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

For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

usmarshals.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#51

Post by desdiv »

whyenot wrote: post #36
giodamelio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is this. The government found a bunch of bitcoins on a computer that may or may not have belonged to Ross Ulbricht, so they asked him "Are all these bitcoins yours?". Ross can't say that they are without admitting his guilt, so the government auctions them off.

Your understanding is wrong. From the order: WHEREAS, on or about December 12, 2013, Ulbricht filed a timely verified claim in this proceeding, asserting an ownership interest in the Computer Hardware Bitcoins

To add to that, Ulbricht voluntarily agreed to this sale:

WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings;

WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#52

Post by rmxt »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #34
eyeareque wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.

Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally. While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others. Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's r…

What a terribly defeatist attitude. Of course it's easiest on the conscience to defend the morally upstanding members of society, but legal practice is (or should be) continuously reevaluated and updated to fit with current societal norms, without respect to savoriness of those whom would benefit in the current situation in question. Asset forfeiture has real and valid uses, and DPR's case may or may not be one of them. But to completely dismiss the discussion of the overreaches of the use of asset forfeiture throughout the US because DPR's case is "easy" seems like a cop out.

Your rationalization appears to boil down to "the status quo is the status quo, so we shouldn't bother trying to change it."

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#53

Post by smokeyj »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #34
eyeareque wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.

Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally. While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others. Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's r…

Not to dismiss the noble courts of sillysaurus, but I'd like to see Ross convicted in the court of law. With due process and all that jazz.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#57

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dragonwriter wrote: post #33
tedunangst wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is clearly in Ross's interests to permit the sale. He's not DPR, remember? So these aren't his bitcoins and he therefore doesn't care what happens to them.

Actually, these bitcoins are ones that Ulbricht claims are his, not the (much larger) set of bitcoins that weren't on his personal hardware which were linked to DPR which he did not claim (and which were the subject of an earlier sale.)

How does he claim to have acquired them, or has he not made any statement on that yet?

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#58

Post by yarou »

smokeyj wrote: post #53
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally. While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others. Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's r…

Not to dismiss the noble courts of sillysaurus, but I'd like to see Ross convicted in the court of law . With due process and all that jazz.

It seems like he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#59

Post by kordless »

stronglikedan wrote: post #41
whyenot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to…

So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.

A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#60

Post by mod »

stronglikedan wrote: post #41
whyenot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to…

So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.

@kordless:

It says they agree. Doesn't sound forced.

Post reply on HN