4 ms·

This is "seizure" in the sense that the ill gotten contents of the wallet now legally belong to the government, not in any kind of "digital possession, who can

by jws 6y ago

This is "seizure" in the sense that the ill gotten contents of the wallet now legally belong to the government, not in any kind of "digital possession, who can own a number", philosophical discussion. The government can't liquidate the asset without the private key, but it is their asset now. If the original fraudster (or anyone else) accessed the assets it would be some variant of theft.

ur-whale 6y ago
> it would be some variant of theft. As long as the person who knows the key remains within the jurisdiction of the "owner".
- gus_massa 6y ago
  There are extraditions treaties. He can claim that someone else hacked his account, but I guess the judge will not believe this.
  - ur-whale 6y ago
    >There are extraditions treaties. The extradition treaty matrix is - luckily - rather sparse. For 60 mils, I think he has ample incentive to find an empty slot in the column of his country.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    60 millions can buy a lot of friends in jurisdictions without extradition treaties. Maybe not the friends one wants to have but he didn't earn those money in a legal way, so he probably won't bother. Even if he has to give away most of them he'll still be well off.
    - gus_massa 6y ago
      Sometimes it's not so easy, if you have a giant 60 millions tag over your head some people will ask for more. Perhaps he could have handled it better but take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee#Legal_issues
thomaszander 6y ago
> it would be some variant of theft. The assumption you are making here is that the government has the right to steal that 60 million in the first place. Basically the reason they can is because they have more people with guns. Turns out, when it comes to Bitcoin, those guns end up being less powerful. This means that the basic assumption where a government can steal from its people is being turned up side down.
- ben_w 6y ago
  No. Governments have power because people lend them some of their own power. People give governments power because governments promise to make them better off. Breaking the concept of money has, historically, done the opposite of that.

by jws 6y ago

ur-whale 6y ago

> it would be some variant of theft. As long as the person who knows the key remains within the jurisdiction of the "owner".

gus_massa 6y ago
There are extraditions treaties. He can claim that someone else hacked his account, but I guess the judge will not believe this.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  >There are extraditions treaties. The extradition treaty matrix is - luckily - rather sparse. For 60 mils, I think he has ample incentive to find an empty slot in the column of his country.
- pmontra 6y ago
  60 millions can buy a lot of friends in jurisdictions without extradition treaties. Maybe not the friends one wants to have but he didn't earn those money in a legal way, so he probably won't bother. Even if he has to give away most of them he'll still be well off.
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    Sometimes it's not so easy, if you have a giant 60 millions tag over your head some people will ask for more. Perhaps he could have handled it better but take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee#Legal_issues

thomaszander 6y ago

> it would be some variant of theft. The assumption you are making here is that the government has the right to steal that 60 million in the first place. Basically the reason they can is because they have more people with guns. Turns out, when it comes to Bitcoin, those guns end up being less powerful. This means that the basic assumption where a government can steal from its people is being turned up side down.

ben_w 6y ago
No. Governments have power because people lend them some of their own power. People give governments power because governments promise to make them better off. Breaking the concept of money has, historically, done the opposite of that.