Live data from Hacker News

For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

usmarshals.gov

291–300 of 424 posts

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#291
post #288
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about coins of SR users? Are those included here? Shouldn't they be returned to the users?

If the coins were seized on Silk Road servers they didn't belong to anyone at the time but the Silk Road. We can argue the merits of returning the coins to the last previously associated wallets; but I don't think the U.S. Gov has any intention of returning drug money to drug buyers the same way they wouldn't give gun money back to arms buyers.

But SR was not exclusively for drug sellers.

Most of the business there was drugs, obviously, but some amount of that money would have bought legitimate items. So what gives them the right to sell off that money?

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#292
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the coins were seized on Silk Road servers they didn't belong to anyone at the time but the Silk Road. We can argue the merits of returning the coins to the last previously associated wallets; but I don't think the U.S. Gov has any intention of returning drug money to drug buyers the same way they wouldn't give gun money back to arms buyers.

But SR was not exclusively for drug sellers. Most of the business there was drugs, obviously, but some amount of that money would have bought legitimate items. So what gives them the right to sell off that money?

Also, if I understand it correctly, many of those coins were not preallocated to any sale. They were just sitting there to be used in the future. So whether they would be used for drugs or something legal is irrelevant.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's intriguing to me that no one has pointed out the inherent value of BitCoin: You can commit nearly anonymous transactions over long distances with it. It's value over international currencies is in proportion to the size of the black market transacted via BtC. There are many people out there who don't try to get rich, they simply mine a handful to buy small amounts of drugs on the internet. The "convenience" of t…

> You can commit nearly anonymous transactions over long distances with it. It's value over international currencies is in proportion to the size of the black market transacted via BtC. Eh, I think in the long run that will be more of a hindrance than a help, as it will give governments in many places a plausible reason to attempt to ban or limit its use (which would tend to lead to a vicious cycle of only criminals-…

> On a more practical level, I can't remember a time my credit card has been refused for local or international transactions (and any additional fees are largely invisible to me, the consumer). Paying with a credit card also carries certain advantages: If the goods aren't delivered, I spend 2 minutes on the phone and get my money back.

I donated to wikileaks. Except I didn't, because the US put pressure on VISA+MC, and reversed my transaction. That whole business convinced me of the need for decentralised currency.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has very limited use as a serious transaction system while there is so much volatility. Prices are therefore pegged to local currencies, and if you want to keep that then it's no longer low cost because conversion to/from local currency costs just as much. The speculation and (eventually) deflationary nature of BTC significantly hinders the chances of it ever stabilising, and therefore a true 'bitcoin economy' eme…

All very good points. The volatility is the greatest hindrance to it being a viable transaction system. I'm hopeful that well functioning derivatives (futures, options, etc) will help to stabilize the price (as is the purpose of a futures market); however, that would rely on the traders having effective forecasts on supply and demand which I view as unlikely. Related to that, I thought of an idea a while ago for a no…

Perhaps this centralized non-profit could exist as a DAO[1] on something like Ethereum. Very hard to shut down a decentralized autonomous "central" bank who's purpose is to issue units of cryptocurrency that is pegged to units of traditional currency.

[1] https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/%5BEnglish%5D-White-Pa...

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#295
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But SR was not exclusively for drug sellers. Most of the business there was drugs, obviously, but some amount of that money would have bought legitimate items. So what gives them the right to sell off that money?

Also, if I understand it correctly, many of those coins were not preallocated to any sale. They were just sitting there to be used in the future. So whether they would be used for drugs or something legal is irrelevant.

The question still remains, what is the legal basis of confiscating the coins?

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how do you judge that peercoin and dogecoin don't work out? They seem to have been the "next big" currency for market cap after BTC and LTC for the last 9 months, which would point in the direction of, at least, inflationary nature not being such a big deal.

They are talked about because Bitcoin is talked about. Their value is ridiculously low compared to BTC's.

