3 ms·

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

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.
- ddingus 6y ago
  I chose that argument because that was most germane to the discussion at hand. You are quite correct in that a conviction requires more than intent. However, intent is what differentiates crimes and it's an important part of any discussion of this kind. You will note successful prosecutions can happen sans explicit proof of acts. There is a solid case against that, but we all know it can, does, will continue to happen. Finally! In more abstract scenarios like this, I wager intent will carry considerable weight too, and it will due to the lack of physicality.
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    Right, so going back to our original discussion: How does the prosecution prove my intent to circumvent compliance orders? How do they prove that I moved the coins, or prove that I ordered the moving of the coins? Without evidence, this is quite impossible.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      The coins moved. That doesn't just happen. There will be more orders. Who had access to the wallet, etc... Wiretaps, observation, all of it is part of the game now. In short, investigation will continue, as well all available means and methods applied to better understand who moved the coins and why they were moved. That is likely to be an expensive, potentially freedom limiting, time. Being unable to prove it NOW doesn't mean forever being unable to prove things. Good luck with that game. It's very difficult, time consuming, dangerous, and expensive to play. Your opponents are willing to play hard indefinitely. Best not benefit from the moved coins in the future. Both implication and deduction are available legal means too. Remember that part.
      - doggosphere 6y ago
        Yes, evading the law would be work. But none of these options are possible if it was an account in a bank.

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.

ddingus 6y ago
I chose that argument because that was most germane to the discussion at hand. You are quite correct in that a conviction requires more than intent. However, intent is what differentiates crimes and it's an important part of any discussion of this kind. You will note successful prosecutions can happen sans explicit proof of acts. There is a solid case against that, but we all know it can, does, will continue to happen. Finally! In more abstract scenarios like this, I wager intent will carry considerable weight too, and it will due to the lack of physicality.
- doggosphere 6y ago
  Right, so going back to our original discussion: How does the prosecution prove my intent to circumvent compliance orders? How do they prove that I moved the coins, or prove that I ordered the moving of the coins? Without evidence, this is quite impossible.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    The coins moved. That doesn't just happen. There will be more orders. Who had access to the wallet, etc... Wiretaps, observation, all of it is part of the game now. In short, investigation will continue, as well all available means and methods applied to better understand who moved the coins and why they were moved. That is likely to be an expensive, potentially freedom limiting, time. Being unable to prove it NOW doesn't mean forever being unable to prove things. Good luck with that game. It's very difficult, time consuming, dangerous, and expensive to play. Your opponents are willing to play hard indefinitely. Best not benefit from the moved coins in the future. Both implication and deduction are available legal means too. Remember that part.
    - doggosphere 6y ago
      Yes, evading the law would be work. But none of these options are possible if it was an account in a bank.