7 ms·

>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins. The US government can throw your ass in prison for the r

>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins. The US government can throw your ass in prison for the rest of your life so yes, it is their coins. This is the basis of all government power and in a lot of cases, like this, it's good

kylebenzle 4y ago
cube00 4y ago
What happened to Kevin Mitnick is a cautionary tale that you can be held for at least five years without bail before you get the opportunity to plead your case.
- FederalAgent47 4y ago
  Except he was in jail because he was fugitive from violating probation on a earlier fraud conviction
once_inc 4y ago
Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?
- Cederfjard 4y ago
  Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it. If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Think of it this way: A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account. The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content - and then proceeds to arrest the bank account owner (or their associate). No judge in their right mind would let that fly.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      In your example, no, the account owner wouldn't have a right to remove the money if the account and not the computer holding the password, was legally seized by the government. The government so cannot use those funds as they please neither until a legal decision allows them to do (RICO maybe, or anti-Mafia laws in Italy allow for that after court decisions). Also in your example, the bank in a different jurisdiction will get requests from the government in question to freeze the account, which might or might not be followed through depending on bi-lateral agreements and which country is asking on which basis for the account being freezed. I have no idea why crypto would be treated any different.
      - once_inc 4y ago
        There is no third party to have agreements with. There is only the government, the account holder, and the private key.
        hef19898 4y ago
        You forgot the courts. The government seizing stuff (which can be a problem in itself) doesn't mean the government can spend / use the stuff as they see fit. Courts have a say in that.
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        That's the point: In my example, an actual seizure of the account has not happened. Just because a state actor declares an item seized does not make it so - seizure implies having taken possession of the item at question (see, e.g. [1]). This clearly has not happened in the crypto case. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure
- automatic6131 4y ago
  >The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.
  - once_inc 4y ago
    People have died for less. You are assuming everyone has the same kind of morals and ethics as yourself.
    - ForHackernews 4y ago
      Hard to imagine dying for less than imaginary internet tokens. I guess there are people who drive off cliffs and whatnot, but somehow that feels like an honest mistake and not as funny to me.
    - gyaru 4y ago
      Morals and ethics somehow related to handing over your virtual money because someone is killing your family if you aren't? Okay.
    - automatic6131 4y ago
      What's the point of 10k bitcoins if you can't buy you and your family a life free of the pain of being tortured by the government. Whose family is going to forgive them if they let their sons or daughters be mutilated and traumatised for the low, low price of 10k bitcoins? Idk you're suggesting the existence of a human that, while not impossible, must be vanishingly rare. Perhaps you don't really understand what torture means?
      - Quillbert182 4y ago
        There are people who have no one but themselves. It's much easier to imagine this when someone has no living relatives.
    - arlcode 4y ago
      Some yes, but most people are happily giving up everything they own to avoid pain and suffering of themselves or their loved one. This is nothing new and is proven throughout history. It's also perfectly understandable that you'll choose the well being of your child or significant other over some money.
- bloqs 4y ago
  Isn't this just textbook rubber hose decryption? Nerds with families are easy to manipulate or intimidate.
cyphertruck 4y ago
Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.
- hef19898 4y ago
  In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic. How exactly is that disingenuous?
      - krageon 4y ago
        I cannot be the only one that sees politicians promise things and then spectacularly not deliver when they get elected. If the folks you vote for don't do what you want and you cannot vote for someone that does, there is no way for you to influence policy with a "democratic" process. For most people "just get elected" is not an option, because for that to happen you need to be rich, well connected and relatively well spoken.
        hef19898 4y ago
highwaylights 4y ago
I'm unsure this is as reliable of an offensive strategy as it would seem. For a lot of people, there is no amount of money they'd be willing to spend the rest of their life in captivity for - but for a great many with dependents I imagine there's probably a number at which you'd go "yeah, OK, I'll take that deal". That being said, rotting in prison doesn't protect any of your stuff from seizure anyway so we're back to the parent's point again.

kylebenzle 4y ago

cube00 4y ago

What happened to Kevin Mitnick is a cautionary tale that you can be held for at least five years without bail before you get the opportunity to plead your case.

FederalAgent47 4y ago
Except he was in jail because he was fugitive from violating probation on a earlier fraud conviction

once_inc 4y ago

Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?

Cederfjard 4y ago
Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it. If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Think of it this way: A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account. The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content - and then proceeds to arrest the bank account owner (or their associate). No judge in their right mind would let that fly.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    In your example, no, the account owner wouldn't have a right to remove the money if the account and not the computer holding the password, was legally seized by the government. The government so cannot use those funds as they please neither until a legal decision allows them to do (RICO maybe, or anti-Mafia laws in Italy allow for that after court decisions). Also in your example, the bank in a different jurisdiction will get requests from the government in question to freeze the account, which might or might not be followed through depending on bi-lateral agreements and which country is asking on which basis for the account being freezed. I have no idea why crypto would be treated any different.
    - once_inc 4y ago
      There is no third party to have agreements with. There is only the government, the account holder, and the private key.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        You forgot the courts. The government seizing stuff (which can be a problem in itself) doesn't mean the government can spend / use the stuff as they see fit. Courts have a say in that.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      That's the point: In my example, an actual seizure of the account has not happened. Just because a state actor declares an item seized does not make it so - seizure implies having taken possession of the item at question (see, e.g. [1]). This clearly has not happened in the crypto case. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure
automatic6131 4y ago
>The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.
- once_inc 4y ago
  People have died for less. You are assuming everyone has the same kind of morals and ethics as yourself.
  - ForHackernews 4y ago
    Hard to imagine dying for less than imaginary internet tokens. I guess there are people who drive off cliffs and whatnot, but somehow that feels like an honest mistake and not as funny to me.
  - gyaru 4y ago
    Morals and ethics somehow related to handing over your virtual money because someone is killing your family if you aren't? Okay.
  - automatic6131 4y ago
    What's the point of 10k bitcoins if you can't buy you and your family a life free of the pain of being tortured by the government. Whose family is going to forgive them if they let their sons or daughters be mutilated and traumatised for the low, low price of 10k bitcoins? Idk you're suggesting the existence of a human that, while not impossible, must be vanishingly rare. Perhaps you don't really understand what torture means?
    - Quillbert182 4y ago
      There are people who have no one but themselves. It's much easier to imagine this when someone has no living relatives.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    Some yes, but most people are happily giving up everything they own to avoid pain and suffering of themselves or their loved one. This is nothing new and is proven throughout history. It's also perfectly understandable that you'll choose the well being of your child or significant other over some money.
bloqs 4y ago
Isn't this just textbook rubber hose decryption? Nerds with families are easy to manipulate or intimidate.

cyphertruck 4y ago

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.

hef19898 4y ago
In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.
- krageon 4y ago
  > governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic. How exactly is that disingenuous?
    - krageon 4y ago
      I cannot be the only one that sees politicians promise things and then spectacularly not deliver when they get elected. If the folks you vote for don't do what you want and you cannot vote for someone that does, there is no way for you to influence policy with a "democratic" process. For most people "just get elected" is not an option, because for that to happen you need to be rich, well connected and relatively well spoken.
      - hef19898 4y ago

highwaylights 4y ago

I'm unsure this is as reliable of an offensive strategy as it would seem. For a lot of people, there is no amount of money they'd be willing to spend the rest of their life in captivity for - but for a great many with dependents I imagine there's probably a number at which you'd go "yeah, OK, I'll take that deal". That being said, rotting in prison doesn't protect any of your stuff from seizure anyway so we're back to the parent's point again.