351–360 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder: could 'Individual X' be DEA agent Carl Force (previously sentenced to prison), Secret Service agent Shaun Bridges (previously sentenced to prison), or some other government agent or informant who had tried to enrich themselves via the investigation? More about Force & Bridges: https://freeross.org/corruption/
Or perhaps Thomas Clark, who has his sentencing scheduled for December.
I'm not the most saavy BTC person, but isn't part of the allure of bitcoin the ability to evade this type of seizure?
It's pretty impossible to beat the $5 wrench attack (or in the case of the government, 5 years in prison) unless you have anonymity, which Bitcoin does a very bad job of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't post it, but statista [1] says it's 741kWh for one bitcoin transaction vs. 149kWh for 100.000 visa transactions. That's a factor of 741/149 * 100,000 ≈ 497,000. Of course visa is not the whole banking system, but it seems as it would be roughly comparable. What I find horrific about this is that you can power your apartment for a year for the energy consumption of two bitcoin transactions. [1] https://www.st…
It's an example of "arbitrary effort wasted for a bigger slice of a fixed size pie". An equivalent would be advertising for the US election. If all parties cut their ad budgets by a factor of 10, the result would likely be the same. Yet they all "waste" their ad budgets on yard signs simply to get a bigger share of the vote, and they have to because their competitors do too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simultaneously believe blockchain vastly underperfoms its promises and is a net waste of so much investment (human talent + time + capital) and also believe that bitcoin can be exchanged for real US dollars.
You honestly don't see one valuable use-case for bitcoin? And if serious mainstream investors start buying it as an inflation hedge, they are just idiots?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real world value entry and exit points are ever present. Mix it all one wants. It remains extremely difficult to avoid others knowing value, otherwise unaccounted for, finding it's way back. That plus a shake down of everyone the person ever knew remains potent, relevant and effective. I have followed the rough tech developments. None of what I wrote is impacted too much. Obtaining real world value of any signifi…
Forward your adoption time frames by 100 years. Maybe even less. There are no longer "entry" and "exit" points because everyone uses it and accepts it. Crypto is a good as cash. Anything you can do with a suitcase full of illicit hundred dollar bills today, you can do with your phone tomorrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just said it would be obstruction of justice, yet a transaction occurring from a known wallet while a suspect is in custody is not enough to prove that. You'd have to prove the conspiracy. You're hand-waving the details away in an attempt to dismiss the argument. What does the prosecutor do when the funds get moved and the suspect is under lock and key? Because of the decentralized nature of crypto, you cannot ev…
Saying "it's math, yerhonner" is itself handwaving. My point is that a court doesn't need to fixate on the crpytographic impossibilities. They can rely on literally any other evidence. They can gladly drag your friends into court to answer questions. Any of your other assets can be seized or frozen. Folks who think cryptocurrencies are magic cheat codes are just not aware of the flexibility and enormous powers that a…
- Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail?
- Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds?
- Can they identify who controls the funds now?
- Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet?
- Can the prosecution rule with 100% certainty that this was not a hack or theft by some other party, including police?
The answer to those is probably no. Is that enough to convince a judge/jury of reasonable doubt? I'm not a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forward your adoption time frames by 100 years. Maybe even less. There are no longer "entry" and "exit" points because everyone uses it and accepts it. Crypto is a good as cash. Anything you can do with a suitcase full of illicit hundred dollar bills today, you can do with your phone tomorrow.
In a future where cryptocurrencies are the new normal, probably only crypto that allows governments insight and seizure will be legal. All others will be illegal, and moving in and out to legal currencies will be the exit and entry points.
The trade of "illegal" assets goes on and will continue to go on to the end of time, whether that's marijuana or prostitution services. The spectrum of legality will vary in different parts of the world. Like many contrabands, there won't be enough resources to enforce prohibition of it, the population may not see the point of its illegality (as there is not an obvious social cost), and eventually the tides turn.
I find it extremely amusing that the US government has over the last several years become one of the world's largest traders in bitcoin. It's not quite the path many were predicting back in the early 2010s, but Bitcoin has been full of surprises. If history is any guide, the bitcoin will be auctioned off sooner rather than later.
John McAfee has been on a bit of an unfortunate downswing, so it's great to see a big name bringing in institutional support during a crisis like this. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Covert bribery is definitely frowned upon. Overt bribery - hiring lobbyists, event sponsorships, regulatory capture, etc - is very popular, I'd even say it's more so than in other countries.
Do you really think that someone with $1B of Bitcoin could buy their way out of the kinds of serious felony criminal charges mentioned in the linked article through campaign contributions and similar? I doubt it.