Their value is ridiculously low compared to BTC's, but they're also years younger than BTC. We have no basis for saying yet whether they'll work out.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deflation will PREVENT economic activity from surpassing speculative activity. This is the problem with deflation - people hoard instead of spending, which is why it is "generally" believed to be detrimental. It is detrimental. Bitcoin's volatility is a direct result of this feature. >Bitcoin is an experiment that will perhaps disprove it. The hilarious thing is that the experiment already proved it. You want a crypt…

If your theory is correct, people would hoard any resource that is increasing in value relative to something else. Currency deflation is just a special case. It's not entirely clear why "hoarding" is an inherently bad thing either. Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary. It isn't even a fixed supply, it will grow for the foreseeable future. For short periods of time it was deflationary as people speculated that it was…

> Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary.

While the supply will keep growing for quite a while, eventually it will stop growing. And lost coins will ensure that the supply keeps dropping beyond that point. Bitcoin can only avoid being deflationary in the long run if demands drops faster than supply.

> An inflating currency would never catch on.

Like US dollars? Or Euro?

Both of which are not just used where they are legal tender, but are also widely used for international trade, by choice.

> It's a hot potato situation of "I don't actually want to own it because it's decreasing in value. If I do have some, I want to dump it on the next sucker as fast as possible to minimize my losses."

This is an issue if the inflation is rapid. If the inflation is slow and steady, it's a benefit: It means the value of currency that is inactive - because someone put cash in their mattress for example - steadily diminishes, which gives you a reason to ensure your currency holdings are put to use, whether by spending them, investing them, or lending them to someone who will invest them (e.g. in the form of bank deposits). It helps stimulate economic activity.

As long as the rate of inflation is low enough, people are relatively insulated from the negative effects - you won't really notice price changes from day to day or month to month much -, and the yearly inflation can be accommodated when your salary is adjusted.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#298
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is logic. All speculative trading is driven by two motivations, fear and greed. The balance of these two decides the price. Before this announcement the balance was about $650. It means that greedy people think it will go higher than $650, and fearful people think it would go lower. Now comes this announcement. About 30.000 bitcoins wil sometime in July come into the hands of someone who will have paid signific…

Is this good news or bad news for the market? It's bad of course. This is exactly what I meant by "you'll fool yourself into believing things that aren't true." You cannot reason about the price of bitcoin in terms of fundamentals. Not right now; not when the price is a function of a few hundred people (some of whom are maliciously manipulating the market). I've been closely watching how the price of bitcoin reacts t…

    This is exactly what I meant by "you'll fool yourself into believing things that aren't true." You cannot reason about the price of bitcoin in terms of fundamentals.
Wherever there is perceived value, you can reason about fundamentals, it is just how the world works.

    But what fools we were to think our theories mattered back in November, when the price was almost entirely due to Mt. Gox's market manipulation!
You invested in a time of great volatility, and got hurt. That doesn't mean the game is broken. That MtGox manipulated the market is irrelevant. If something appreciates 10x in 3 months, that's volatile and it's your fault for investing when you did not know the full reason behind that volatility.

I don't say "It's bad of course" as some sort of guess, it's pure logical reasoning. I am not saying it is necessary that the balance goes down. Combine the information of the logical effect of this event with the actual effect that lies in the past and you can say that there was a likely relation.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#299
post #290
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the coins were seized on Silk Road servers they didn't belong to anyone at the time but the Silk Road. We can argue the merits of returning the coins to the last previously associated wallets; but I don't think the U.S. Gov has any intention of returning drug money to drug buyers the same way they wouldn't give gun money back to arms buyers.

A very stretched example follows, be warned: An online shop selling clothing also happens to sell firearms illegally. Its assets are seized. What about money from pending orders for the clothing? It seems to me it's obvious in this case. Couldn't SR users start a class action lawsuit against gov for seizing their assets stored on SR servers? This is assuming not everything sold there was illegal (this might be wrong)…

not everything sold here was illegal. However, if I was a SR customer, I would probably not want the gov to know it.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture#United_States "In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the Government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offen…

How is that reasonable?

It's a regular occurrence that people who are probably innocent have property seized under forfeiture laws, and never get the property back. Some of them are never even charged. Others are charged but beat the charges.

It's worse, though. While it's possible to get the property back, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property had no connection to a crime. That's a difficult thing to do.

Post reply on HN