If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Not news: Holder of $18 million in Bitcoins to auction them off. Fark: It's the US government   (bbc.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, Silk Road, bitcoins, auctions  
•       •       •

678 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Jun 2014 at 3:33 PM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 01:33:23 PM
What else would they do with seized property?
 
2014-06-13 02:07:28 PM

vpb: What else would they do with seized stolen property?


FTFY
 
2014-06-13 02:14:22 PM
I've got some magic beans for sale. My asking price is $20 million in Bitcoins, but I'll cut y'all a deal.
 
2014-06-13 02:17:04 PM
The US authority added that it would "not sell to any person who is acting on behalf of or in concert with the Silk Road and/or Ross William Ulbricht, and bidders will be required to so certify".

Well that's stupid. What else can you do with them?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 02:17:50 PM

InterruptingQuirk: vpb: What else would they do with seized stolen property?


Well, I guess if you are a criminal and don't believe in laws you might see it that way.
 
2014-06-13 02:31:18 PM

vpb: InterruptingQuirk: vpb: What else would they do with seized stolen property?

Well, I guess if you are a criminal and don't believe in laws you might see it that way.


The U.S. went well beyond it's jurisdiction in seizing that property.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 02:38:32 PM
InterruptingQuirk:
The U.S. went well beyond it's jurisdiction in seizing that property.

That's an, uh interesting claim.  Is there something more to the issue or is this the "anything I don't like is unconstitutional" argument that you hear so much from the far right and left so much?
 
2014-06-13 02:50:52 PM

vpb: InterruptingQuirk:
The U.S. went well beyond it's jurisdiction in seizing that property.

That's an, uh interesting claim.  Is there something more to the issue or is this the "anything I don't like is unconstitutional" argument that you hear so much from the far right and left so much?


It hinges largely on the world police mindset of the U.S. Govt. It's compounded by the fact that this dude was operating in international waters, so to speak. It is also the specious notion that the you are within any nation's borders when on the net also bothers me.

Do I have anything beyond my gut to tell me that the U.S. Govt. had no right to do this? No.
 
2014-06-13 02:51:32 PM
Should not have used the word fact in that statement.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 03:29:51 PM
InterruptingQuirk:

It hinges largely on the world police mindset of the U.S. Govt. It's compounded by the fact that this dude was operating in international waters, so to speak. It is also the specious notion that the you are within any nation's borders when on the net also bothers me.

Do I have anything beyond my gut to tell me that the U.S. Govt. had no right to do this? No.


From what I have read on the subject, the servers were in PA in the USA, but even if they were in international waters it wouldn't matter.  International waters are not some sort of law-free anarchy zone. they are just don't belong to any country.  You are under the jurisdiction of your country of citizenship, the Flag country of the vessel and the country that the vessel is physically in at minimum.

If the servers of the person were out of US jurisdiction that doesn't mean that they are immune to US law for crimes committed in in US jurisdiction or against US citizens, that just means you have to be extradited before you can be prosecuted.

If you meant "cyberspace", there isn't any such place.  It's a fantasy.  Every server,  person or anything else on the internet is somewhere in the real world and subject so one or more jurisdictions.

That's the way it should be really.  International law wasn't written by anarchists.
 
2014-06-13 03:45:41 PM
It's a travesty that the Coast Guard can enter international waters!  It's a travesty that a discerning gentleman can be busted breaking U.S. sex laws in SE Asia!
 
2014-06-13 03:50:12 PM
Pffft. I am still wating for cops to catch on to this:

1. Require all fines to be paid in cash
2. Intercept people coming to pay their fine. Seize the money under asset forfeiture.
3. ???
4. Profit
 
2014-06-13 04:10:56 PM
Has his trial elapsed and he has been convicted?
 
2014-06-13 04:25:12 PM

DaStompa: Has his trial elapsed and he has been convicted?


Haven't you kept up?

They don't even need CHARGES any more, much less a conviction.
 
2014-06-13 04:25:13 PM

vpb: From what I have read on the subject, the servers were in PA in the USA, but even if they were in international waters it wouldn't matter.


The clear problem here is this pre-trial punishment/pre-trial forfeiture stuff. No process is obviously not due process.

The bigger problem is that the feds are doing that regarding transactions outside the USA. I can't entirely agree with InterruptingQuirk because, as you point out, just being an American involved in the drug trade is a crime in America. However forfeiture without any proof gets even more ridiculous when the feds are refusing to prove crimes that didn't even happen here.

Also let me point out that pre-trial forfeiture puts gigantic pressure on prosecutors to get a conviction. Has anyone been forced into forfeiture and then won their case/had charges dropped/walked free? That would be a mess.
 
2014-06-13 04:28:01 PM
The US authority added that it would "not sell to any person who is acting on behalf of or in concert with the Silk Road and/or Ross William Ulbricht, and bidders will be required to so certify".

lolwut
Ok 1) How do you prove anything? 2) Why does that matter? Fungibility, how does it work?
 
