How does this relate to the previous auction of approx. 30,000 seized bitcoins back in June? http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-one-auction-bidder-claim...
[deleted]
For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
61–70 of 141 posts
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#62Earlier 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 much twisting is required when you state "There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally."
You could make your case without statements like that.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...
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.
Most legal activity (though not necessarily all) will involve paperwork and receipts, not least for the purposes of documenting your taxable income.
Civil forfeiture is often (though not always) used to clear up the legal status of assets found abandoned during a criminal investigation, eg if the DEA interrupts a drug bust and the buyers flee, leaving a few hundred thousand in cash behind. You could turn up to such a hearing and assert a legal claim to such assets along with an explanation of why they should not be forfeit, but if the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity then it's not worth it unless you have a truly outstanding cover story because you'd risk arrest or having the testimony at the hearing turn up in your criminal case.
IIRC in this case the feds got the bitcoin wallet information by seizing the Silk Road server, so they have a wholly reasonable presumption that the bitcoins are the assets of the (obviously illegal) drug brokerage business and probably a transaction log to back up this presumption.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#64Earlier 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…
[deleted]
I think his point is more that Ulbricht's assets aren't being treated any differently than other suspected-criminals. Asset forfeiture may be bad, but it's not being applied uniquely to Ulbricht. So if you want to change how asset forfeiture works, you should probably pick a more noble champion for the cause.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#65Earlier 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.
Apparently we're not going to have a rational debate about this topic, which is unfortunate. For example, my comment had nothing to do with whether Ulbrict was convicted. It was strictly about asset forfeiture, which is a completely separate concept from having a trial. But of course a sarcastic one-liner is the most upvoted rebuttal.
Ulbrict is being given due process. He is also being given a fair trial. My observation is simply that there's no logical way he could have earned 50,000 BTC except by being an early miner or by running Silkroad, and apparently he wasn't an early miner.
Why is that important? Because if you're trying to change asset forfeiture, choosing which case to fight and who to defend is extraordinarily important. Let's say that the supreme court decides to reevaluate asset forfeiture, and let's say you've chosen Ulbrict as the case for them to reevaluate. Why give them more reasons to say "Our finding is that asset forfeiture is a legal and valid practice, and should not change"? By choosing Ulbrict, you aren't helping your cause.
A verdict like that will settle the debate of asset forfeiture for decades to come, so why risk such a crucial outcome so whimsically?
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be comparable to saying that he should get a fair trial, even if everyone "knows" he's guilty.
Not really. Asset forfeiture has nothing to do with a fair trial. Those are two separate concepts under the US legal system. Also, he is getting a fair trial.
Asset forfeiture against property is part of civil law and as such is still subject to the concept of a fair trial, even if in practice it often is not. The bar for conviction is lower but the process is still supposed to be considering what is fair. Just because it is civil law does not exempt it from that basic legal principle.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#67Earlier 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…
unless you can convince the supreme court justices to turn against asset forfeiture, the practice will not change
Not true at all. In fact the solution is infuriatingly obvious. Require a warrant for all civil forfeitures. The proponents say it's for taking down assets of cartels (and probably alleged purveyors of black markets like in this case) so warrant is easy to get. This would prevent cops rolling average citizens on routine traffic stops so they can finance margarita machines with "pennies from heaven".
A reform like this should be an easy bi-partisan sell to congress. If they can't do it at the Federal level any pol that campaigned as a libertarian or champion of small government should be pushing for this in state legislatures.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#68For scale, this is not even a day's worth of normal transactions. Yesterday about 177000 BTC was sent across the network, and that wasn't a big day.
A lot more than 177k BTC changed hands yesterday. You don't see it on the block chain because most of it is transacted off-chain: 788k BTC were sold and bought on Bitcoin exchanges in the last 24 hours - http://bitcoinity.org/markets/list?currency=ALL&span=24h So 50k BTC is really nothing (~6%) compared to what the market usually handles every day.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time the US auctioned off bitcoins, the price was above market price [0]. A VC wanted to buy a large chunk of bitcoins for a company he invests in without driving up the price. [0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/bitcoin-auction-end...
I don't see anywhere in your cited article that says the coins were purchased for more than market price. Can you point it out for me? Additionally, if you were a rational investor who believed the coins were worth above market price, why would you not additionally buy up any coins on the market that were selling below that price? Ultimately, bidding up the market price to whatever the "above-market" bid was.
For a rational investor it would make sense to bid above "market" price. There are many markets, and those markets have a limited volume of coin to sell. Buying 30k coins would have a big effect on the price of any single market.
Bitstamp, which says "world's leading bitcoin exchange" about itself can't sell you 30k coins right now. Oh, and bitcoin exchanges have a history of.. let's call it.. problems.
A rational investor who wants to buy a large volume of coins would certainly bid above "market" price for coins handled by a reputable seller.
Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins
#70I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea bargin or something similar?
Civil forfeiture is one of the scariest areas of our legal system. The government essentially files a civil lawsuit against your property, and it then it's on you to get it back (the case titles are actually things like "USA vs. $25,000 US Currency"). This ability has created perverse consequences, such as turning police into nothing more than a band of highway robbers [1]. It's also used in drug cases, like DPR's, because it's far easier to obtain a civil judgment than a criminal one. He could be found not guilty on all counts, and still lose all of the money that this sale generates (he agreed to the sale of the coins in hopes of beating the civil forfeiture that will come later, but he has little chance of that).
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to...