131–140 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A bounty is placed on your head by the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Seriously? The US does that?
i would say that the large cash rewards given for information leading to the capture of folks on the FBI's Most Wanted list qualify as bounties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.
In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.
It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.
No, in Iran the government has the same monopoly and uses it to pursue its own ends alright. It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.
There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic. How exactly is that disingenuous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins. The US government can throw your ass in prison for the rest of your life so yes, it is their coins. This is the basis of all government power and in a lot of cases, like this, it's good
Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?
Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?
>The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?
Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it. If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.
In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.
Why did they seize his coin? Did the person who seized it back actually break into something?
Principles are fine and dandy, but why are principals of innocent until proven guilty ok to be broken by “democratic societies”?
I mean it’s just an appeal to might makes right. My mob is bigger than your mob, so I take what k want.
It’s like we’ve lost the foundation to what the idea of a free country was.
Anyways Bitcoin is stupid still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it this way: A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account. The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content -…
In your example, no, the account owner wouldn't have a right to remove the money if the account and not the computer holding the password, was legally seized by the government. The government so cannot use those funds as they please neither until a legal decision allows them to do (RICO maybe, or anti-Mafia laws in Italy allow for that after court decisions). Also in your example, the bank in a different jurisdiction…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?
Government doesn't even have to physically seize anything. They just have to say "transacting with these particular coins is illegal". The blacklisted bitcoin is now worth zero USD, as many individuals receiving money from sanctioned people discovered. I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist.
Because it simply can't be audited. What is the purpose of a public ledger if it is not auditable.
Don't get me wrong I love Monero, but the transparency of Bitcoin is desirable if you intend to enforce a fixed supply.
Also things like Taproot could give some privacy if they widely get used by wallets (by default for example).