Live data from Hacker News

For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

usmarshals.gov

411–420 of 424 posts

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#411

Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?

As others have pointed out, Ulbricht has not claimed that they are his bitcoins. In fact he would be undermining his own legal defense if he claimed the bitcoins were his, so the government is taking them unopposed. So if he were found innocent, probably part of the basis for finding him innocent would be that he successfully convinced the government that those were NOT his bitcoins.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#412
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroying resources just because criminal touched them seems pointless. Removing financial incentive for abuse seems reasonable, but that does not mean resources should be destroyed. They can be routed to the uses which have no connection with law enforcement and do not provide abuse initiative. US government has so many needs one can surely find one.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't mean physical destruction of real things. I mean auctioning the physical, and then destroying the received money electronically. With a fiat currency, it's not actually destroying anything. I'd rather no one feel it as part of their bottom line, or there will be pressure. Certainly, moving it far from law enforcement would be an improvement, but I think destruction is better.

But why it is better if the same resource could be used to make something good - e.g. build a hospital for the poor or feed some starving people, etc.?

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#413
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't mean physical destruction of real things. I mean auctioning the physical, and then destroying the received money electronically. With a fiat currency, it's not actually destroying anything. I'd rather no one feel it as part of their bottom line, or there will be pressure. Certainly, moving it far from law enforcement would be an improvement, but I think destruction is better.

But why it is better if the same resource could be used to make something good - e.g. build a hospital for the poor or feed some starving people, etc.?

because incentives distort actions. if what is seized is destroyed of value, then there is no longer any motivation to view seized property as some sort of fund raising drive.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#414
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't mean physical destruction of real things. I mean auctioning the physical, and then destroying the received money electronically. With a fiat currency, it's not actually destroying anything. I'd rather no one feel it as part of their bottom line, or there will be pressure. Certainly, moving it far from law enforcement would be an improvement, but I think destruction is better.

But why it is better if the same resource could be used to make something good - e.g. build a hospital for the poor or feed some starving people, etc.?

Because I don't want anyone looking at a spreadsheet and saying, "Oh shoot, we could actually meet our targets if only the police would seize another $10 million..."

Putting that person further away from the police probably improves things, as I said, but better that we just build such hospitals and fund such social programs as we actually need, and not rely on people doing bad things (either the people whose stuff is being confiscated, or the police confiscating property of innocents) to make it happen.

Note again that at this scale cash isn't really a resource - it's a claim on resources. Destroying it doesn't destroy those resources, it releases the claim which winds up sort of distributed over other dollars.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#415
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your theory is correct, people would hoard any resource that is increasing in value relative to something else. Currency deflation is just a special case. It's not entirely clear why "hoarding" is an inherently bad thing either. Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary. It isn't even a fixed supply, it will grow for the foreseeable future. For short periods of time it was deflationary as people speculated that it was…

> Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary. While the supply will keep growing for quite a while, eventually it will stop growing. And lost coins will ensure that the supply keeps dropping beyond that point. Bitcoin can only avoid being deflationary in the long run if demands drops faster than supply. > An inflating currency would never catch on. Like US dollars? Or Euro? Both of which are not just used where they are l…

>While the supply will keep growing for quite a while, eventually it will stop growing. And lost coins will ensure that the supply keeps dropping beyond that point. Bitcoin can only avoid being deflationary in the long run if demands drops faster than supply.

That's a very long time in the future. Some coins may be lost, but not enough to have a significant force on the price.

> An inflating currency would never catch on.

>Like US dollars? Or Euro?

US dollars were backed by gold. I'm not sure about Euros but I believe they were probably initially backed in an established currency.

>This is an issue if the inflation is rapid. If the inflation is slow and steady, it's a benefit: It means the value of currency that is inactive - because someone put cash in their mattress for example - steadily diminishes, which gives you a reason to ensure your currency holdings are put to use, whether by spending them, investing them, or lending them to someone who will invest them (e.g. in the form of bank deposits). It helps stimulate economic activity.

People do save money by putting in the bank. If bitcoin got large enough there would likely be bitcoin banks. There is also nothing preventing people from doing this with other resources. E.g. rich people buying oil rights or something to store their wealth in, just like they hypothetically would with deflating cash. Spending money also isn't inherently good for the economy. See the broken window fallacy. Prices are flexible. If someone takes money out of the economy, prices will just go down by that much to make up for it. Reverse with spending.

