10 ms·

This. If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. If you end up

This. If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

don_neufeld 2y ago
> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? I think you’re answering your own question here
thinkingtoilet 2y ago
> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Money laundering.
  - apercu 2y ago
    And get rich quick scams. And fraud.
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).
      - hinkley 2y ago
        Amongst our weaponry are such elements as graft, narcotics, money laundering, fraud… I’ll come in again.
      - eftychis 2y ago
        Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.) P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake. [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]
        xp84 2y ago
        (i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...
        eftychis 2y ago
        Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
      - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
        I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
        dhosek 2y ago
        For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.
        smcin 2y ago
        You only mean ransom of data or platforms, not people?
        Lionga 2y ago
        Both. All kind of ransom is just better with crypto. Talk about disputing an industry.
        waspleg 2y ago
        The only person I knew who had BTC in like 2008 used it to buy drugs from the Silk Road. They're dead now so it doesn't matter.
        apercu 2y ago
        On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)
        sfn42 2y ago
        There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites. You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.
      - anonym29 2y ago
        Some of the first early adopters of pagers and cell phones were drug dealers and prostitutes. The economic conditions that push vulnerable people to committing crimes enhanced by technology are not a condemnation of the technology itself.
- oh_my_goodness 2y ago
  Who's using a ledger system for illegal transactions?
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market
    - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
      Thanks for the link. I would caution those Silk Road people that they might get caught one day.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        That's what pardons are for.
- Salgat 2y ago
  I like how every attempt to legitimize cryptocurrency by the current administration has just resulted in hurting the price of cryptocoins.
  - close04 2y ago
    By now everyone who stands to gain from (ab)using crypto is probably already convinced. Almost everyone else heard so much about scams and illegal activities around crypto that they find it too risky. So the current admin is preaching to a small choir, to the angst of the large one. What I like is that every time there's a hack, or someone loses money over crypto either due to some illegal action or just unintended consequence of using it, you have a few more people demanding more regulation and state intervention. If only crypto regulation was scoped exclusively to when they need it after being swindled out of it.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    That's happening because crypto 'value' doesn't exist in a vaccuum, immune to the vagaries of the tradFi markets. When shit hits the fan, credibility matters. That's why traders park cash in government bonds when a market sell-off happens; a government bond essentially guarantees you get your money back quickly when you're ready to go back into the markets. The recent moves by the administration have been so incompetent as to tank the bond market as well, thereby leaving few safe harbors. And no harbor is less safe than crypto.
    - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
      But it's cash!
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I agree with your assessment of cryptocurrencies. Here is a thought experiment that I use with other people: Ask yourself why none of the top 10 global investment banks have started their own crypto exchange. Now, add the 20 largest stock, futures, and options exchanges. Still none. After all, it is "just" market making (with a bit of clearing, custody & execution services). What is wrong with this picture? For me, the real issue is that KYC (know your customer) legal requirements will drain all the profit from the operation and expose the ibank/exchange to enormous legal risk. Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?
  - b3lvedere 2y ago
    90% agree with this , with the little caveat that law and regulation always are a couple of steps behind huge innovations. Unfortunately sometimes companies think this gives them freedom to break current laws and regulations. Your thought experiment reminded me a little of the Kurzgesagt video on how to debunk an internet conspiracy in seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8
- smcl 2y ago
  By far the more common use case is as an unregulated asset you can semi-legally pump-and-dump, and to extract money from gullible rubes
  - pavlov 2y ago
    As recommended by the President of the United States.
    - nicbou 2y ago
      As _demonstrated_ by the President of the United States.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      And demonstrated by his new business partner in the private prison industry, Bukele of El Salvador.
  - pcthrowaway 2y ago
    You're saying the same thing > So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.
    - smcl 2y ago
      I think this was edited - my understanding of the original comment was that it was primarily for buying things on the darknet ("illegal transactions").
CursedSilicon 2y ago
The entire idea of crypto is "I wasn't supposed to be the one holding the bag!"
- hinkley 2y ago
  Musical chairs except you don’t want to get a chair.
  - what 2y ago
    That game is called Hot potato.
- hx8 2y ago
  Funny, I thought the whole point was to hold on to the bag as long as you can. Think back to the first time you heard about btc or eth, and how much return a modest investment would have made. It's the people that sold early that lost out.
  - vkou 2y ago
    How is that theory going for the bagholders of the graveyard of dead coins and rugpulls?
    - hx8 2y ago
      You're not wrong, but has there ever been a time when buying & holding the 3 largest market cap coins wasn't a winning strategy? Most of the deadcoins were very low cap, and low cap investments are inherently risky. Most of the rugpulls were schemes around small coins or individuals not actually holding the private keys to the wallet.
  - brohee 2y ago
    The purest survivor bias in a while, and even some of the few survivors are in freefall, e.g. Litecoin.
