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

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#91

Post by sneak »

eyeareque wrote: post #20
ncallaway wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

> a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty

That's exactly what it is. It's truly terrible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#92

Post by stronglikedan »

DickingAround wrote: post #86

What's sad is that this was half the point of bitcoins; they can't be easily seized. I hope the other DPRs are smart enough to have a system which moves their coins before the gov breaks the encryption on the wallets they seize in person.

I could see this with physical bitcoins, but the fact that these are virtual bitcoins is certainly worrisome.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#96

Post by pmorici »

pingec wrote: post #93

This guy calls it BS. Any thoughts? http://trilema.com/2014/the-united-states-scammers-service-f...

Looks like a crazy rant to me. This is the same process they used to sell a related stash of Bitcoin earlier this year. The winner of that auction was Tim Draper.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#97

Post by gwern »

pimlottc wrote: post #55

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...

That was the sale of the Silk Road 1 server's bitcoins - the bitcoins SR1 users had actually in the site, either deposited because they intended to buy something, locked up in escrow as part of an in-flight order, or not yet withdrawn by a seller.

This is Ross Ulbricht's personal bitcoins on his laptop and backup drives.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#98

Post by pmorici »

wmf wrote: post #94
pingec wrote: post #93

This guy calls it BS. Any thoughts? http://trilema.com/2014/the-united-states-scammers-service-f...

It does seem odd that they don't release the name or price of the winning bid.

Well the winner of the first auction came forward voluntarily so it isn't like it was a mystery.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#99

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

sneak wrote: post #87
EpicEng wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?

The "US Marshalls" part.

considering there is no "US Marshalls" part, and the Government was only referenced as "the Government".... you're an idiot.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#100

Post by Alupis »

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.

they could also possibly go up in value.

does the government do the same with securities/stock owned too?

Post reply on HN