4 ms·

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or pr

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
A lot of crimes require mens rea, ie. being guilty would require knowing the bitcoins are shady.
- ghastmaster 4y ago
  While perhaps not criminal, receiving them could subject a person to asset seizure. Usually stolen things are seized whether the receiver knows they are stolen or not. The burden is then on the receiver to persue criminal, or more likely, civil action.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    So when the bitcoin are traced to a washing service in a location where the FBI has no jurisdiction (so that they cannot go after the washing service), split into individual satoshis and then sent through hundreds of thousands of transactions before being put back into the wild in a format that is completely and totally randomized and then one day months or years later re-enter the FBI's jurisdiction you think that there's a chance in hell that they will be able to identify specifically which individual satoshis are illegal and which ones are not?
    - ghastmaster 4y ago
      If I steal $1,000 and promptly donate $1,000 to charity, it is very likely that that money would be tracked down and returned. On the other hand, if I steal $1,000 and make retail purchases over the course of twelve months less than $5 each, the monies would not be returned from the retailers to the victim of my theft. At that point it is up to the courts(civil and criminal) to force me to make amends to the original victim. Your scenario is similar to the latter example for most of the end recipients. If an account with zero bitcoins receives a stolen bitcoin and sends it to one recipient, that recipient would certainly fall under the first scenario I put forth. As the transactions become more complex and diffuse, the latter scenario is more likely.
- rob-olmos 4y ago
  And as the media keeps repeating bitcoin is heavily used for illicit & illegal activity so not only bitcoin itself (that none of the jury holds because those that hold it have been excluded, let alone any of them actually understand it) and then probably exchanging with very specific wallets in this case.. probably guilty despite what the defendant has to say for their actions..
closedloop129 4y ago
How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Government doesn't even have to physically seize anything. They just have to say "transacting with these particular coins is illegal". The blacklisted bitcoin is now worth zero USD, as many individuals receiving money from sanctioned people discovered. I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    You are right vis-a-vis sanctions and ( based on what I understand ) Monero at this time. I think the reason this is not a killswitch parent is referring to is that there is just too much money on the line for the government. LEOs are apparently still trying to figure out how do it right. Last bigger conference I was a part of representative discussed some of the less appreciated logistics ( for example, you can't sell that much of bitcoin and not tank the price for one ). It is different from auctioning Tony Montana's yacht.
    - sdenton4 4y ago
      Selling a giant pile of Bitcoin and tanking the price is a feature, not a bug...
      - Huh1337 4y ago
        That may be your personal opinion but meanwhile governments are actually supporting using Bitcoin, not trying to destroy it.
  - throw101010 4y ago
    > I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist. Because it simply can't be audited. What is the purpose of a public ledger if it is not auditable. Don't get me wrong I love Monero, but the transparency of Bitcoin is desirable if you intend to enforce a fixed supply. Also things like Taproot could give some privacy if they widely get used by wallets (by default for example).

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

A lot of crimes require mens rea, ie. being guilty would require knowing the bitcoins are shady.

ghastmaster 4y ago
While perhaps not criminal, receiving them could subject a person to asset seizure. Usually stolen things are seized whether the receiver knows they are stolen or not. The burden is then on the receiver to persue criminal, or more likely, civil action.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  So when the bitcoin are traced to a washing service in a location where the FBI has no jurisdiction (so that they cannot go after the washing service), split into individual satoshis and then sent through hundreds of thousands of transactions before being put back into the wild in a format that is completely and totally randomized and then one day months or years later re-enter the FBI's jurisdiction you think that there's a chance in hell that they will be able to identify specifically which individual satoshis are illegal and which ones are not?
  - ghastmaster 4y ago
    If I steal $1,000 and promptly donate $1,000 to charity, it is very likely that that money would be tracked down and returned. On the other hand, if I steal $1,000 and make retail purchases over the course of twelve months less than $5 each, the monies would not be returned from the retailers to the victim of my theft. At that point it is up to the courts(civil and criminal) to force me to make amends to the original victim. Your scenario is similar to the latter example for most of the end recipients. If an account with zero bitcoins receives a stolen bitcoin and sends it to one recipient, that recipient would certainly fall under the first scenario I put forth. As the transactions become more complex and diffuse, the latter scenario is more likely.
rob-olmos 4y ago
And as the media keeps repeating bitcoin is heavily used for illicit & illegal activity so not only bitcoin itself (that none of the jury holds because those that hold it have been excluded, let alone any of them actually understand it) and then probably exchanging with very specific wallets in this case.. probably guilty despite what the defendant has to say for their actions..

closedloop129 4y ago

How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?

matheusmoreira 4y ago
Government doesn't even have to physically seize anything. They just have to say "transacting with these particular coins is illegal". The blacklisted bitcoin is now worth zero USD, as many individuals receiving money from sanctioned people discovered. I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  You are right vis-a-vis sanctions and ( based on what I understand ) Monero at this time. I think the reason this is not a killswitch parent is referring to is that there is just too much money on the line for the government. LEOs are apparently still trying to figure out how do it right. Last bigger conference I was a part of representative discussed some of the less appreciated logistics ( for example, you can't sell that much of bitcoin and not tank the price for one ). It is different from auctioning Tony Montana's yacht.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Selling a giant pile of Bitcoin and tanking the price is a feature, not a bug...
    - Huh1337 4y ago
      That may be your personal opinion but meanwhile governments are actually supporting using Bitcoin, not trying to destroy it.
- throw101010 4y ago
  > I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist. Because it simply can't be audited. What is the purpose of a public ledger if it is not auditable. Don't get me wrong I love Monero, but the transparency of Bitcoin is desirable if you intend to enforce a fixed supply. Also things like Taproot could give some privacy if they widely get used by wallets (by default for example).