timcobb 2y ago
> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Not to be that guy but it seems like the point of cryptocurrencies is to scam vulnerable people...
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  In practice, yes. Ideally crypto could be a worldwide money replacement, but the problem with ideals is that the real world exists.
xattt 2y ago
A wanting of having cake, but a desire to eat it too.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Take the cake immediately to your left. Problem solved.
vonneumannstan 2y ago
>you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. I doubt that will hold up in court. The exact thing could be said about computer networks and hackers exploiting them.
CPLX 2y ago
I mean you can believe in cryptocurrency. But why do courts have to believe in it?
jstanley 2y ago
> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. If you believe in cash, does that mean you can't run to the courts if someone steals your cash? If your security proves insufficient to prevent a theft, that doesn't mean the theft was legal! It just means your security was insufficient. That security can be enforced by mathematics instead of courts is definitely a benefit of cryptocurrency, but when it goes wrong courts still matter.
- crote 2y ago
  The problem here is that those crypto contracts aren't designed to be security. They are intended to be contracts. It's like opening a bank account, and the contract says "You can only access your own money in the vault. Everything you can access is yours to use as you see fit." On your first visit the manager brings you into a vault with hundreds of cash-laden tables. He shows you to an empty table, and says "Here's your table. Enjoy!". Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended? Is it theft to "break their security" by walking over to another table, or is it just a hidden perk of the contract you signed?
  - notahacker 2y ago
    Moreover they're designed to be contracts with the explicit intention of enabling trustless exchange without third party oversight, under the belief that the code can replace a legal system unlike actual contracts, which are written with the expectation that disputes may occur and be resolved by arbitrators and a legal system (who will probably rule that a poorly drafted clause 2b doesn't in fact grant you the right to take all the other customers' money)
- dandanua 2y ago
  @crote > Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended? If their entire business model is based on giving a service that allows you to store your money in safety without any government dependency, while in reality they allow everyone else to take your money, then they deserve whatever happens to them.
tempfile 2y ago
> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. Yes, indeed. And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. What kind of savagery is this? > If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Great question, we have been waiting for answers for nearly a decade now...
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  The entire point of a home is not to escape traditional finance. It's by design not compatible with a simple "thief breaks into house" comparison, otherwise the entire enterprise is a scam and they should be criminally prosecuted for fraud the second they ask for legal dispute resolution on transactions that happened on ledger.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  >And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. That's not what happened here. What happened is that the crypto company said, "Follow this contract," and their customer followed the contract and took their money, and then the crypto company was like, "But not like that!" Ostensibly, the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to decentralize financial control and not depend on governments for that service. If you then depend on governments the second you don't like what happens, there's no point to cryptocurrencies.
  - tempfile 2y ago
    If you can't distinguish "not what I intended" from "not what I wanted" then there is probably no reasoning with you. Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      >Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. I have to admit, that's pretty funny. But I will point out that you did not make an argument in support of your position; you merely insulted me.
BlackFly 2y ago
You'll need a stronger defense than that in court because courts absolutely create and deal in gray areas where technical fine lines exist. What you need to argue is that the the smart contracts were valid contracts that the creators intended to and had opportunity to understand and that their creation was their act of negotiation of a position. It isn't really a stretch, but with amounts like this probably more diligence would have been due than that. Calling it theft is ridiculous on the other hand.
- Calwestjobs 2y ago
  it can be said that laws are social contract
  - kulahan 2y ago
    I disagree simply on the principle that nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.
    - esperent 2y ago
      > nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract. Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest. Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that. But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world. > Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is. Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        > Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world. I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view. It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit. (On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)
pchangr 2y ago
The point of bitcoin, in words of their creator is to “allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” That’s it.
Braxton1980 2y ago
>cryptocurrencies in the first place? To get 30mg oxy
analog31 2y ago
Money is a technology. Its purpose is whatever use you want to put it to. Like any technology, a money system can be designed so that it works well enough for a small set of intended purposes, and poorly for all other purposes. Moreover, its uses can be constrained by laws. I think an open question is whether existing laws related to money or property apply to cryptocurrencies. For instance, "theft" and "fraud" cover a lot of things, without specifically listing all of them. If it's ambiguous whether such laws apply to crypto, then sure, someone could use the legal system to settle the matter. In fact, using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions could be as good a use of crypto as any, if "anything goes."
FireBeyond 2y ago
Yup. Exactly. "The code is law". Well, sometimes you learn you're not as good at code as you thought you were.
-__---____-ZXyw 2y ago
