5 ms·

> Are they just planning on destroying the wallet key, kind of like if they just burned a billion in seized cash? Why on earth would they do that? Under US law

> Are they just planning on destroying the wallet key, kind of like if they just burned a billion in seized cash? Why on earth would they do that? Under US law, law enforcement agencies can keep a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any goods they legally seize. This is a massive windfall for them.

gojomo 6y ago
Oddly enough, in the case of other "Anonymity-Enhanced Cryptocurrencies" ("AECs"), the DoJ has taken the position that they'd rather not recirculate them. See <https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1314254265251225600 https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1314254265251225600>, where it's reported: > In most cases, the Department [of Justice] does not liquidate seized or forfeited AECs, as doing so allows them to re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use. So note: if the DoJ auctions these off, it's "good for Bitcoin", as it provides further confirmation they consider them a normal form of property whose legal uses outweight any illegal uses. On the other hand, if they refuse to auction them off, it's also "good for Bitcoin", as it permanently reduces the circulating supply, making all other units incrementally more dear.
- gregrata 6y ago
  I'm sorry - but - HUH? > re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use. Because of course if CASH re-enters the steam of commerce is somehow different?
  - gojomo 6y ago
    I agree it's batty reasoning! For example, what if we assume for a moment that this makes sense from a crime-fighting perspective. That is, the marginal value of future-crime prevented by withholding the cryptocurrency is greater than the value of the crime-fighting that could be financed if it were auctioned off. If true, it would also follow that the DoJ should be buying cryptocurrency on the open market to keep it idle, at least until its price rises such that an equilibrium is reached, where "withhold-from-stream-of-commerce-value" and "spend-on-crime-fighting-value" become roughly equal.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Yeah, let's burn these bad coins, thus reducing the supply and raising the net worth of everyone who invested in them. That'll really teach people for using Monero!
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Asset inflation is less useful for currency. Though it's unclear still what Bitcoin's principle role is. If it's more an asset, then yes, destroying coins is a benefit to current holders.
intricatedetail 6y ago
Sounds like nice stash to fund Contras in some peaceful country.

gojomo 6y ago

Oddly enough, in the case of other "Anonymity-Enhanced Cryptocurrencies" ("AECs"), the DoJ has taken the position that they'd rather not recirculate them. See <https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1314254265251225600 https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1314254265251225600>, where it's reported: > In most cases, the Department [of Justice] does not liquidate seized or forfeited AECs, as doing so allows them to re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use. So note: if the DoJ auctions these off, it's "good for Bitcoin", as it provides further confirmation they consider them a normal form of property whose legal uses outweight any illegal uses. On the other hand, if they refuse to auction them off, it's also "good for Bitcoin", as it permanently reduces the circulating supply, making all other units incrementally more dear.

gregrata 6y ago
I'm sorry - but - HUH? > re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use. Because of course if CASH re-enters the steam of commerce is somehow different?
- gojomo 6y ago
  I agree it's batty reasoning! For example, what if we assume for a moment that this makes sense from a crime-fighting perspective. That is, the marginal value of future-crime prevented by withholding the cryptocurrency is greater than the value of the crime-fighting that could be financed if it were auctioned off. If true, it would also follow that the DoJ should be buying cryptocurrency on the open market to keep it idle, at least until its price rises such that an equilibrium is reached, where "withhold-from-stream-of-commerce-value" and "spend-on-crime-fighting-value" become roughly equal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dcolkitt 6y ago
Yeah, let's burn these bad coins, thus reducing the supply and raising the net worth of everyone who invested in them. That'll really teach people for using Monero!
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Asset inflation is less useful for currency. Though it's unclear still what Bitcoin's principle role is. If it's more an asset, then yes, destroying coins is a benefit to current holders.

intricatedetail 6y ago

Sounds like nice stash to fund Contras in some peaceful country.