from. More useful would be to buy Bitcoin with cash, mix, and then invest assets somewhere anonymously. But it's a hard problem, because wherever assets appear in meatspace, there's typically the need to explain their origin. That's where many people get caught. Such as Tomáš Jiříkovský of S…

Make yourself a Bitcoin "lottery" and win it.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#145

Post by astrodust »

georgeecollins wrote: post #25
ouid wrote: post #2

The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.

There are all kinds of legal and legitimate reasons to pay for something in a way that isn't easily tracked. You can do it now with cash and it isn't illegal. Just because you want privacy does not mean you are a criminal.

Bitcoin is the opposite of private. Everything you do, every single transaction, is recorded, shared with everyone, forever.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#146

Post by icebraining »

wfunction wrote: post #122
tlrobinson wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time.

> Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time. Yes, because we clearly need to fix software vulnerabilities at any and all costs, hospital patients and the poor/elderly be damned. And it's obviously their fault for paying for indirectly supporting the development of insecure software…

Your point may be valid, but the tone undermines the post. Derisive sarcasm is only worthwhile if it's amusingly written.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#147

Post by skolsuper »

Kiro wrote: post #97
georgeecollins wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are all kinds of legal and legitimate reasons to pay for something in a way that isn't easily tracked. You can do it now with cash and it isn't illegal. Just because you want privacy does not mean you are a criminal.

Do you have any examples of those?

Whistleblowing websites or donation to banned media sources.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#148

Post by barrkel »

csomar wrote: post #92
barrkel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…

I'm suspicious the large criminal operations are using cash (or crypto). They are probably using Banks, Politicians and Regulators. These laws are meant to control the simple citizen, or the smaller criminal operations.

I also think we need to be much tougher on white collar crime. There needs to be far more custodial sentences, and not merely fines. People need to go to prison. White collar crime is such a parasitic attack on the complexity of the modern economy that I think it should be dealt with more harshly than petty street crime. Sentences need to be risk adjusted take into account the low probability of getting caught, not just for the specific crime being convicted.

Here's an idea: what if we had undercover police units actively setting up shell companies to try and bribe politicians, and convict them for life if they are susceptible. It's something I wouldn't be unsupportive of, but it would be very hard to get politicians to vote for.

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#149

Post by timbowhite »

ThomPete wrote: post #130
mirimir wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm arguing that these rules and regulations are the core problem.

you cant have your cake and eat it. you cant just opt out of regulation and not all the other things. you would litterally have to start your own nation from scratch.

Do you think people like Rosa Parks should have started their own nation? [0]

What an incredibly frightening way of thinking.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers

#150

Post by XorNot »

barrkel wrote: post #143
XorNot wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflating cash seizures with reporting standards is silly - one is not the other and they stem from very different problems in the US.

The two are strongly related. Large cash transfers are an indicator of some quid pro quo in the other direction. If it's a legitimate transaction, it can be reported on. For one thing, that'll help ensure that the correct taxes get paid, whether now or in the future in an audit. Without reporting, it's deeply suspicious; the other half of the trade is probably illegitimate, or someone is evading tax, which is an atta…

That wasn't my point - my point was that the policing issue (cash seizures with incentives because it goes to department revenue, and costly recovery measures for citizens) are a very different problem to the question of whether or not we should have the reporting standards we do - which we absolutely should, for the reasons you note.
Post reply on HN