This!? Which? What..? Why!?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
The point of cryptocurrencies is to reward people who make hardware available for in-public multiparty computation. The point of that is to be able to create rulesets and expect that they'll be followed within the confines of the system. It's bonkers to me that the only rulesets people care to implement on such a platform are just reflections of money as we know it. How unimaginative. I wish we'd make something new rather than translating something old--bugs and all--into a new language.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  Hardware availability is a use case of cryptocurrency, but not the point. The point is a decentralized accounting system that no single party can manipulate, for good or bad. You can apply that to hardware availability, digital game economies, supply chain accounting, etc. but the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that.
  - Calwestjobs 2y ago
    his point was correct
  - godelski 2y ago
    For those unfamiliar, see "The Cypherpunk Manifesto" We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Or "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-crypto-manifesto.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I agree with: > the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that It has to do with operating in spite of somebody who would otherwise tamper with your information. It's about durability in the face of sophisticated adversaries. I was trying to get at the point of crytocurrency. The accounting system can handle anything at all, so why bother with the coins? We've had coins for thousands of years, they're the most boring app imaginable. Why bother maintaining artificial scarcities when we could be addressing real ones? But at the end of the day, if nobody provides hardware for it to run on, then, we can't have that accounting system. And those people have to pay their electric bills, and for the hardware they're using, and for that they need something money-shaped. The point of cryptocurrency is to be that money-shaped thing. We need it to interface with the traditional finance system until we can replace that system with something better.
gamblor956 2y ago
"Code as law" was attempted as a defense in another token-related "hacking" case. It didn't work there, and it won't work here either. If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal. Cryptocurrencies aren't a replacement for the law, nor do they stand outside of it.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  I feel like the current state of affairs is a consequence of mixing real money systems with crypto and then making it easy to invest in. Because it sure looks like they intended for “code is law” to be the case. Many of the oft cited use cases were to circumvent traditional systems.
- andy81 2y ago
  > That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal. Most comments saying that cryptocurrency holders should abide by "code is law", are not actually saying that we should abide by "code is law" and abandon the legal system. It's a classic argument to show that the purported benefits of cryptocurrency are a farce.
nkrisc 2y ago
> If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? In this case, to make money. These are not ideological purists, they're capitalists.
Taek 2y ago
Just because some subsets of the crypto industry want to operate entirely outside the law doesn't mean the whole industry wants to operate outside the law. As evidenced by anyone who pays taxes on their crypto. Saying "he used the system as it was designed, even if not as intended" is more or less equivalent to saying that any computer hack or zero day is also "using the computer system as designed". You even plausibly extend that to picking locks in the physical world. So yes, it does make sense for the law to get involved.
- protocolture 2y ago
  If a smart contract requires a court to execute you really should have just used a regular contract no?
  - EGreg 2y ago
    No. Definitely not. Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all. People can put business rules in place that aren’t violated - and not just for contracts. For example bidders at Christie’s and Sotheby’s sometimes don’t have the money but the houses can’t make a big scandal. They try to hold another auction and sell it to someone else as if the guy sold it. In crypto it would be trivial to endure bidders have put up the money. You can refund the lowest bidder below N winners. You can also ensure payouts happen at agreed-upon rates. You can prove escrow. And stuff like that. Imagine a bunch of donors or investors seeing how their money is spent because it is on the blockchain. Or imagine a community having roles and knowing that each role was granted properly. In web2 anyone who can get into the database can modify any records and then you hope court cases and chilling effects will undo the damage retroactively.
    - protocolture 2y ago
      >Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all That just sounds like near total agreement with me. Dont get me wrong, I love smart contracts conceptually. But if the parties to a smart contract desired court arbitration, they should include a function for it in the smart contract. Like a swing vote for a trusted third parties keys. Without that, to me, you are signalling acceptance of the outcome of the code without arbitration. If you seek a court to interfere with the execution of a smart contract that never included a provision for arbitration then you are in my mind, as guilty of ignoring the intent of the smart contract as any hacker might be. And if you were just going to court to dispute the smart contract, you may as well just have accepted a legacy contract. Escrow, multiple parties, etc etc all solved problems in the traditional legal space.
Vegenoid 2y ago
> If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Agreed, but there is already a very similar case where "code is law" was tested, and failed: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-cryptocurrency-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c... It turns out that once a financial system becomes big enough, the US will apply its finance laws to it. Finance laws are designed to prevent sudden unexpected transfers of wealth from one (wealthy) unwilling party to another based on unanticipated loopholes.
wnevets 2y ago
> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? To funnel cash to regimes like North Korea
lupusreal 2y ago
> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed Shouldn't, but can. Anyway, you're assuming most of these crypto people are true believers in the technical attributes of crypto currencies, but I think most of them don't understand or care about that and are just trying to get rich.

