For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins • Hacker News Board

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#341

Post by talmand » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #244

baddox wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's "clearly illegal," the court should have no trouble coming to the correct conclusion. It's no justification for permanent asset forfeiture without a trial.

They're explicitly not selling the Bitcoins seized from his personal wallet(s). They're selling the ones seized from the servers that ran Silk Road. My bet would be that Ulbricht has denied any connection to those servers as part of his defense since claiming to own/control them would make it too easy for the government to prove its case. If, at this point, those servers belong to anyone else, they're free to come fo…

Somehow I doubt that's how it works, or at least I really hope it doesn't work that way. The government seizes something and attempts to sell it off before identifying who it belongs to? Sure, sounds the right way to handle things.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#342

Post by talmand » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:38 PM UTC

ahallock wrote: post #140

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is presumptuous, but that is how civil forfeiture works. Its atrocious. Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

That's disgusting. FTA: 'Many states, facing fiscal crises, have expanded the reach of their forfeiture statutes, and made it easier for law enforcement to use the revenue however they see fit.' How are they any better than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from?

For the departments that choose to go down that road, they are essentially no different. Except that they have the legal might of the state supporting their actions; including use of deadly force.

Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues.

It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#343

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #337

rayiner wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I think civil forfeiture laws are applied without sufficient discretion in drug cases. And it's troubling that they apply not just to illegally-obtained assets, but those that are "instrumentality of a crime." That said, there's an important wrinkle here that you're glossing over, and that is usually glossed over in discussions about civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is not confiscation of your property…

How do they determine the property is the result of illegal activity if the owner of the property has yet to be convicted of illegal activity? That way of thinking opens up our current problems of police seizing everything within grasp during an arrest or traffic stop claiming the property is the result of illegal activity. "Hello, I pulled you over because it's late at night and I'm wondering if you're okay. Oh, you…

Are you asking how the government can prove that the money in Silk Road's accounts are the proceeds of illegal activity? They have digital records all over the place to prove that. The magic of Bitcoin and the internet--where all activity is neatly recorded in server logs with timestamps. They can prove that without proving that Ulbricht is the one that engaged in the illegal activity. Indeed, Ulbricht's contention is precisely that.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#344

Post by maaku » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #309

maaku wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, if the good was completely fungible, risk-free and totally liquid (think cash), there would be no expected discount because of risk.. just transaction cost. How is that not the case here?

In the "not completely fungible" part. It is apparently hard to trade that many bitcoins for the equivalent amount of government-backed currency or goods. To be fair to Bitcoin, it's not the only "currency" with that problem... during the Argentinean crisis, many local governments paid their workers with alternative currencies ("patacones" and others) which rapidly devalued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patac%C3%B3n_…

You're talking about liquidity not fungability. But regardless Bitstamp's 24 hour volume yesterday was 32,799 BTC. Trading that much bitcoin is not really a problem.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#345

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:56 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #343

talmand wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they determine the property is the result of illegal activity if the owner of the property has yet to be convicted of illegal activity? That way of thinking opens up our current problems of police seizing everything within grasp during an arrest or traffic stop claiming the property is the result of illegal activity. "Hello, I pulled you over because it's late at night and I'm wondering if you're okay. Oh, you…

Are you asking how the government can prove that the money in Silk Road's accounts are the proceeds of illegal activity? They have digital records all over the place to prove that. The magic of Bitcoin and the internet--where all activity is neatly recorded in server logs with timestamps. They can prove that without proving that Ulbricht is the one that engaged in the illegal activity. Indeed, Ulbricht's contention i…

[deleted]

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#346

Post by halviti » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 2:57 PM UTC

Rulero wrote: post #289

This is very shocking. So the government makes it illegal to sell narcotics, regardless, some individuals take a risk and deal drugs to be able to sustain themselves or finance a lifestyle of their choice. Now the government start prosecuting someone, seize their assets (Which were turned over through illicit methods) and release this dodgy money back to the market. What's more disturbing about this whole scenario is…

That's a silly analogy.

The government has already stated that bitcoin is property, and they are treating it like any other legal property, selling it just like they would sell seized cars or houses.

You really want bitcoin to be on the same level as illegal narcotics? Why?

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#347

Post by euroclydon » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #331

marme wrote: post #257

What people should be more concerned with is the fact that the government is selling off someone elses property before they have even been convicted of a crime. Dread pirate roberts plead not guilty and has still not had a trial yet. He has not been convicted of any crime so if these are his coins they are selling them before the trial is even finished

Disclaimer: I think civil forfeiture laws are applied without sufficient discretion in drug cases. And it's troubling that they apply not just to illegally-obtained assets, but those that are "instrumentality of a crime." That said, there's an important wrinkle here that you're glossing over, and that is usually glossed over in discussions about civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is not confiscation of your property…

Here is a great NYT piece on how civil forfeiture is abused in one Texas town:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#348

Post by peter-row » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:07 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #337

rayiner wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I think civil forfeiture laws are applied without sufficient discretion in drug cases. And it's troubling that they apply not just to illegally-obtained assets, but those that are "instrumentality of a crime." That said, there's an important wrinkle here that you're glossing over, and that is usually glossed over in discussions about civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is not confiscation of your property…

How do they determine the property is the result of illegal activity if the owner of the property has yet to be convicted of illegal activity? That way of thinking opens up our current problems of police seizing everything within grasp during an arrest or traffic stop claiming the property is the result of illegal activity. "Hello, I pulled you over because it's late at night and I'm wondering if you're okay. Oh, you…

Ideally, if you can convince a court there's a reasonable chance that the property was legally obtained (using income you legally earned), and that it wasn't purchased with the intent to primarily use it for illegal activities.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean you're definitely guilty. But if it seems reasonably likely (to the judge, or better the jury) that something was legitimately purchased for legitimate reasons, it should be yours.

Campervan fitted out as a mobile meth lab? That should get seized. The house your kid sold drugs from, but is your primary place of residence, and you paid for it with legally obtained money? That should be yours.

The problem is, US police forces seem to want to seize anything that's remotely connected with illegal activities, to raise revenue.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#349

Post by drcode » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:07 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #320

tlrobinson wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why?

If you compare to his other comment on this page, I'm pretty sure he's joking, and taking the "this is actually good news" meme to its natural crazy end.

No, I actually am pretty bullish on bitcoin at the moment, though who can say what will really happen.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#350

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:09 PM UTC

Rulero wrote: post #289

This is very shocking. So the government makes it illegal to sell narcotics, regardless, some individuals take a risk and deal drugs to be able to sustain themselves or finance a lifestyle of their choice. Now the government start prosecuting someone, seize their assets (Which were turned over through illicit methods) and release this dodgy money back to the market. What's more disturbing about this whole scenario is…

> Those assets should be "destroyed" - just the way narcotics are destroyed when dealers get caught.

Why? You keep rephrasing the claim that what the government is doing is wrong and then say they ought to be destroying seized assets seized as instrumentalities or proceeds of crime the way they (generally) do seized items that are illegal-in-themselves like narcotics, but you actually don't make any argument for why this is the case.

Why should the government ever destroy property that is legal to own and possess and has value in the market? That seems to be a net loss to society anyway you slice it.