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

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#111

Post by pcthrowaway »

dustcoin wrote: post #47
dkyc wrote: post #24

Earlier 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...

Nothing in that article states that the coins were sold above market price. The only publicly known data points were some significantly below-market bids (<$500 when the market price was ~$600) that did not win.

There were some public statements by executives at several bitcoin exchanges who revealed their losing bids, and they were close to (but below) market price, so it's not unthinkable that the winning bids were for market price or above.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#112

Post by MichaelGG »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #48
foobarqux wrote: post #45

Earlier 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.

It's a lot less fair when your assets are seized (in general, not just the SR case). In fact, wasn't that part of the whole reason people accept seizure laws?

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#114

Post by jnaglick »

duskwuff wrote: post #108
stronglikedan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tangent: Does anyone know if it's standard practice for these sorts of arrangements to be made if other goods become part of forfeiture proceedings? (For instance, shares of a volatile mutual fund. Or, to take it out of the financial realm entirely, a truckload of perishable vegetables.)

I would guess that there has never been a case of a criminal investing their ill-gotten gains into "a truckload of perishable vegetables."

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#116

Post by tedunangst »

Alupis wrote: post #100
stronglikedan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Marshals Service manages various types of assets, including real estate, vehicles, commercial businesses, cash, financial instruments, jewelry, art, antiques, collectibles, vessels and aircraft.

The agency uses practices from private industry to ensure that assets are managed and sold in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#117

Post by jaxx456 »

Aaronneyer wrote: post #3

Will be interesting to see how this announcement effects the price of bitcoins. I would imagine there will be an initial drop out of panic, but if we see some wealthy individuals with a vested interest in bitcoin buying these up, it could very much cause a large shift upwards in price.

I wonder if the people who were interested in this kind of thing before would be interested in buying bulk bitcoin again. Seems like it's all free money.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#120

Post by virtue3 »

EpicEng wrote: post #105
sneak wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "US Marshalls" part.

So, in other words, only your own biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is evil?

So, in other words, only _your_ _own_ biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is _for_the_greater_good_?

Your argument is just shallow and not very constructive and having it reversed should make that somewhat apparent.

Personally, the general consensus around these parts is that DPR was brought down with illegal methods by the FBI and then having the actual disclosure being horse shit (aka parallel construction). So yes, blindly trusting that the government is doing anything in good faith around this case is going to be pretty rare.

Post reply on HN