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

The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

tftc.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 611 posts

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#601

Post by ddtaylor »

vkou wrote: post #345
ddtaylor wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact is that privacy, especially of financial transactions, is becoming illegal. Any technology that allows you to send or spend money anonymously will be attacked by our governments. They won't be allowed. It's probably a bit worse than that. It's not specific to transactions or spending. Eventually any IP talking to another IP without the mandatory metadata to link it to a physical identity will be illegal. R…

> But most of that has been obsoleted by modern cryptography. Except that people are people, and people make mistakes, and it doesn't take a lot of mistakes to fail in your opsec, and then your whole plot unravels.

Criminals are going to get caught all the time, some even want to get caught. The window of opportunity for network forensics to be an important role in that has been closing and continues to as cryptography and technology advances at a blazing speed.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#602

Post by TheGRS »

dataflow wrote: post #444
TheGRS wrote: post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

I think the crucial bit you're missing is that the fundamental disagreement boils down to whether a properly-signed-and-executed warrant ought to be sufficient for the government to get its hands on evidence or otherwise do what it needs to do to deliver justice. To you, he seems to believe Yes, and to him, I think you seem to believe No. Historically, the answer has been Yes, and crypto has fundamentally changed tha…

I'd go a little further to say that he believes the government has the authority to do what it needs to do to catch criminals/terrorists/bad guys. He's much more concerned over whether a method is technically legal than whether or not the government should do said method. Whether its a properly signed warrant is kind of immaterial when there are various ways to get around that requirement legally and with precedent.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#603

Post by TheGRS »

codethief wrote: post #542
TheGRS wrote: post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

> Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Honestly, if I had spent 30 years of my life trying to catch criminals, I would probably believe the same. Just like dermatologists telling everyone to put on sunscreen at all times (because they see skin cancer cases on the daily), criminal prosecutors often l…

Anyone in law enforcement for long enough, and I'd probably say something like 5-10 years on the beat, is enough to make many apathetic to rights and dignities. A sad reality unfortunately. Its the same vein of salespeople who get so caught-up in the hustle they that see everyone and every relationship as a potential transaction. And if I'm being introspective, my own flaw of seeing most systems/laws/social contracts as problems that can be solved with tinkering (they can't).

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#604

Post by TheGRS »

1oooqooq wrote: post #570
TheGRS wrote: post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

your father wasn't a tech guy. he was a cop.

I'd disagree, they're not mutually exclusive.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#605

Post by xp84 »

feoren wrote: post #411
xp84 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> starts being thought of as enabling freedom from oppressive governments and ends up being adopted by criminals - Bitcoin, Tor, etc Yes. Both are real facets of this type of tech. For all the handwringing about "but what if fascism" that we have here in the US, I'm pretty sure 90% of the actual worries American cryptocurrency users have in their hearts is either about tax evasion, money laundering, or using crypto t…

> If someone has made bitcoin transactions to say, donate to EFF, Planned Parenthood or ACLU, I would take a bet of 5 Bitcoin that he isn't going to be imprisoned for that fact in this country. Yes, even though Trump is President. Yet. They want to execute people for being trans in Florida, by separately passing laws that child abusers get executed, and that being trans == child abuse. It's not hyperbolic to worry th…

Nobody thinks that "being trans == child abuse." They do argue that encouraging children to do permanent elective surgeries is child abuse. We don't let them get tattoos and piercings. Some people believe we should also not let them sterilize themselves as minors. Other people don't. But I'll refrain from discussing this off-topic subject further.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#607

Post by tehjoker »

komali2 wrote: post #490
tehjoker wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for an actual physicist being beaten to death because of their views on physics or was the book exaggerating for the sake of the plot and promoted widely in the west because it promoted anticommunism? For what it’s worth I like the show just not that part.

