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

161–170 of 199 posts

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

#161

Post by falcolas »

x0x0 wrote: post #117
rl3 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If people would get off their lazy asses and vote, we could have nice things. Here's what voting can get you: California Governor Signs New Criminal Conviction Requirement For Civil Forfeiture https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/09/29/...

Err, voting didn't create that law. Voting simply elected the person as the Governor. If the Governor didn't already want to institute the law (regardless of campaign promises), the most voting could do is replace them with someone the voters hope will do what they want (but probably won't).

So, voting didn't enact the law, all it did was indirectly create the conditions where the law could come into being.

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

#162

Post by falcolas »

barrkel wrote: post #139
michaelmrose wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simpler solution make it impossible to seize assets of any variety without getting a conviction first. If you can't prove a crime you have no business seizing anyone's assets. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because the people are sovereign.

No, we (speaking as a US citizen here) do not set down most of the rules. We instead elect representatives who we "trust" to make the rules on our behalf.

Asset forfeiture was not one of the laws which would have hit the ballots; it came down from the federal level.

> people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok

It's doubtful that this was never actually presented to the public - at most the public raised concerns about drug runners using their ill-gotten gains too freely, so the elected (and appointed) officials decided to implement a solution this way. It's also equally possible that the public had no input whatsoever in the process.

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

#163

Post by petre »

Analemma_ wrote: post #15
Mendenhall wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am sure those reasons play a part I think thats not even close to all of what makes it valuable. Ease of use is a huge one. I can set up a wallet in less than a minute and someone from across the world can send me bitcoin in the time it takes for it to clear the block, other cryptos even faster. One can post their wallet address and make jokes on social media and receive bitcoin just because people like the c…

> Ease of use is a huge one. Bitcoin is very complicated to use, doubly so to use securely. I've lost count of the number of stories I've read of someone losing everything, and then being chided by the community because "you deserved it, you weren't doing it the ~right way~", and of course there are a thousand mutually incompatible explanations as to what the right way is. This happens so often there's an entire subr…

I can get Bitcoin in Nigeria. Try doing that with Paypal.

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

#164

Post by petre »

Shorel wrote: post #37
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.

Or to avoid losing too much money when traveling abroad and using your credit card in bank-initiated currency conversions. Seriously, some simple grocery shopping I did had a 'currency exchange' tax of about 10% - 15%.

Learn from the Greek. Use cash.

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

#165

Post by icebraining »

CJefferson wrote: post #118
Jabanga wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miners can't change the issuance schedule. They can only delete blocks and form new ones with valid* transactions, and only if they collude, and are okay with destroying the value of their capital assets. * transactions where the private key associated with a public key holding value authorizes an outgoing transfer of value.

They can stop you spending the money, and the "they wouldn't do it as they would kill the goose" applies to banks and governments too.

How can they do that?

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

#166

Post by icebraining »

labster wrote: post #74
afsina wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government grabs money by force. That is the difference I guess.

Government is the legitimate exercise of force. That's kind of the whole reason it exists.

That doesn't mean this particular use of force is legitimate. Unless you mean that all uses of force by the government are legitimate, in which case you'll have much to defend.

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

#167

Post by ersii »

legulere wrote: post #84
afsina wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government grabs money by force. That is the difference I guess.

I much prefer the government collecting a fair share of money to uphold public goods than criminals running away with all my money (happened to me with shares in a Chinese miner).

Hm, what's the difference? That the money goes somewhere you like?

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

#168

Post by Houshalter »

chrisbennet wrote: post #157
barrkel wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

In th US, "bribing" politicians is actually legal. Large campaign donations are not illegal and occording to Citizens vs United, are protected free speech. As far a white collar crime goes, if you are talking about banking when mention a "parasitic attack on the complexity of the modern economy", I think that bank lobbying has made things that you would hope people would go to jail for, legal or unenforceable. Thankf…

That's not true at all. You certainly cant bribe politicians by giving them money directly. You cant even donate it to their campaign like you say. All you can do is donate to an organization they aren't affiliated with or agree to run ads on their behalf.

That's not great, but its a lot different than normal corruption.

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

#169

Post by michaelmrose »

barrkel wrote: post #139
michaelmrose wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simpler solution make it impossible to seize assets of any variety without getting a conviction first. If you can't prove a crime you have no business seizing anyone's assets. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because the people are sovereign.

This is a wholly and totally ridiculous line of argument on several levels. The people merely pick representatives for a whole host of reasons they rarely get a say regarding an individual law so its extremely difficult to argue that a given law is by default the will of the people merely because it exists. Further even if we were to accept such a thing it is insufficient to abrogate our responsibility to exercise our critical thinking regarding the nature and effect of the law.

More importantly the US constitution clearly and in plain language makes such taking illegal unless the government undergoes the arduous process of amending it which would pretty clearly signify public acceptance of such a change.

The fact that such an amendment is not merely unthinkable its laughable seems to suggest that the public will you imagine exists is wholly a figment of your imagination.

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

#170

Post by chx »

aianus wrote: post #72
chx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is missing from this picture is that whoever wants to send you bitcoins needs to get them. This is still a huge barrier especially with having no idea what your bitcoins are actually worth and also it's a given that your wallet will be stolen sooner or later so you want to buy only a little at a time but that has overhead so... As for transferring money, Transferwise is leagues ahead in usability when you consid…

Transferwise is stupidly expensive. Costs about $140 in fees to transfer $10k from US to Canada vs. ~$0 for BTC depending on how sophisticated you are in timing the trade.

How much does it cost to buy and sell those BTC? And are you saying transaction fees are zero?
Post reply on HN