361–370 of 424 posts
Also, is it possible to use these bitcoins in a transaction, or would you simply be paying for the still-encrypted wallet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with the man accused of being DPR. This is like the police showing up to a drug deal and both the buyer and supplier scattering and miraculously getting away. The police then take the coccaine and cash onto a giant podium and ask "This belong to anyone? No? We're going to claim it if no one does." Now it is legitimately government property.
Except for that people are claiming ownership of some of the SR funds. There was an article posted here recently about a guy in the UK trying to recover his Silk Road funds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)…
Everybody who used Silk Road knew that the site was illegal, and everybody who used Silk Road willfully paid a commission to Ross. IANAL, but even if you only bought legal goods from Silk Road, you were still aiding and abetting a drug market.
I'm not sure that I like the sort of thinking that would put those two words together, ever.
It would appear as though you think it possible that a flea market should be responsible for the conduct of its buyers and sellers, or that a public bulletin board be responsible for all material posted there.
I dislike the idea that a government that nominally prohibits itself from abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or peaceful assembly could ever declare an information service operating over the Internet to be "illegal", seize all of its assets, shut it down, and then sell off whatever it seized, all without ever establishing any crime or criminal intent to the public.
By the same reasoning that led to the seizure and shutdown of Silk Road, since some drug dealers arrange sales with mobile phones, the antennas and backhaul used by the likes of Verizon, Sprint, AT&T et al should be seized, the phone networks shut down, and the equipment auctioned off, all for facilitating prohibited activities.
Whether people knew they were committing crimes or not, the site itself was little more than a warehouse building filled with unmonitored flea market stalls, and a common cashier. While the intent of establishing the market was undoubtedly to facilitate commerce in crime and contraband, we still have some expectation that crimes be prosecuted to conviction prior to the application of punishments.
What, then, has Silk Road been convicted of? Maintaining a public nuisance?
In any sane society, the police would use Silk Road, posing as ordinary customers to collect evidence of crimes, and then prosecute the people that committed them individually. That probably would have eventually resulted in Silk Road becoming more like the semi-legit flea market of Bitcoin, like eBay is for PayPal. What they actually did showed that their actions were targeted at Bitcoin rather than at the drugs. At the time, they did not want Bitcoin to have a common marketplace for goods of any kind, whether contraband or not, and moved to destroy it utterly using the drugs as pretext.
If you only bought legal goods from Silk Road, you were not doing anything more than threatening dollar hegemony. And that is why you lost your Bitcoin. Innocent of any crime (except possibly something related to taxes), you suffered a loss, thanks to people trying to enforce one law by breaking another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They did it because they had the capability. Civil forfeiture is an absolute perversion of the justice system, and is a direct contributor to police corruption. The damage it causes to the integrity of our rule of law is far greater than any deterrent effect it may have upon crimes.
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…
If you are a cab driver and you have a client that you know is riding your cab to perform illegal trade. Does the police have right to seize your fare?
Isn't that something court should determine?
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)…
(Of course in practice what you'd do is a credit card chargeback - but bitcoin is specifically designed to make that impossible. If you choose to send an irreversible "currency" to an anonymous recipient, frankly you deserve what you get)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question still remains, what is the legal basis of confiscating the coins?
Imagine you hand your local crack dealer a wad of cash to hold for you temporarily. The crack dealer adds it to his bigger wad of cash and promptly gets busted. The drugs and money he's holding are seized. That's what happened here. Would you expect the government to return your wad of cash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have room in this margin (actually, mental-bandwidth constrained right now) but the gist is 1) mechanisms to expand and contract the supply of money in circulation, in response to 2) mechanisms to determine whether money is over- or undervalued. A number of methods for the former should spring to mind. For the latter, my thought is that you add a type of mined block that contains proof of an outstanding bid a…
thanks. This is interesting - you should write it up as a formal algorithm and publish it, so that it could get some eyeballs.
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