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

Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#41

Post by MCRed »

anigbrowl wrote: post #12
MCRed wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon). The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it. The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the momen…

So you don't think money transmission is a commercial activity? this will come as new to banks, Western Union etc.

If you wish to engage in debate, make an argument that gets to a point, rather than a snide comment based on dishonestly characterizing my position.

EG: ad hominem

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#42

Post by beaner »

codeshaman wrote: post #23

I'd argue that Bitcoin owns it's meteoric rise to SilkRoad and drugs in general. Many people 'got into' bitcoin in order to be able to purchase stuff on SilkRoad or similar. I know I'm one of them and I'm really thankful for those 3 hits of acid which cost me 3.3 BTC at the time. The transaction worked so I've decided to invest a lot more in Bitcoin. Up to this day I'm living off that investment and able to work on m…

Bitcoin owns its meteoric rise to the fact that it provides real value that other currencies can't - partly, that it's pseudonymous and doesn't require going through a 3rd party like a bank.

Silk road was just a demonstration of these practical attributes in the real world. It helped to add some demand for the currency, but not a majority of it. Mostly, it bolstered public awareness. At the same time it was being used on SR, it was being widely derided by the majority of the media as only having one specific illegal purpose and should be shut down for that reason, causing others who may have taken a look out of interest to write it off completely. You could argue that the effect of SR was neutral, if not negative.

Bitcoin was being traded before SR and it's being traded after. The most recent big bubble happened partly as a result of SR actually collapsing. The day it went down, the price dipped from ~$125 to ~$85 and it was back up in about a week.

Combined with the government hearings at the time, the facts that bitcoin were (1) legal to use, and (2) still had value outside of drug trade, made it explode.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#43

Post by nicobn »

MCRed wrote: post #39
nicobn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The essence of your legal theory is that "There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange." I guess it can be argued that the Section 8 clauses 5 and 6 do not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate the exchange of money. Nevertheless, the currently accepted interpretation of the Commerce Clause pretty much settles the question [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.or…

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Section 8, clause 5: Defines the weight of money. Section 8, clause 6: Allows for the punishment of counterfeiting. Neither of these have anything to do with trading money between people. I think that i…

I'm glad that you can cite the constitution. Maybe you should also have cited clause 3: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions as applicable to the instruments of commerce, even in intrastate commerce.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#44

Post by gamblor956 »

MCRed wrote: post #7
meowface wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people decide to change the law. If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't. Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.

There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon). The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it. The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the momen…

Simply stating that the Commerce Clause and the Coinage Clause are dead letter law not intended to regulate the exchange of money doesn't make it true. Your interpretation of the law disagrees with more than 200 years of legal consensus on the federal government's power to regulate money exchange within the U.S.--including those of the Founding Fathers themselves.

Counterfeiting has a long and sordid history, and was very much a problem when the Constitution was written. It was, in fact, one of (but not the only) impetuses for the Coinage Clause. See http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer07/counterfe.... There are plenty of other sources to support this, though this is the only one I found online in my 30 second search. If you want more sources, you're free to visit a library yourself.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#45

Post by anigbrowl »

MCRed wrote: post #41
anigbrowl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't think money transmission is a commercial activity? this will come as new to banks, Western Union etc.

If you wish to engage in debate, make an argument that gets to a point, rather than a snide comment based on dishonestly characterizing my position. EG: ad hominem

I don't see why you think it's a dishonest characterization. You don't think the regulation of money exchange is constitutional, I think it is because it's a commercial activity and the commerce clause of the constitution empowers Congress to legislate on such things - it's one of the enumerated powers, as popposed to being inferred by courts. As I'm sure you're aware of the commerce clause the only logical basis I can see for your position is if you don't think money exchange is a commercial activity.

Also ad hominem means something other than what you seem to think it means. That's when you dismiss someone's argument by saying there's something bad about the person making the argument, eg 'ignore what Alice said because she's a communist.'

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#46

Post by anigbrowl »

patio11 wrote: post #21
anigbrowl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I didn't mean it was hubristic being the compliance officer! I meant shoveling all the BTC around while knowing he didn't have even a figleaf of deniability (eg blaming an internal miscommunication with someone else who was in charge of compliance). He had to know it was enormously risky.

Oh, my bad. Yep, total agreement. Did you read the complaint? Comedy gold abounded.

Not yet but I will now :D

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#47

Post by etchalon »

MCRed wrote: post #35
etchalon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution granted the Federal Government limited powers. But included in those powers is the power to self-define and self-regulate. Thus, should the legislature pass a law, and should the Supreme Court uphold that law, it is deemed Constitutional by the body specifically-empowered to make that determination. The Money Laundering Control Act made the laundering of money a crime. It was passed by the Legislativ…

In order to rebut what I said, you would need to show where the federal government is given this power in the enumerated powers clause. You have not. What you have merely done is engage, effectively in ad hominem along with a string of irrelevant assertions that to an in unformed, or unthinking reader might sound like an argument. And of course, in grand hacker news tradition, downvote me so that people cannot see my…

I think you got down voted because what you said is provably idiotic.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#48

Post by etchalon »

MCRed wrote: post #38
etchalon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution granted the Federal Government limited powers. But included in those powers is the power to self-define and self-regulate. Thus, should the legislature pass a law, and should the Supreme Court uphold that law, it is deemed Constitutional by the body specifically-empowered to make that determination. The Money Laundering Control Act made the laundering of money a crime. It was passed by the Legislativ…

PS- you're using the term "money laundering" wrong. The same way that anyone the government doesn't like is labeled a terrorist, perfectly legal and innocent activities not associated with any crime are called "money laundering" under this law. This is how propaganda is used to cause people to tell lies without even realizing it. When you pay your credit card off from your checking account, but took money from your s…

No. Not even a little bit.

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#49

Post by [deleted] »

MCRed wrote: post #35
etchalon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution granted the Federal Government limited powers. But included in those powers is the power to self-define and self-regulate. Thus, should the legislature pass a law, and should the Supreme Court uphold that law, it is deemed Constitutional by the body specifically-empowered to make that determination. The Money Laundering Control Act made the laundering of money a crime. It was passed by the Legislativ…

In order to rebut what I said, you would need to show where the federal government is given this power in the enumerated powers clause. You have not. What you have merely done is engage, effectively in ad hominem along with a string of irrelevant assertions that to an in unformed, or unthinking reader might sound like an argument. And of course, in grand hacker news tradition, downvote me so that people cannot see my…

[deleted]

Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals

#50

Post by etchalon »

MCRed wrote: post #37
meowface wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I am responding to a completely different point because I didn't really want to argue about what kind of powers are and aren't granted to the federal government by the Constitution. etchalon did a great job at that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8277608 Ignoring the legal system and the Constitution entirely though (purely for the sake of argument), it makes practical sense that for offenses that…

It's sad that you don't care about the quality of arguments or what the truth is. You just seem to care about what fits your ideology, which I'm sorry to say is fascist. (I await the time that another term is coined for this ideology so that I can stop using that one which people presume is a cheap insult rather than a precise description of an ostensible capitals society where the government has unlimited regulatory…

I don't think you understand what "fascist" means.

I'm not entirely sure you know what "truth" means either.

Post reply on HN