6 ms·

The difference is fundamental in that the "property" still exists outside the control of the government. If a trusted source has access to it, they can still mo

The difference is fundamental in that the "property" still exists outside the control of the government. If a trusted source has access to it, they can still move it. If such thing were to happen, and afterwards you complied, then there would be little grounds to hold you for contempt of court.

klodolph 6y ago
> If such thing were to happen, and afterwards you complied, then there would be little grounds to hold you for contempt of court. The court system is not a computer program you can fool with clever tricks. If you are facing a court order to surrender money or other assets and try to evade it by moving the money around, you are just going to find yourself in deeper trouble. People have tried it before.
- doggosphere 6y ago
  How do you surrender assets you don't have control over? I'm merely pointing out that the differences are not superficial.
  - NationalPark 6y ago
    The point is that the judge won't say, "Aha! You got me!", the judge will say, "Cute trick, now back to jail."
    - doggosphere 6y ago
      What grounds does a judge have to send the person to jail if they complied with the order to decrypt a wallet? There can be any number of reasons the coin was moved: - hacked by some 3rd party - corruption by officers (https://news.bitcoin.com/rogue-silk-road-agent-admits-to-stealing-bitcoins-seized-by-u-s-marshals/ https://news.bitcoin.com/rogue-silk-road-agent-admits-to-ste...) - partner in crime moved them, with or without consent from suspect.
      - thinkloop 6y ago
        That seems fishy tho, you'll probably have to prove that, one of the core pruposes of judges is choosing who to believe, there is no such thing as a 100% fact.
        doggosphere 6y ago
        The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex: Being in the vicinity of a crime when it takes place may make you a suspect (aka "fishy"), but this alone is not enough to prove guilt.
        listenallyall 6y ago
        Buddy there are plenty of people in jail right now based on extremely flimsy evidence such as simply being in the vicinity of a crime. All your comments in the thread are about "proving it," when, at the end of the day, it's up to 12 people in a box, most of whom don't know the first thing about bitcoin. Refusal to decrypt, wife moving Russia, etc... The government is going to make an extremely convincing case, with plenty of witnesses and all the time and money and lawyers they need. Meanwhile you'll be communicating with your defense lawyers from behind bars. You might be right -- maybe they can't prove any ill-intent -- but that's not a gamble with the odds in your favor.
        doggosphere 6y ago
        It very well may be up to a jury (or a judge alone). And they'll hear questions like: - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? The answer is basically no to any of those questions. This is simply because of the nature of crypto and mathematics; a set of seed words allows anyone to restore access on any machine, from anywhere on the planet.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    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 what intent? If the intent is to circumvent the order? That's an additional crime period. It may involve others too, who may also be committing crimes. The intent will link it all back together somehow, and that's what the law will resolve. Crucially, the person supposed to give up coin won't end up with coin, because they are ordered to give it up. If the intent was not to circumvent the order? Someone, somewhere did something with intent, and that intent will boil down to theft from law enforcement, who is entitled to that coin, due to the order. That person would now be a criminal, and on it goes. The person ordered to give up coin still won't end up with it, and someone else is now being hunted down for having stolen coins from law enforcement, who will do whatever it takes to end up with the coins so ordered to them. Put in very simple terms, understanding intent and law can all look like this: Say we find a dead person. Is that a crime? If anyone else, other than the dead person, anywhere, intended that dead person end up dead, yes! It's murder. Could be for hire, vengeful, whatever. Maybe someone was stupid. That's a different intent, and a different crime. Maybe it's manslaughter of some kind. Could be reckless, for example, or negligent. If there was no intent associated with the dead person then there is no crime, and we've just, sadly, got a dead person. Maybe the person stepped in front of a bus. That's suicide. In all cases, there is a dead person. Intent determines whether there are also criminals, what their crime is, and all that other stuff. Make sense?
    - doggosphere 6y ago
      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? Ironically intent is the far harder thing to prove, I have no idea why you chose to base your argument on intent.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    > How do you surrender assets you don't have control over? If you’ve arranged to share control of the Bitcoin wallet with someone else so they can move coins out of it in order to evade a court order, what’s happened is you’ve now conspired with someone else to evade a court order. Say hello to the RICO act, or something like it. Maybe you’ll be spending some time in prison after your assets are seized, and maybe your friend will be too. It’s kind of hard for your friend to claim that they were innocent. There are a lot of tough laws against this stuff which are designed to work against the mob and organized crime. You’re not really inventing something new, you’re just doing old-fashioned mafia stuff, but using computers to do it. The court doesn’t care that you used computers to do it.
    - doggosphere 6y ago
      I am a cyber criminal. One day I get arrested and the court demands I decrypt my wallets. I refuse and get hit with contempt. My wife flees to Russia and moves the coin to another wallet, without my knowledge. Or maybe it was an agreed plan. Who can prove otherwise. Eventually I give up and decrypt the wallets. What are your legal grounds for prosecuting me for this further action? What can you prove? How are you going to prove that I conspired, and that this wasn't my wife going rogue?
      - ddingus 6y ago
        In that scenario, the coins ended up somewhere other than where the court ordered. That didn't just happen. Someone intended it to happen. Investigations and all available means will be used to obtain the coins. That could continue for the remainder of time all involved have here.
        doggosphere 6y ago
        Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but this is now an issue outside the purveyance of the original court order to decrypt. It requires new charges to be laid, evidence to be provided, and due process in reasonable time. My point was the hard physics of it: the assets can be moved, and proving who moved it is very difficult.
  - gmadsen 6y ago
    agreed, most times it is not a technicality that wins. The intent and situation play a strong role in american court systems.

