3 ms·

Perhaps to even it out you could treat "sale" of drugs for bitcoins as merely one person 'gifting' drugs to another, since the payment would not actually be in

by Crito 13y ago

Perhaps to even it out you could treat "sale" of drugs for bitcoins as merely one person 'gifting' drugs to another, since the payment would not actually be in something recognized as having value. You'd be left with nailing people for possession and perhaps distribution but not sale. Honestly I think you've got it backwards though. Going after ponzi schemes and fraud is a much better use of resources than going after completely honest and on the level drug transactions^. Prioritize crimes with victims, not de-prioritize them. ^ Yeah, DPR was slime. Obviously he shouldn't receive immunity for hiring hit-men just because he also deals drugs. We don't arrest people for selling car insurance, but if an insurance salesman hires a hitman obviously that is still a crime that needs to be dealt with.

rayiner 13y ago
The usual charge for drug trafficking is "possession with intent to distribute" so it's irrelevant whether there is a sale or not. And I'm not arguing that prosecuting drug dealers is socially more valuable than prosecuting people running Ponzi schemes.[1] I'm saying the government should do it because it would make for a fascinating sociological experiment. [1] The reason I draw the distinction is because society at large has decided it doesn't want drugs in their communities (whether you agree or disagree with this purpose is a different argument I don't want to get into), and has thus made it illegal to distribute them, and that shouldn't change because the transaction is denominated in Bitcoin. But people transacting in Bitcoin voluntarily can reasonably be put on notice that the government will not protect any property interest in Bitcoin and they will have to rely on the Bitcoin ecosystem for that.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > But people transacting in Bitcoin voluntarily can reasonably be put on notice that the government will not protect any property interest in Bitcoin A property interest is a thing protected by government. If its not protected by government, it doesn't exist.

by Crito 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

The usual charge for drug trafficking is "possession with intent to distribute" so it's irrelevant whether there is a sale or not. And I'm not arguing that prosecuting drug dealers is socially more valuable than prosecuting people running Ponzi schemes.[1] I'm saying the government should do it because it would make for a fascinating sociological experiment. [1] The reason I draw the distinction is because society at large has decided it doesn't want drugs in their communities (whether you agree or disagree with this purpose is a different argument I don't want to get into), and has thus made it illegal to distribute them, and that shouldn't change because the transaction is denominated in Bitcoin. But people transacting in Bitcoin voluntarily can reasonably be put on notice that the government will not protect any property interest in Bitcoin and they will have to rely on the Bitcoin ecosystem for that.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> But people transacting in Bitcoin voluntarily can reasonably be put on notice that the government will not protect any property interest in Bitcoin A property interest is a thing protected by government. If its not protected by government, it doesn't exist.