don_neufeld 2y ago

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? I think you’re answering your own question here

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.

hinkley 2y ago
Money laundering.
- apercu 2y ago
  And get rich quick scams. And fraud.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).
    - hinkley 2y ago
      Amongst our weaponry are such elements as graft, narcotics, money laundering, fraud… I’ll come in again.
    - eftychis 2y ago
      Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.) P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake. [0] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline [Note it has been updated since 2000.]
      - xp84 2y ago
        (i'm not GP but...) You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime. That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text=On%20July%201%2C%202024%2C%20the,no%20immunity%20for%20unofficial%20acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#:~:text...
        eftychis 2y ago
        Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.) The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane. But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options: Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
    - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
      I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
      - dhosek 2y ago
        For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.
        smcin 2y ago
        You only mean ransom of data or platforms, not people?
        Lionga 2y ago
        Both. All kind of ransom is just better with crypto. Talk about disputing an industry.
      - waspleg 2y ago
        The only person I knew who had BTC in like 2008 used it to buy drugs from the Silk Road. They're dead now so it doesn't matter.
        apercu 2y ago
        On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)
      - sfn42 2y ago
        There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites. You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      Some of the first early adopters of pagers and cell phones were drug dealers and prostitutes. The economic conditions that push vulnerable people to committing crimes enhanced by technology are not a condemnation of the technology itself.
oh_my_goodness 2y ago
Who's using a ledger system for illegal transactions?
- jrflowers 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market
  - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
    Thanks for the link. I would caution those Silk Road people that they might get caught one day.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      That's what pardons are for.
Salgat 2y ago
I like how every attempt to legitimize cryptocurrency by the current administration has just resulted in hurting the price of cryptocoins.
- close04 2y ago
  By now everyone who stands to gain from (ab)using crypto is probably already convinced. Almost everyone else heard so much about scams and illegal activities around crypto that they find it too risky. So the current admin is preaching to a small choir, to the angst of the large one. What I like is that every time there's a hack, or someone loses money over crypto either due to some illegal action or just unintended consequence of using it, you have a few more people demanding more regulation and state intervention. If only crypto regulation was scoped exclusively to when they need it after being swindled out of it.
- rchaud 2y ago
  That's happening because crypto 'value' doesn't exist in a vaccuum, immune to the vagaries of the tradFi markets. When shit hits the fan, credibility matters. That's why traders park cash in government bonds when a market sell-off happens; a government bond essentially guarantees you get your money back quickly when you're ready to go back into the markets. The recent moves by the administration have been so incompetent as to tank the bond market as well, thereby leaving few safe harbors. And no harbor is less safe than crypto.
  - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
    But it's cash!
throwaway2037 2y ago
I agree with your assessment of cryptocurrencies. Here is a thought experiment that I use with other people: Ask yourself why none of the top 10 global investment banks have started their own crypto exchange. Now, add the 20 largest stock, futures, and options exchanges. Still none. After all, it is "just" market making (with a bit of clearing, custody & execution services). What is wrong with this picture? For me, the real issue is that KYC (know your customer) legal requirements will drain all the profit from the operation and expose the ibank/exchange to enormous legal risk. Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?
- b3lvedere 2y ago
  90% agree with this , with the little caveat that law and regulation always are a couple of steps behind huge innovations. Unfortunately sometimes companies think this gives them freedom to break current laws and regulations. Your thought experiment reminded me a little of the Kurzgesagt video on how to debunk an internet conspiracy in seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8
smcl 2y ago
By far the more common use case is as an unregulated asset you can semi-legally pump-and-dump, and to extract money from gullible rubes
- pavlov 2y ago
  As recommended by the President of the United States.
  - nicbou 2y ago
    As _demonstrated_ by the President of the United States.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    And demonstrated by his new business partner in the private prison industry, Bukele of El Salvador.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  You're saying the same thing > So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.
  - smcl 2y ago
    I think this was edited - my understanding of the original comment was that it was primarily for buying things on the darknet ("illegal transactions").