klodolph 6y ago

> If such thing were to happen, and afterwards you complied, then there would be little grounds to hold you for contempt of court. The court system is not a computer program you can fool with clever tricks. If you are facing a court order to surrender money or other assets and try to evade it by moving the money around, you are just going to find yourself in deeper trouble. People have tried it before.

doggosphere 6y ago
How do you surrender assets you don't have control over? I'm merely pointing out that the differences are not superficial.
- NationalPark 6y ago
  The point is that the judge won't say, "Aha! You got me!", the judge will say, "Cute trick, now back to jail."
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    What grounds does a judge have to send the person to jail if they complied with the order to decrypt a wallet? There can be any number of reasons the coin was moved: - hacked by some 3rd party - corruption by officers (https://news.bitcoin.com/rogue-silk-road-agent-admits-to-stealing-bitcoins-seized-by-u-s-marshals/ https://news.bitcoin.com/rogue-silk-road-agent-admits-to-ste...) - partner in crime moved them, with or without consent from suspect.
    - thinkloop 6y ago
      That seems fishy tho, you'll probably have to prove that, one of the core pruposes of judges is choosing who to believe, there is no such thing as a 100% fact.
      - doggosphere 6y ago
        The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex: Being in the vicinity of a crime when it takes place may make you a suspect (aka "fishy"), but this alone is not enough to prove guilt.
        listenallyall 6y ago
        Buddy there are plenty of people in jail right now based on extremely flimsy evidence such as simply being in the vicinity of a crime. All your comments in the thread are about "proving it," when, at the end of the day, it's up to 12 people in a box, most of whom don't know the first thing about bitcoin. Refusal to decrypt, wife moving Russia, etc... The government is going to make an extremely convincing case, with plenty of witnesses and all the time and money and lawyers they need. Meanwhile you'll be communicating with your defense lawyers from behind bars. You might be right -- maybe they can't prove any ill-intent -- but that's not a gamble with the odds in your favor.
        doggosphere 6y ago
        It very well may be up to a jury (or a judge alone). And they'll hear questions like: - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? The answer is basically no to any of those questions. This is simply because of the nature of crypto and mathematics; a set of seed words allows anyone to restore access on any machine, from anywhere on the planet.
- ddingus 6y ago
  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 what intent? If the intent is to circumvent the order? That's an additional crime period. It may involve others too, who may also be committing crimes. The intent will link it all back together somehow, and that's what the law will resolve. Crucially, the person supposed to give up coin won't end up with coin, because they are ordered to give it up. If the intent was not to circumvent the order? Someone, somewhere did something with intent, and that intent will boil down to theft from law enforcement, who is entitled to that coin, due to the order. That person would now be a criminal, and on it goes. The person ordered to give up coin still won't end up with it, and someone else is now being hunted down for having stolen coins from law enforcement, who will do whatever it takes to end up with the coins so ordered to them. Put in very simple terms, understanding intent and law can all look like this: Say we find a dead person. Is that a crime? If anyone else, other than the dead person, anywhere, intended that dead person end up dead, yes! It's murder. Could be for hire, vengeful, whatever. Maybe someone was stupid. That's a different intent, and a different crime. Maybe it's manslaughter of some kind. Could be reckless, for example, or negligent. If there was no intent associated with the dead person then there is no crime, and we've just, sadly, got a dead person. Maybe the person stepped in front of a bus. That's suicide. In all cases, there is a dead person. Intent determines whether there are also criminals, what their crime is, and all that other stuff. Make sense?
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    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? Ironically intent is the far harder thing to prove, I have no idea why you chose to base your argument on intent.
- klodolph 6y ago
  > How do you surrender assets you don't have control over? If you’ve arranged to share control of the Bitcoin wallet with someone else so they can move coins out of it in order to evade a court order, what’s happened is you’ve now conspired with someone else to evade a court order. Say hello to the RICO act, or something like it. Maybe you’ll be spending some time in prison after your assets are seized, and maybe your friend will be too. It’s kind of hard for your friend to claim that they were innocent. There are a lot of tough laws against this stuff which are designed to work against the mob and organized crime. You’re not really inventing something new, you’re just doing old-fashioned mafia stuff, but using computers to do it. The court doesn’t care that you used computers to do it.
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    I am a cyber criminal. One day I get arrested and the court demands I decrypt my wallets. I refuse and get hit with contempt. My wife flees to Russia and moves the coin to another wallet, without my knowledge. Or maybe it was an agreed plan. Who can prove otherwise. Eventually I give up and decrypt the wallets. What are your legal grounds for prosecuting me for this further action? What can you prove? How are you going to prove that I conspired, and that this wasn't my wife going rogue?
    - ddingus 6y ago
      In that scenario, the coins ended up somewhere other than where the court ordered. That didn't just happen. Someone intended it to happen. Investigations and all available means will be used to obtain the coins. That could continue for the remainder of time all involved have here.
      - doggosphere 6y ago
        Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but this is now an issue outside the purveyance of the original court order to decrypt. It requires new charges to be laid, evidence to be provided, and due process in reasonable time. My point was the hard physics of it: the assets can be moved, and proving who moved it is very difficult.
- gmadsen 6y ago
  agreed, most times it is not a technicality that wins. The intent and situation play a strong role in american court systems.