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

Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 901 posts

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#871

Post by throw8383833jj »

boc wrote: post #368
throw8383833jj wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. this is quite bullish for bitcoin. they're showing that bitcoin can't be used for criminal activity, whatever the government decides that should be (usually in favor of the general public). this helps to legitimize bitcoin. Protecting consumers of bitcoin is bullish for bitcoin. helping to prevent fraud in bitcoin is also bullish for bitcoin. All these things increase confidence in bitcoin as a legitimate way of…

It sounds like all the good things for bitcoin here are coming from the power of the central authority to provide confidence, legitimacy, protection, and legal recourse. So why on earth is that a good thing for an asset which is all about the power of decentralized systems?

the power of "decentralized system" in this case is merely from the fact that more of it can't be created. When we're talking about the big movers, the institutional investors and the big money, they didn't run to bitcoin because it was cool tech, or cool to be decentralized. they're investing in bitcoin not because of bitcoin. they're investing in bitcoin because central governments have defaulted on their obligation of having a stable currency. You can't hold fiat currencies when they're loosing value at 6% to 12% or more per year, it's just too costly.

Bonds and cash are no longer viable investment asset classes. So all that leaves is Equities, Gold, real estate and bitcoin. It's all about TINA -> there is no alternative.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#872

Post by azth »

notch656a wrote: post #864
azth wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. Secondly, banks and money lending are immoral and predatory. Usury is prohibited in the three major religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), so we're better off without this dangerous practice. It goes hand in hand with fiat money by the way, the government is taking loans from the Fed, which is why it keeps needing to print more and more money to fuel it. The sooner we get rid of money lending…

The Zakat is an interesting concept, but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor. Presumably some system is needed to enforce Zakat, that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency. Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized, I would wage enforcement of inflation is much easier than enfo…

> Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized

Zakat is centralized by the government.

> that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency.

How so? Could you elaborate?

> but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor

It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#873

Post by azth »

telotortium wrote: post #867
notch656a wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Zakat is an interesting concept, but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor. Presumably some system is needed to enforce Zakat, that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency. Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized, I would wage enforcement of inflation is much easier than enfo…

According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_w... , the total wealth of the US in 2021 (which is what I'm supposing would be subject to the inflation Zakat) was $126,340B, 2.5% of which is $3,158B. According to https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending_analys... , in FY2021 welfare (not including Social Security or Medicare, which are for retirees, but including Medicaid) was $2…

Different types of wealth have different Zakat values, and not all wealth is subject to Zakat (e.g. the value of your home does not count towards Zakat). For example, currency, including fiat, gold, silver and other precious metals, is at 2.5% annually. Livestock has a different calculation, and so does produce.

Bitcoin and ETH combined are over 1T USD, much more than the figure you quoted. That's 25B annually, imagine how many lives that can change. Not to mention gold, which is at 11T, so 250B annually. Insane money that can revamp the entire planet.

It's strictly superior to have a system based on Zakat than the insane income taxes that we have today.

> Neither Zakat or US welfare spending includes discretionary charity.

Zakat is the bare minimum required for Muslims to pay per year. Islam heavily encourages discretionary charity, called Sadaqah. Both approaches are complementary.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#874

Post by notch656a »

azth wrote: post #872
notch656a wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Zakat is an interesting concept, but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor. Presumably some system is needed to enforce Zakat, that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency. Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized, I would wage enforcement of inflation is much easier than enfo…

> Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized Zakat is centralized by the government. > that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency. How so? Could you elaborate? > but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all…

>Zakat is centralized by the government.

I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat.

>Today, in most Muslim-majority countries, zakat contributions are voluntary, while in Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, zakat is mandated and collected by the state (as of 2015).[16][17]

[wikipedia ^]

>How so? Could you elaborate?

By compelling people to hold wealth denominated in currency, and then inflate that currency using central bank or treasury.

> It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)

No disagreement here. But government can also misappropriate Zakat. I am actually not in favor of most forms of planned inflation nor a compulsory Zakat precisely in part because I predict massive fraud on the minority of those holding the power to distribute it.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#875

Post by throw8383833jj »

boc wrote: post #869
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like it's an easy answer: Human society, for a number of years now, has been governed by central authorities that define the rules in which society has to live. Bitcoin cannot and does not take part in dictating how society is to function, Bitcoin is put forward as an alternative currency that cannot be quantitavely eased / printed and gifted to society's largest entities as reward for criminal behaviours…

People get way too hung up on the concept of "hard" currency. It really takes some study of economic and financial history to understand that currency is just a means to an end, and that hoping for some immutable piece of value in your personal vault isn't what powers our world. Money is far more abstract than anything in the crypto world, and that's why it's not a good long-term bet. I'd encourage you to read an exc…

>> currency is simply the oil in the machinery Oil is pretty darn valuable.

The need for currency oil is real! imagine if you had to sell a house, everytime you needed to get some liquidity.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#876

Post by conductr »

tradertef wrote: post #591
make_it_sure wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most crypto believers, believe in crypto because they have money invested on it and want to get rich. If you remove that variable of getting rich, very very few remain.

