5 ms·

One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to follow the blockchain and see what eventually happens to that BTC. Does the government leave it in a wallet, or ca

One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to follow the blockchain and see what eventually happens to that BTC. Does the government leave it in a wallet, or cash it out with Coinbase, or what?

ferdo 13y ago
The coins appear to have moved a few times since the "seizure": https://blockchain.info/tx/ec3c6440a5302eade99c3be3dbe47524377779e009f632bd74f9ceee3df84c56 https://blockchain.info/tx/ec3c6440a5302eade99c3be3dbe475243...
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Of course they have to be moved to really be considered "seized", otherwise they just have a copy which can be invalidated before they control the value of the coins.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Interesting. I guess that means the DEA has some technology people who have been tasked with figuring out how Bitcoin works, sufficiently well to understand what it would mean to "seize" it and actually carry that out.
    - dfc 13y ago
      The only way that this would be "interesting" is if you started off with the assumption that everyone that works for the government is brain dead.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Doesn't everyone start with that assumption though?
        dfc 13y ago
        I hope not, it seems incredibly naive.
        mpyne 13y ago
        It is, but the normal assumption I've always seen made of governments is that they are a collection of those who were too dumb to make it "in the real world". At least, until that assumption becomes inconvenient for whatever point the person was trying to make.
        dfc 13y ago
        Do you consider "wanting to give back" or "a commitment to service" or similar expressions of idealism a sign of complete stupidity?
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        I don't think mpyne considers people in government to be brain dead, but it's a popular stereotype here on HN - whenever people disapprove of some government policy they complain that government bureaucrats are too stupid to understand technology. See, for example, the Bitcoin foundation thread on the front page, or any court case whose outcome disappoints people.
        dfc 13y ago
        I am well aware of the naive sentiment that can be found on *any forum/list" (not just HN) regarding the "guberment." mpyne is on the mental list of usernames that triggers my "read this comment don't merely skim" reaction. If it was a comment by a username I did not recognize I probably would not have responded.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        Likewise. I think we're all actually in agreement on this.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Holy crap, the government was able to figure out how to download and install bitcoin-qt!?! This was NOT on our list of possible scenarios!
    - bdcravens 13y ago
      the DEA has some technology people I'll step out on a limb and say that given their annual budget of almost $3B, they have a technology person or 2 on staff.
jlgreco 13y ago
One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money. This can be done if you want to save your money for later (perhaps for your defense, or for after your eventual release), or alternatively merely because you believe that civil forfeiture is unethical and dangerous to society as it accelerates the militarization of the police. Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time. If your aim is to merely destroy the money, you could also get away with having a secret VPS running somewhere that does the deed (it would not matter if it were later found). If you go with the "destroy" route, then you would not even be destroying the evidence from an ethics standpoint (thanks to the nature of the blockchain). However the authorities, upon being denied their "prize", would undoubtedly throw a childish hissyfit and assert that you destroyed the evidence anyway.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money" Sounds like burying your cash on an island. I think you might be able to publish an exciting novel about this...
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time. Don't you think that people involved in money-laundering already engage in such conspiracies? There's a reason they call it 'organized crime.'
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Uh, yes? Of course? That seems obvious. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to follow the blockchain and see what eventually happens to that BTC. Does the government leave it in a wallet, or cash it out with Coinbase, or what?

ferdo 13y ago

The coins appear to have moved a few times since the "seizure": https://blockchain.info/tx/ec3c6440a5302eade99c3be3dbe47524377779e009f632bd74f9ceee3df84c56 https://blockchain.info/tx/ec3c6440a5302eade99c3be3dbe475243...

hackinthebochs 13y ago
Of course they have to be moved to really be considered "seized", otherwise they just have a copy which can be invalidated before they control the value of the coins.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Interesting. I guess that means the DEA has some technology people who have been tasked with figuring out how Bitcoin works, sufficiently well to understand what it would mean to "seize" it and actually carry that out.
  - dfc 13y ago
    The only way that this would be "interesting" is if you started off with the assumption that everyone that works for the government is brain dead.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Doesn't everyone start with that assumption though?
      - dfc 13y ago
        I hope not, it seems incredibly naive.
        mpyne 13y ago
        It is, but the normal assumption I've always seen made of governments is that they are a collection of those who were too dumb to make it "in the real world". At least, until that assumption becomes inconvenient for whatever point the person was trying to make.
        dfc 13y ago
        Do you consider "wanting to give back" or "a commitment to service" or similar expressions of idealism a sign of complete stupidity?
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        I don't think mpyne considers people in government to be brain dead, but it's a popular stereotype here on HN - whenever people disapprove of some government policy they complain that government bureaucrats are too stupid to understand technology. See, for example, the Bitcoin foundation thread on the front page, or any court case whose outcome disappoints people.
        dfc 13y ago
        I am well aware of the naive sentiment that can be found on *any forum/list" (not just HN) regarding the "guberment." mpyne is on the mental list of usernames that triggers my "read this comment don't merely skim" reaction. If it was a comment by a username I did not recognize I probably would not have responded.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        Likewise. I think we're all actually in agreement on this.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Holy crap, the government was able to figure out how to download and install bitcoin-qt!?! This was NOT on our list of possible scenarios!
  - bdcravens 13y ago
    the DEA has some technology people I'll step out on a limb and say that given their annual budget of almost $3B, they have a technology person or 2 on staff.

jlgreco 13y ago

One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money. This can be done if you want to save your money for later (perhaps for your defense, or for after your eventual release), or alternatively merely because you believe that civil forfeiture is unethical and dangerous to society as it accelerates the militarization of the police. Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time. If your aim is to merely destroy the money, you could also get away with having a secret VPS running somewhere that does the deed (it would not matter if it were later found). If you go with the "destroy" route, then you would not even be destroying the evidence from an ethics standpoint (thanks to the nature of the blockchain). However the authorities, upon being denied their "prize", would undoubtedly throw a childish hissyfit and assert that you destroyed the evidence anyway.

betterunix 13y ago
"One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money" Sounds like burying your cash on an island. I think you might be able to publish an exciting novel about this...
anigbrowl 13y ago
Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time. Don't you think that people involved in money-laundering already engage in such conspiracies? There's a reason they call it 'organized crime.'
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Uh, yes? Of course? That seems obvious. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.