>As long as the rate of inflation is low enough, people are relatively insulated from the negative effects - you won't really notice price changes from day to day or month to month much -, and the yearly inflation can be accommodated when your salary is adjusted.

Wages are generally the last price to change in response to inflation. Wages are the least liquid market. (Artificial) inflation hurts the general population to benefit whatever group receives the printed money first, before prices rise.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#416
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your theory is correct, people would hoard any resource that is increasing in value relative to something else. Currency deflation is just a special case. It's not entirely clear why "hoarding" is an inherently bad thing either. Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary. It isn't even a fixed supply, it will grow for the foreseeable future. For short periods of time it was deflationary as people speculated that it was…

>> An inflating currency would never catch on. It's a hot potato situation of "I don't actually want to own it because it's decreasing in value. If I do have some, I want to dump it on the next sucker as fast as possible to minimize my losses." That sounds like a great currency. Not a great asset, or investment, but a great currency, one that is useful as a medium of exchange, not something people can just sit on and…

Why does that matter? And it doesn't matter how great it is if no one wants to use it to begin with because it has no value.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your theory is correct, people would hoard any resource that is increasing in value relative to something else. Currency deflation is just a special case. It's not entirely clear why "hoarding" is an inherently bad thing either. Bitcoin isn't inherently deflationary. It isn't even a fixed supply, it will grow for the foreseeable future. For short periods of time it was deflationary as people speculated that it was…

>If your theory is correct, people would hoard any resource that is increasing in value relative to something else. People do indeed have a tendency to do exactly that. Take gold hoarders, for instance. >An inflating currency would never catch on. It's a hot potato situation of "I don't actually want to own it because it's decreasing in value. If I do have some, I want to dump it on the next sucker as fast as possibl…

>People do indeed have a tendency to do exactly that. Take gold hoarders, for instance.

So then why aren't all rich people hoarding gold and destroying the economy? The argument can be generalized into "any resource deflating is bad", there is nothing special about currency. It would at most be one more resource which is deflating.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#418
post #177
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no conception of how to value the underlying asset They have no conception of how to value the underlying asset because the underlying asset has absolutely no value. Bitcoin is one of the purest scams that has ever been conceived. Even subprime real estate, pets.com stock, dutch Tulip Bulbs etc. had some value. You're buying and selling a hash - a number. It's absolutely worthless. That people are being suckered in…

In all fairness, the paper on which $100 bills are printed is quite worthless as well. I think ever since people have stopped using gold and silver bullion (after arrowheads and knives) as currency items, there has been this consensus that money has the value that people give to it, not the value of its material (or, in BTC's case, immaterial) representations.

In the case of fiat money, it does have value because you have to pay taxes with it and anyone has to accept it for settling debts.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#419
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any remotely plausible definition of "worthless," bitcoins are just as worthless as any representative money, which inclues fiat money (like a USD) and commodity-backed money (like a gold certificate). The US government is a powerful entity that levies taxes and accepts tax payments only in dollars. Gold has various uses in industry and fashion and therefore a certificate entitling one to ownership of gold would…

> The US government is a powerful entity that levies taxes and accepts tax payments only in dollars. Right. That's just a more detailed explanation for why most people are willing to accept USD in exchange for their goods. There are similarly detailed explanations for why people are willing to accept bitcoins. The reasons are different, but they still (obviously) exist. If no reasons existed, then people would not be…

They actually have to at least in some countries, you can't just only accept a made up currency and not legal tender.

Re: For Sale: 29,656.51306529 Bitcoins

#420
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's intriguing to me that no one has pointed out the inherent value of BitCoin: You can commit nearly anonymous transactions over long distances with it. It's value over international currencies is in proportion to the size of the black market transacted via BtC. There are many people out there who don't try to get rich, they simply mine a handful to buy small amounts of drugs on the internet. The "convenience" of t…

I don't understand why people keep trying to frame BTC as some sorts of criminals tool. Fast, nearly anonymous and free long distance transactions are a pretty big deal for non-criminals as well. Did you ever try transferring a bigger amount of money to a country outside the EU and US? You'd be astonished by the fees and timescales involved. Services like Western Union and Moneygram are not just used by criminals.

Fast international money transfer is something that is already handled very well for those that truly need it. I know for a fact that the european central bank handles large volume transactions in a matter of seconds if not less. There is really no reason why traditional banks could not offer significantly shorter processing times for the majority of their services, it is just not in their interest to do so.
Post reply on HN