2014-06-13 04:45:04 PM

InterruptingQuirk: vpb: InterruptingQuirk:
The U.S. went well beyond it's jurisdiction in seizing that property.

That's an, uh interesting claim.  Is there something more to the issue or is this the "anything I don't like is unconstitutional" argument that you hear so much from the far right and left so much?

It hinges largely on the world police mindset of the U.S. Govt. It's compounded by the fact that this dude was operating in international waters, so to speak. It is also the specious notion that the you are within any nation's borders when on the net also bothers me.

Do I have anything beyond my gut to tell me that the U.S. Govt. had no right to do this? No.


Right on!

It's like that law that says that child molesters can still be prosecuted at home, even if they they go to a third world country!  Total fascist overreach.
 
2014-06-13 05:08:55 PM

vpb: That's the way it should be really. International law wasn't written by anarchists.


Bird law, however, was written by anarchists.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 05:10:05 PM

Fark like a Barsoomian: vpb: From what I have read on the subject, the servers were in PA in the USA, but even if they were in international waters it wouldn't matter.

The clear problem here is this pre-trial punishment/pre-trial forfeiture stuff. No process is obviously not due process.

The bigger problem is that the feds are doing that regarding transactions outside the USA. I can't entirely agree with InterruptingQuirk because, as you point out, just being an American involved in the drug trade is a crime in America. However forfeiture without any proof gets even more ridiculous when the feds are refusing to prove crimes that didn't even happen here.

Also let me point out that pre-trial forfeiture puts gigantic pressure on prosecutors to get a conviction. Has anyone been forced into forfeiture and then won their case/had charges dropped/walked free? That would be a mess.


I don't know where you got the idea that someone was "forced" into "pre-trial forfeiture". 

The bit-coins being sold were seized from the silk road servers.  The bit-coins that belong to the guy facing criminal charges aren't the ones being sold.

The ones being sold were seized along with the servers.  They were forfeited because no one established ownership.  Usually that's because no one claims ownership, which is because the money is evidence and people don't want to connect themselves with it if the money is connected with a crime.

The money that the DPR guy admits is his won't be disposed of until after the trial one way or another as TFA states.
 
2014-06-13 05:11:31 PM
So this valuation is from Dec, when they traded at $1,200/ea? Or having successfully auctioned off a block, then we will know a new true worth?

/I need me some of those coins in the stock photos... Just to jingle in my pocket!
//Are there 5, 10, & 25 bc coins too?
///do they fit in the SD slot? So I can trade them on an exchange?
 
2014-06-13 05:53:25 PM
That's a farking lot of alpaca socks!

/instead of auctioning them why not just sell them on the exchange for the current price?
//if you had $18 million worth of Euros would you exchange them or auction them?
 
2014-06-13 06:12:29 PM

madgonad: DaStompa: Has his trial elapsed and he has been convicted?

Haven't you kept up?

They don't even need CHARGES any more, much less a conviction.


Apparently not :(
 
2014-06-13 06:53:27 PM

DigitalCoffee: That's a farking lot of alpaca socks!

/instead of auctioning them why not just sell them on the exchange for the current price?
//if you had $18 million worth of Euros would you exchange them or auction them?



???

Have you every bought or sold currency or stock?  It's all an "auction."  That's why they talk in terms of bid/ask price.

They are just doing in, in this case, on their own "exchange" instead of some other one that they probably don't trust.
 
2014-06-13 07:21:40 PM

DigitalCoffee: That's a farking lot of alpaca socks!

/instead of auctioning them why not just sell them on the exchange for the current price?
//if you had $18 million worth of Euros would you exchange them or auction them?


Bitcoins are not a recognized currency. The fact that some people use them in trade is not relevant. The US government is not going to go onto some sketchy exchange and sell them, any more than they'd sell seized merchandise on eBay. There are rules about this kind of issue. Things that aren't currency are auctioned.
 
2014-06-13 09:45:53 PM

vpb: That's the way it should be really. International law wasn't written by anarchists.


You're right. I just like due process, but as someone else pointed out, claiming those bitcoins would implicate him. I also abhor theft, state sanctioned or otherwise. I also don't like being roped into condoning all manner of illegal acts by my statements, which you weren't doing yourself, I'm jus sayin.
 
2014-06-14 02:39:25 PM

vpb: I don't know where you got the idea that someone was "forced" into "pre-trial forfeiture".


FTA: The Bitcoins offered in this auction have been forfeited to the US government.

The bit-coins being sold were seized from the silk road servers. The bit-coins that belong to the guy facing criminal charges aren't the ones being sold.

The ones being sold were seized along with the servers. They were forfeited because no one established ownership. Usually that's because no one claims ownership, which is because the money is evidence and people don't want to connect themselves with it if the money is connected with a crime.


Also FTA: He is contesting the claim that the money was earned illegally.

The money that the DPR guy admits is his won't be disposed of until after the trial one way or another as TFA states.

wat
Read it again.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report