CursedSilicon 2y ago

The entire idea of crypto is "I wasn't supposed to be the one holding the bag!"

hinkley 2y ago
Musical chairs except you don’t want to get a chair.
- what 2y ago
  That game is called Hot potato.
hx8 2y ago
Funny, I thought the whole point was to hold on to the bag as long as you can. Think back to the first time you heard about btc or eth, and how much return a modest investment would have made. It's the people that sold early that lost out.
- vkou 2y ago
  How is that theory going for the bagholders of the graveyard of dead coins and rugpulls?
  - hx8 2y ago
    You're not wrong, but has there ever been a time when buying & holding the 3 largest market cap coins wasn't a winning strategy? Most of the deadcoins were very low cap, and low cap investments are inherently risky. Most of the rugpulls were schemes around small coins or individuals not actually holding the private keys to the wallet.
- brohee 2y ago
  The purest survivor bias in a while, and even some of the few survivors are in freefall, e.g. Litecoin.

timcobb 2y ago

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Not to be that guy but it seems like the point of cryptocurrencies is to scam vulnerable people...

BizarroLand 2y ago
In practice, yes. Ideally crypto could be a worldwide money replacement, but the problem with ideals is that the real world exists.

xattt 2y ago

A wanting of having cake, but a desire to eat it too.

hinkley 2y ago
Take the cake immediately to your left. Problem solved.

vonneumannstan 2y ago

>you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. I doubt that will hold up in court. The exact thing could be said about computer networks and hackers exploiting them.

CPLX 2y ago

I mean you can believe in cryptocurrency. But why do courts have to believe in it?

jstanley 2y ago

> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. If you believe in cash, does that mean you can't run to the courts if someone steals your cash? If your security proves insufficient to prevent a theft, that doesn't mean the theft was legal! It just means your security was insufficient. That security can be enforced by mathematics instead of courts is definitely a benefit of cryptocurrency, but when it goes wrong courts still matter.