I mostly agree. But those very very few are the ones who made Bitcoin what it is and they are very influential.

That was the early in the pumping phase when they had to build a cult around it

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#877

Post by abvdasker »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #295

What possesses someone who just stole billions to stay in New York while trying to launder their money? Staying and pretending it didn't happen, I get. Pulling a Marsalek, I get. But staying? While continuing to try and access that wealth? Is it arrogance? Stupidity? Misplaced faith in the anonymity of crypto?

Reminds me of Ross Ulbricht getting busted for running Silk Road. If you're running the largest black market for drugs in human history, why in the world would you stay in San Francisco???

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#878

Post by azth »

notch656a wrote: post #874
azth wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized Zakat is centralized by the government. > that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency. How so? Could you elaborate? > but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all…

>Zakat is centralized by the government. I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat. >Today, in most Muslim-majority countries, zakat contributions are voluntary, while in Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, zakat is mandated and collected by the state (as of 2015).[16][17] [wikip…

> I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat.

Today, many Muslim countries are not in a good shape unfortunately, and that's due to several reasons beyond the scope here. I'm referring to how things are required by Islam, and how things were done historically when Islam was actually implemented. Today Islam is not applied 100% unfortunately, which is a main cause of weakness for Muslim nations. They're either in property due to occupation, current or historic, or have to bow down to the West's whims, so that they are not overturned or invaded.

> By compelling people to hold wealth denominated in currency, and then inflate that currency using central bank or treasury.

I meant how would inflation happen in case of Zakat being enforced? They're orthogonal things unless I'm misunderstanding you.

> But government can also misappropriate Zakat

There is a set category of people whom are deserving of Zakat clearly outlined in the Quran. So, if Islam is properly applied, there would not be any meddling. It has been historically documented that in Iraq during Ummayad rule, there were no more poor people left to accept Zakat. Quite amazing.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#879

Post by notch656a »

azth wrote: post #878
notch656a wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Zakat is centralized by the government. I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat. >Today, in most Muslim-majority countries, zakat contributions are voluntary, while in Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, zakat is mandated and collected by the state (as of 2015).[16][17] [wikip…

> I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat. Today, many Muslim countries are not in a good shape unfortunately, and that's due to several reasons beyond the scope here. I'm referring to how things are required by Islam, and how things were done historically when Islam was actually implemented. Today I…

You've said If Islam is properly applied, there would not be any meddling and Zakat would be applied appropriately. I guess you have more faith than I do that a human vested with these large sums will apply it appropriately. Humans can be greedy, corrupt, and clumsy and may not practice the word of the Quran accurately. They could simply make bad mistakes, without any bad will. Having centralized access to large sums of alms could result in Zakat going to benefit other powerful parties as well. Since it is collected by government, it would be hard for those paying it to stop payment in protest if someone did start meddling. Note this is also a problem with secular welfare systems, I am not saying it is a problem only with centralized Zakat.

>It has been historically documented that in Iraq during Ummayad rule, there were no more poor people left to accept Zakat.

Umayyad had a variety of religions of persons overseen by their caliphate. Was Zakat distributed to poor Christians in the Caliphate? Or did Zakat only go to Muslims? This is important to know, because supporting only minority of the poor who practice Islam could mean Zakat may have not solved poverty for the entire populace. I'd also be interested in seeing the citation that poverty didn't exist under this caliphate.

In America we have the problem that lots of administrators and bureaucrats siphon off much of the money in the welfare system into their salaries as well as issues with the money going into the hands it is intended to go to. Also since the money is taken by force, there's not a lot of control by those who contribute the money over making sure it is used appropriately.

I will note I find it both fascinating and worthy of respect that many cultures have come up with their own ways of helping the poor.

Personally I would be much more on board with a decentralized type of Zakat where individuals can pick what charity to go to, in order to protect from centralized failures of government.

>I meant how would inflation happen in case of Zakat being enforced? They're orthogonal things unless I'm misunderstanding you.

If I wanted to enforce Zakat via inflation, I would mandate people to hold their money in bank, as debt, or fiat denominated bonds, and then I would inflate the money supply by 2.5% by mailing out 2.5% of the current supply to the poor per year, or something approximating that. But that would also be an imperfect system.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#880

Post by sdenton4 »

tptacek wrote: post #729
sdenton4 wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'In 2011, Swartz was arrested by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet, and setting it to download academic journal articles systematically from JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT.[13][14] Federal prosecutors, led by Carmen Ortiz, later charged him with two counts o…

Yeah, Swartz's liability has been wildly misreported. He faced nothing resembling 35 years, as the prosecutors themselves acknowledged during the dispute. His own lawyer believed he was unlikely to face custodial time even if convicted given the guidelines for the charges. This has been discussed ad nauseam on HN and I'll spare you a repeat of it; the search bar will avail.

But that's exactly the coercion, laid plain. It /doesn't matter/ that the prosecutors don't believe they'll get the full sentence. They want to paint as dire a picture as possible to get the defendant to take the plea.
Post reply on HN