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

U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 369 posts

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#231

Post by adrianmonk »

gamblor956 wrote: post #109
curiousllama wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it sounds silly but it’s legit. Tons of stories of people driving out to buy a car, getting pulled over, having $10k seized without being charged with a crime, and then having to sue to get it back under a presumption of guilt. Bitcoin is harder to seize under civil asset forfeiture. ETA: in the US. Not sure about other countries.

Or they could have just used a bank account. More people have lost money to Bitcoin scams and exchange fraud (see e.g. Mt Gox) than have lost their money to civil forfeiture. Depending on the price of Bitcoin, but (based on the current price of Bitcoin) more $$$ has been lost to crypto fraud as well.

Some people can, but there are people who can't use a bank account. There are a surprising number of people who can't or don't.

One reason is that banks will refuse to open an account for people whose records show past behavior they don't like (bouncing checks, overdrawing accounts, leaving fees unpaid, etc.).

Some other people could open a bank account but have practical reasons not to. For example, identity theft. Someone drained all your accounts, but you still have a good-paying job. If you open another account, maybe they will drain that one too? Maybe not a good risk to take when you're trying to stabilize your situation.

Another example, probably more common, is poor people who have court judgments against them from people they owe money to. You have medical debt, or you got evicted and owe back rent, or you messed up withholding and you owe the IRS back taxes. You might be living so close to the brink that your monthly income is $1500 and you need $1499 to survive. The court lets the creditor garnish money from your account, so one day you check the balance and find $500 gone, and you can't pay your rent or buy gas to drive to work. So you prevent that scenario by dealing entirely in cash and not opening an account.

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#232

Post by gamblor956 »

lixtra wrote: post #216
gamblor956 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even remotely the same thing. Lehmann Bros was an investment bank, meaning that the value of accounts was tied to the value of the securities investments contained therein, and Lehmann engaged in trading activity on behalf of those account holders. (And note: by 2013, all of Lehman's account holders had been made whole for their losses https://www.ft.com/content/f06762de-cf94-11e2-a050-00144feab... ) Savings acco…

> Not even remotely the same thing. Well, Mt. Gox and Bitcoin? Not even remotely the same thing.

Right, because Mt Gox was purporting to be a bank where you could store your Bitcoin, when it actuality it did not have sufficient crypto to pay out depositors as a result of many hacks and other shenanigans perpetrated by their own employees or contractors and it was openly lying to customers. (By the time of the fatal "hack," Mt Gox was already insolvent.)

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#233

Post by pc86 »

flattone wrote: post #211
flattone wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

u just learned that the us is even a trader of bitcoin at all. you say this not referring to a seizure, right?

Ok HN what the f is happening. Why are people minusing a question? like.. can i just know what is even wrong here?

Poor formatting/spelling/punctuation/readability. "u just learned that the us is even a trader of bitcoin at all" - how do you know what aazaa knew or didn't know prior to commenting?

In general just an incredibly low effort/value comment.

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#235

Post by carlmr »

doggosphere wrote: post #135
dralley wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not nearly as much" is quite an understatement. The factor is something like 350,000x more energy required for a bitcoin transaction vs. a transaction on the traditional banking network.

Citation?

I didn't post it, but statista [1] says it's 741kWh for one bitcoin transaction vs. 149kWh for 100.000 visa transactions.

That's a factor of 741/149 * 100,000 ≈ 497,000.

Of course visa is not the whole banking system, but it seems as it would be roughly comparable.

What I find horrific about this is that you can power your apartment for a year for the energy consumption of two bitcoin transactions.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-co...

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#236

Post by ddingus »

doggosphere wrote: post #225
ddingus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't superficial. You aren't wrong in that assessment. But, you are ignoring how law works. Here's a little bit about that: Criminal law is all about intent. So, here's an example of the non superficial elements here: Say, one gets the "gimme your coin" order, says no, goes to jail. While in jail, the coins move, OK? Person in jail cries, "Uncle!" and gives up the wallet. Authorities find it empty. Who had wha…

You're ignoring how prosecution works. Intent alone does not prove anything, you need proof of act (actus reus to the mens rea). To play along with your analogy; do you have proof that someone killed someone else? Even if you have a damning confession letter which proves intent. Do you have a murder weapon? Evidence that puts the person at the scene of the crime? Circumstantial evidence like phone location data? Iron…

I chose that argument because that was most germane to the discussion at hand.

You are quite correct in that a conviction requires more than intent.

However, intent is what differentiates crimes and it's an important part of any discussion of this kind.

You will note successful prosecutions can happen sans explicit proof of acts.

There is a solid case against that, but we all know it can, does, will continue to happen.

Finally! In more abstract scenarios like this, I wager intent will carry considerable weight too, and it will due to the lack of physicality.

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#237

Post by doggosphere »

gamblor956 wrote: post #222
doggosphere wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you're assuming the legal system is the same everywhere in the world as the US. Let assume the person is in China. Or Venezuela.

In China or Venezuela, if your bank account is seized by the government, it's because you're already in prison, so not having access to money will be the least of your concerns. Rather, you will be worried about whether you'll ever get to leave prison, or more immediately, what form of mistreatment you will receive from the guards and whether the rest of your family was rounded up as accomplices for whatever alleged…

And amongst that, the property remains out the hands of the government.

Perhaps it will be one day be moved and utilized by family descendants, whom have had time to find themselves in safer conditions.

That's the difference.

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#238

Post by mellosouls »

flattone wrote: post #211
flattone wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

u just learned that the us is even a trader of bitcoin at all. you say this not referring to a seizure, right?

Ok HN what the f is happening. Why are people minusing a question? like.. can i just know what is even wrong here?

I don't know why you have been down-voted but candidate possibilities include the first sentence being read as snarky (even if it wasn't the intention) and using "u" for "you" in a forum where a more mature* form of expression is the norm.

* I don't intend snark either but I'm not sure how to put it politely...

Re: U.S. Feds Seized Nearly $1B in Bitcoin from Wallet Linked to Silk Road

#239

Post by doggosphere »

ddingus wrote: post #236
doggosphere wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring how prosecution works. Intent alone does not prove anything, you need proof of act (actus reus to the mens rea). To play along with your analogy; do you have proof that someone killed someone else? Even if you have a damning confession letter which proves intent. Do you have a murder weapon? Evidence that puts the person at the scene of the crime? Circumstantial evidence like phone location data? Iron…

I chose that argument because that was most germane to the discussion at hand. You are quite correct in that a conviction requires more than intent. However, intent is what differentiates crimes and it's an important part of any discussion of this kind. You will note successful prosecutions can happen sans explicit proof of acts. There is a solid case against that, but we all know it can, does, will continue to happe…

Right, so going back to our original discussion:

How does the prosecution prove my intent to circumvent compliance orders? How do they prove that I moved the coins, or prove that I ordered the moving of the coins?

Without evidence, this is quite impossible.

Post reply on HN