crote 2y ago
The problem here is that those crypto contracts aren't designed to be security. They are intended to be contracts. It's like opening a bank account, and the contract says "You can only access your own money in the vault. Everything you can access is yours to use as you see fit." On your first visit the manager brings you into a vault with hundreds of cash-laden tables. He shows you to an empty table, and says "Here's your table. Enjoy!". Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended? Is it theft to "break their security" by walking over to another table, or is it just a hidden perk of the contract you signed?
- notahacker 2y ago
  Moreover they're designed to be contracts with the explicit intention of enabling trustless exchange without third party oversight, under the belief that the code can replace a legal system unlike actual contracts, which are written with the expectation that disputes may occur and be resolved by arbitrators and a legal system (who will probably rule that a poorly drafted clause 2b doesn't in fact grant you the right to take all the other customers' money)
dandanua 2y ago
@crote > Are you allowed to take money from the other tables? Clearly the contract says you can, but surely that can't be what they intended? If their entire business model is based on giving a service that allows you to store your money in safety without any government dependency, while in reality they allow everyone else to take your money, then they deserve whatever happens to them.

tempfile 2y ago

> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended. Yes, indeed. And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. What kind of savagery is this? > If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Great question, we have been waiting for answers for nearly a decade now...

DangitBobby 2y ago
The entire point of a home is not to escape traditional finance. It's by design not compatible with a simple "thief breaks into house" comparison, otherwise the entire enterprise is a scam and they should be criminally prosecuted for fraud the second they ask for legal dispute resolution on transactions that happened on ledger.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. That's not what happened here. What happened is that the crypto company said, "Follow this contract," and their customer followed the contract and took their money, and then the crypto company was like, "But not like that!" Ostensibly, the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to decentralize financial control and not depend on governments for that service. If you then depend on governments the second you don't like what happens, there's no point to cryptocurrencies.
- tempfile 2y ago
  If you can't distinguish "not what I intended" from "not what I wanted" then there is probably no reasoning with you. Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    >Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. I have to admit, that's pretty funny. But I will point out that you did not make an argument in support of your position; you merely insulted me.

BlackFly 2y ago

You'll need a stronger defense than that in court because courts absolutely create and deal in gray areas where technical fine lines exist. What you need to argue is that the the smart contracts were valid contracts that the creators intended to and had opportunity to understand and that their creation was their act of negotiation of a position. It isn't really a stretch, but with amounts like this probably more diligence would have been due than that. Calling it theft is ridiculous on the other hand.

Calwestjobs 2y ago
it can be said that laws are social contract
- kulahan 2y ago
  I disagree simply on the principle that nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.
  - esperent 2y ago
    > nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract. Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest. Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that. But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world. > Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is. Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      > Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world. I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view. It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit. (On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)

pchangr 2y ago

The point of bitcoin, in words of their creator is to “allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” That’s it.

Braxton1980 2y ago

>cryptocurrencies in the first place? To get 30mg oxy

analog31 2y ago

Money is a technology. Its purpose is whatever use you want to put it to. Like any technology, a money system can be designed so that it works well enough for a small set of intended purposes, and poorly for all other purposes. Moreover, its uses can be constrained by laws. I think an open question is whether existing laws related to money or property apply to cryptocurrencies. For instance, "theft" and "fraud" cover a lot of things, without specifically listing all of them. If it's ambiguous whether such laws apply to crypto, then sure, someone could use the legal system to settle the matter. In fact, using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions could be as good a use of crypto as any, if "anything goes."

FireBeyond 2y ago

Yup. Exactly. "The code is law". Well, sometimes you learn you're not as good at code as you thought you were.

-__---____-ZXyw 2y ago

This!? Which? What..? Why!?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

The point of cryptocurrencies is to reward people who make hardware available for in-public multiparty computation. The point of that is to be able to create rulesets and expect that they'll be followed within the confines of the system. It's bonkers to me that the only rulesets people care to implement on such a platform are just reflections of money as we know it. How unimaginative. I wish we'd make something new rather than translating something old--bugs and all--into a new language.

