5 ms·

You ever heard of asset forfeiture? There's two sides to everything. Not really "owning" something is great if you're the victim of fraud, but has its downsides

by bko 5y ago

You ever heard of asset forfeiture? There's two sides to everything. Not really "owning" something is great if you're the victim of fraud, but has its downsides when you become a target and someone wants to arbitrarily capture your wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

woodruffw 5y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is a national disgrace. But it's also not a disgrace for traditional finance: it's a disgrace with respect to the latitude our justice system gives to individual LEOs and a sign that the government is willing to extrajudicially punish people instead of pursuing justice through the courts. Put another way: assert forfeiture is not some kind of "gotcha" against traditional finance in favor of cryptocurrencies. When law enforcement seizes your bank account, they're going to seize your cryptocurrency accounts too. And if you (unadvisedly) attempt to hide those assets, then you will be making their job in court much easier.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Then you missed the point of this whole thing. Some of us would rather die with the keys then let the State steal funds from them. Cryptocurrency is the first technology that lets you take wealth to the grave and keep it there.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Look: if you want to clutch those hashes to the grave, more power to you. I think the Federalist Papers' authors wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry, but that's the wonderful thing about this little American Experiment of ours. But don't delude yourself into thinking that any meaningful number of people, even cryptocurrency believers, share your position. It's all fun and games until the Men with Sticks show up, and most people understandably tuck tail at that point. If I'm going to be made a coward in the eyes of a few LARPers, I might as well pay as few middlemen as possible in the process. But that's just me!
    - kyboren 5y ago
      I think you mean keys, not hashes. > But don't delude yourself into thinking that any meaningful number of people, even cryptocurrency believers, share your position. You'd be surprised.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > I think you mean keys, not hashes. Next you're going to tell me that the blockchain isn't made of Lego blocks! > You'd be surprised. Given the aggressive spread of custodial services, I don't think I would be. The average cryptocurrency user (even enthusiasts, true believers, &c.) is not a dyed-in-the-wool Burkean. Less prosaically: easy money comes with loose beliefs.
- bko 5y ago
  I'm all for the legal process and there is a legitimate way to seize assets. But asset forfeiture is not that. It's only enabled because it is trivial and is done outside of the normal legal process. It doesn't help that the beneficiaries are the very people that can initiate the forfeiture. If someone goes through the legal process and is found to be guilty and their assets are seized that's fine. But if someone is pulled over, found to have some drugs, gets their car and cash on them possessed and is forced to go through a lengthy process that free up that money, then that's different.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I don't think we're in disagreement? In any case: the really egregious examples of civil asset forfeiture are the petty ones: the government stops someone for the crime of DWB[1], and seizes all of the property they have on their person (including, sometimes, the car itself.) It's a disgusting crime, but one that doesn't typically extend to the victim's bank accounts or other financial resources, unless there's a larger case being pursued against them. And so, once again, it's not clear how cryptocurrency improves the state of affairs: either you're carrying a hot wallet around with you for your day-to-day expenses (in which case you're subject to the same seizure), or it's roughly equivalent to a traditional financial produce and isn't subject to a spurious seizure (but might be subject to a larger one). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Forteiture scenario 1: cops take your cash. It's on you to sue them and prove to a court that it's legitimately yours. Scenario 2: they take your hardware wallet, then they must prosecute you and prove to a court that the money is not legitimately yours, to get the key. IANAL, but am I wrong?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The answer to this probably depends on your local jurisdiction, thanks to America's unique system of legal devolvement. Instead, I'll point out that the answer does not matter: from the moment that they have my hot wallet instead of me, I can no longer use it. It doesn't matter to me whether they can actually liquidate it or not. And, as I pointed out earlier, I'd harm my own case by attempting to liquidate my assets with a separate copy.
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      My main point is the change from presumption of guilt to presumption of innocence. If they are effectively able to freeze it (but not transfer) before the court ruling, that main point still holds. Your claim was that crypto makes no difference, or worse. I'm not saying technical solutions make the rule of law unnecessary. But they can defend against some violations of the rule of law, depending on the parts of the justice system that are still just. People effectively defending themselves against a national disgrace help towards getting the disgrace fixed.