What didn't you like about that part, just the depiction of violence while everyone watched and did nothing? I'll preface with, I am a communist so I have no anti communist tendencies. But, that is what struggle sessions were like, and their most frequent locations were in classrooms, and their most frequent targets were teachers and professors. And they'd often drag in random peasants to watch. I remember one quote…

I knew that there were kids running around acting like gang members, but I was skeptical of the part where the professor was attacked solely for his scientific beliefs and not some kind of social or political belief or action.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#608

Post by feoren »

xp84 wrote: post #605
feoren wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone has made bitcoin transactions to say, donate to EFF, Planned Parenthood or ACLU, I would take a bet of 5 Bitcoin that he isn't going to be imprisoned for that fact in this country. Yes, even though Trump is President. Yet. They want to execute people for being trans in Florida, by separately passing laws that child abusers get executed, and that being trans == child abuse. It's not hyperbolic to worry th…

Nobody thinks that "being trans == child abuse." They do argue that encouraging children to do permanent elective surgeries is child abuse. We don't let them get tattoos and piercings. Some people believe we should also not let them sterilize themselves as minors. Other people don't. But I'll refrain from discussing this off-topic subject further.

Literally every sentence you said is based on lies and misinformation.

> Nobody thinks that "being trans == child abuse."

Yes, they pushed laws that say that "cross dressing" in the presence of a minor should be considered child abuse, and they define "cross dressing" as wearing clothing not appropriate to your birth sex, so a trans woman wearing a dress in public would count as child abuse. In the media they talked about "drag shows" but the bill would have effectively made trans people dressing as their gender a felony.

> We don't let them get tattoos and piercings.

Many ear piercing salons will pierce the ears of children as young as 6. Some infants get their ears pierced. Many children do not even need the consent of their parents to get piercings. Tattoos I'll grant you.

> They do argue that encouraging children to do permanent elective surgeries is child abuse.

Nobody is encouraging children to get permanent elective surgeries. Children are not receiving permanent surgeries. Gender reassignment surgeries are only done on people 18+ except in extreme cases (which apply to both trans- and cis-gendered people), and only after years of other care and treatment. Puberty blockers are not permanent -- that is their entire point. These "drive-through" gender reassignment surgeries are a total fabrication of anti-trans groups.

Many more cis-gendered children receive puberty blockers (e.g. for those entering puberty way too early) and other gender-related care than trans-gendered kids. Conservatives do not argue that children should not receive these surgeries, they only argue that trans children should not receive these surgeries. The exact same care is either classified as legal or illegal depending on whether its purpose is to reaffirm birth sex or not. Nobody is trying to outlaw any of these treatments or care, they are only trying to outlaw its use in trans people. Nobody objects to the care, they object to the existence of trans people.

> Some people believe we should also not let them sterilize themselves as minors.

This is not a thing that happens.

> But I'll refrain from discussing this off-topic subject further.

"Let me just spread complete disinformation, but you're not allowed to reply to any of it, or you're being off-topic, and I refuse to engage with you." This is an extremely bad-faith way to end your post. You are spreading misinformation. Stop it.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#609

Post by moi2388 »

LightBug1 wrote: post #598
moi2388 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every president wants to be in power, or they never would have ran. Fact is you’re fear mongering for no reason. Last time he also just left. There are zero cases of a president staying in office after their terms.

If you're willing - how old are you? Where are you from? What do you do? I'm just really curious how you get to a stage in life firing off this kind, sorry, naive view. The American rule book has well and truly been ripped up and burned ... you just can't seem to see the smouldering embers at your feet ...

I’m curious how you get to a stage in life where you just make up crisis, when all previous cases show this is simply not happening.

He already left once before. I don’t understand how this is news to you.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#610

Post by neutrinobro »

jmyeet wrote: post #580
neutrinobro wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. As per the Coinage Act of 1792, the US dollar was to be equal to exactly 371.25 grains of fine silver.

At no point did the US have enough silver or gold to cover their obligations for all currency in circulation. That’s my point. You can make it worth whatever you want but if you’re not guaranteed to be able to redeem it, you’re calling that currency on something else. That something else is the US military, ultimately.

My comment was directed at your statement "that at no point in history was the US dollar 100% backed by gold (or silver, originally). Never." which is entirely false. The US dollar (the currency unit), was at one point quite literally an exact weight of silver. This is no longer the case, but it was true in the past. This has nothing to do with the nation debt, or what is backing it. Obviously, the national debt isn't collateralized by precious metals or anything else except the military and power to raise taxes.
Post reply on HN