BobbyJo 2y ago
Hardware availability is a use case of cryptocurrency, but not the point. The point is a decentralized accounting system that no single party can manipulate, for good or bad. You can apply that to hardware availability, digital game economies, supply chain accounting, etc. but the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that.
- Calwestjobs 2y ago
  his point was correct
- godelski 2y ago
  For those unfamiliar, see "The Cypherpunk Manifesto" We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html Or "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-crypto-manifesto.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I agree with: > the point of crypto is more abstract than any of that It has to do with operating in spite of somebody who would otherwise tamper with your information. It's about durability in the face of sophisticated adversaries. I was trying to get at the point of crytocurrency. The accounting system can handle anything at all, so why bother with the coins? We've had coins for thousands of years, they're the most boring app imaginable. Why bother maintaining artificial scarcities when we could be addressing real ones? But at the end of the day, if nobody provides hardware for it to run on, then, we can't have that accounting system. And those people have to pay their electric bills, and for the hardware they're using, and for that they need something money-shaped. The point of cryptocurrency is to be that money-shaped thing. We need it to interface with the traditional finance system until we can replace that system with something better.

gamblor956 2y ago

"Code as law" was attempted as a defense in another token-related "hacking" case. It didn't work there, and it won't work here either. If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal. Cryptocurrencies aren't a replacement for the law, nor do they stand outside of it.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
I feel like the current state of affairs is a consequence of mixing real money systems with crypto and then making it easy to invest in. Because it sure looks like they intended for “code is law” to be the case. Many of the oft cited use cases were to circumvent traditional systems.
andy81 2y ago
> That is a philosophical argument completely unrelated to whether or not something is illegal. Most comments saying that cryptocurrency holders should abide by "code is law", are not actually saying that we should abide by "code is law" and abandon the legal system. It's a classic argument to show that the purported benefits of cryptocurrency are a farce.

nkrisc 2y ago

> If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? In this case, to make money. These are not ideological purists, they're capitalists.

Taek 2y ago

Just because some subsets of the crypto industry want to operate entirely outside the law doesn't mean the whole industry wants to operate outside the law. As evidenced by anyone who pays taxes on their crypto. Saying "he used the system as it was designed, even if not as intended" is more or less equivalent to saying that any computer hack or zero day is also "using the computer system as designed". You even plausibly extend that to picking locks in the physical world. So yes, it does make sense for the law to get involved.

protocolture 2y ago
If a smart contract requires a court to execute you really should have just used a regular contract no?
- EGreg 2y ago
  No. Definitely not. Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all. People can put business rules in place that aren’t violated - and not just for contracts. For example bidders at Christie’s and Sotheby’s sometimes don’t have the money but the houses can’t make a big scandal. They try to hold another auction and sell it to someone else as if the guy sold it. In crypto it would be trivial to endure bidders have put up the money. You can refund the lowest bidder below N winners. You can also ensure payouts happen at agreed-upon rates. You can prove escrow. And stuff like that. Imagine a bunch of donors or investors seeing how their money is spent because it is on the blockchain. Or imagine a community having roles and knowing that each role was granted properly. In web2 anyone who can get into the database can modify any records and then you hope court cases and chilling effects will undo the damage retroactively.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    >Smart contracts are supposed to eliminate a huge swath of disputes, so often people don’t need courts at all That just sounds like near total agreement with me. Dont get me wrong, I love smart contracts conceptually. But if the parties to a smart contract desired court arbitration, they should include a function for it in the smart contract. Like a swing vote for a trusted third parties keys. Without that, to me, you are signalling acceptance of the outcome of the code without arbitration. If you seek a court to interfere with the execution of a smart contract that never included a provision for arbitration then you are in my mind, as guilty of ignoring the intent of the smart contract as any hacker might be. And if you were just going to court to dispute the smart contract, you may as well just have accepted a legacy contract. Escrow, multiple parties, etc etc all solved problems in the traditional legal space.

Vegenoid 2y ago

> If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? Agreed, but there is already a very similar case where "code is law" was tested, and failed: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-cryptocurrency-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c... It turns out that once a financial system becomes big enough, the US will apply its finance laws to it. Finance laws are designed to prevent sudden unexpected transfers of wealth from one (wealthy) unwilling party to another based on unanticipated loopholes.

wnevets 2y ago

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place? To funnel cash to regimes like North Korea

lupusreal 2y ago

> If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed Shouldn't, but can. Anyway, you're assuming most of these crypto people are true believers in the technical attributes of crypto currencies, but I think most of them don't understand or care about that and are just trying to get rich.