by bko 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Civil asset forfeiture is a national disgrace. But it's also not a disgrace for traditional finance: it's a disgrace with respect to the latitude our justice system gives to individual LEOs and a sign that the government is willing to extrajudicially punish people instead of pursuing justice through the courts. Put another way: assert forfeiture is not some kind of "gotcha" against traditional finance in favor of cryptocurrencies. When law enforcement seizes your bank account, they're going to seize your cryptocurrency accounts too. And if you (unadvisedly) attempt to hide those assets, then you will be making their job in court much easier.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Then you missed the point of this whole thing. Some of us would rather die with the keys then let the State steal funds from them. Cryptocurrency is the first technology that lets you take wealth to the grave and keep it there.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Look: if you want to clutch those hashes to the grave, more power to you. I think the Federalist Papers' authors wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry, but that's the wonderful thing about this little American Experiment of ours. But don't delude yourself into thinking that any meaningful number of people, even cryptocurrency believers, share your position. It's all fun and games until the Men with Sticks show up, and most people understandably tuck tail at that point. If I'm going to be made a coward in the eyes of a few LARPers, I might as well pay as few middlemen as possible in the process. But that's just me!
  - kyboren 5y ago
    I think you mean keys, not hashes. > But don't delude yourself into thinking that any meaningful number of people, even cryptocurrency believers, share your position. You'd be surprised.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > I think you mean keys, not hashes. Next you're going to tell me that the blockchain isn't made of Lego blocks! > You'd be surprised. Given the aggressive spread of custodial services, I don't think I would be. The average cryptocurrency user (even enthusiasts, true believers, &c.) is not a dyed-in-the-wool Burkean. Less prosaically: easy money comes with loose beliefs.
bko 5y ago
I'm all for the legal process and there is a legitimate way to seize assets. But asset forfeiture is not that. It's only enabled because it is trivial and is done outside of the normal legal process. It doesn't help that the beneficiaries are the very people that can initiate the forfeiture. If someone goes through the legal process and is found to be guilty and their assets are seized that's fine. But if someone is pulled over, found to have some drugs, gets their car and cash on them possessed and is forced to go through a lengthy process that free up that money, then that's different.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I don't think we're in disagreement? In any case: the really egregious examples of civil asset forfeiture are the petty ones: the government stops someone for the crime of DWB[1], and seizes all of the property they have on their person (including, sometimes, the car itself.) It's a disgusting crime, but one that doesn't typically extend to the victim's bank accounts or other financial resources, unless there's a larger case being pursued against them. And so, once again, it's not clear how cryptocurrency improves the state of affairs: either you're carrying a hot wallet around with you for your day-to-day expenses (in which case you're subject to the same seizure), or it's roughly equivalent to a traditional financial produce and isn't subject to a spurious seizure (but might be subject to a larger one). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black
abecedarius 5y ago
Forteiture scenario 1: cops take your cash. It's on you to sue them and prove to a court that it's legitimately yours. Scenario 2: they take your hardware wallet, then they must prosecute you and prove to a court that the money is not legitimately yours, to get the key. IANAL, but am I wrong?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The answer to this probably depends on your local jurisdiction, thanks to America's unique system of legal devolvement. Instead, I'll point out that the answer does not matter: from the moment that they have my hot wallet instead of me, I can no longer use it. It doesn't matter to me whether they can actually liquidate it or not. And, as I pointed out earlier, I'd harm my own case by attempting to liquidate my assets with a separate copy.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    My main point is the change from presumption of guilt to presumption of innocence. If they are effectively able to freeze it (but not transfer) before the court ruling, that main point still holds. Your claim was that crypto makes no difference, or worse. I'm not saying technical solutions make the rule of law unnecessary. But they can defend against some violations of the rule of law, depending on the parts of the justice system that are still just. People effectively defending themselves against a national disgrace help towards getting the disgrace fixed.