International News
See other International News Articles
Title: WAS BITCOIN CREATED BY THIS INTERNATIONAL DRUG DEALER?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.wired.com/story/was-bit ... ternational-drug-dealer-maybe/
Published: Jul 16, 2019
Author: SHARE SHARE TWEET COMMENT EMAIL AUTHOR:
Post Date: 2019-07-16 08:06:04 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 43130
Comments: 88
THE MESSAGES STARTED arriving on a Sunday afternoon in mid-May. “Just wanted to draw your attention to this,” one began. “Rumors are starting to surface,” another informed me. “I’d be very interested in getting your thoughts,” a third suggested. My correspondents, mostly strangers, were polite but insistent. They wanted my take on a theory, newly circulating online, that offered a resolution to one of the most alluring digital mysteries of the past decade, the real identity (or identities) behind the persona of Satoshi Nakamoto.
The question, as someone in my Twitter DM’s articulated it, was this: “Do you think that Paul Le Roux is bitcoin creator Satoshi?”
In one sense, they’d all come to the right place. I spent five years tracking Paul Calder Le Roux, a South African programmer who built a global drug and arms dealing empire, and transformed himself into one of the 21st century’s most prolific and pursued criminals. I’d obsessively catalogued his life, from his early history as an encryption coder; through his creation of an online prescription drug business worth hundreds of millions of dollars; to his diversification into smuggling, weapons, and violence; to his 2012 capture by, and cooperation with, the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Along the way he had, among other endeavors, simultaneously fed the American opioid epidemic; built his own base operations in Somalia, protected by an armed militia; run gold and timber extraction operations in a half-dozen African countries; laundered millions of dollars through Hong Kong; plotted a coup in the Seychelles (later abandoned); bought off law enforcement in the Philippines, where he was based; trafficked methamphetamine out of North Korea; and overseen a team of engineers building missile guidance systems for Iran and drones for drug delivery.
I’d traveled into the Manila underworld and found former employees, including ex-military mercenaries who’d worked as Le Roux’s enforcers. I’d distilled hundreds of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of records into a 400-page book, The Mastermind, detailing Le Roux’s epic rise and fall.
These questions about Satoshi, however, filled me with a special kind of dread. I’d traveled down the Satoshi rabbit hole before and returned empty handed. “I’ve got a secret theory that Paul invented bitcoin,” I’d written in 2016 to Mathew Smith, Le Roux’s cousin. Smith, along with over a hundred other Le Roux–connected people I interviewed, from employees to cops, had seen or heard nothing to support my theory. By the time I finished the book, in late 2018, I’d largely discarded it. “I wasted countless hours trying to determine if there was any connection” between Le Roux and Satoshi, I wrote in the final manuscript. “As far as I could tell, there wasn’t.”
There was some relief in this. I’d seen the ignominy when people went Satoshi hunting in the past. The siren song of bitcoin’s progenitor had been calling out to journalists since Satoshi seemed to exit the cryptocurrency world in 2011, leaving behind a technology that—even today, after all the hype cycles—promises to shape the future of everything from money to contracts. Whoever Satoshi was, the person (or persons) was sitting on a fortune, roughly a million bitcoins that analysts estimated Satoshi had mined at the currency’s inception in 2009. (At current prices that stash would be worth more than $10 billion.) There had been many attempts to unmask the creator, unresolved.
But now the messages about Le Roux kept coming, driven by 4chan and Hacker News threads churning over a tantalizing new clue—a footnote in one filing in a multibillion-dollar federal lawsuit in Florida.
This is where things started to get weird. The defendant in the lawsuit is an Australian computer scientist named Craig Wright. As followers of the Satoshi saga will know, Wright was the man outed in late 2015 by WIRED and Gizmodo as a likely candidate to himself be Satoshi Nakamoto. Both publications later walked back the stories after it appeared that documents they’d relied upon had been faked and manipulated.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#7)
So in other words it is for drug dealers and criminals. Plenty of banks are used to launder drug money. Banks Launder Billions of Illegal Cartel Money Bank of America, Western Union, and JP Morgan, are among the institutions allegedly involved in the drug trade. Meanwhile, HSBC has admitted its laundering role, and evaded criminal prosecution by paying a fine of almost $2 billion. The lack of imprisonment of any bankers involved is indicative of the hypocritical nature of the drug war; an individual selling a few grams of drugs can face decades in prison, while a group of people that tacitly allow — and profit from — the trade of tons, escape incarceration.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Back in 2008 (or 2009), they increased this to $250,000. They said they wanted to protect consumers during the banking crisis. However, what it did was eliminate the incentive for people to hold cash in their bank accounts from having a bunch of bank accounts, each with less than $100K in it. And who really benefited from this? The biggest banks who, instead of seeing people move their savings over $100K out of their bank to split it up among two more banks. So the big bank would get to keep a lot more of these most desirable customers. And Congress, as usual, supported the big banks (who had caused the financial crisis) at the cost of the smaller banks.
That may be true. But it is also true that peoples money is even more secure. If you account for inflation from when the 100 thousand dollar policy started. Is it about the same today in what a dollar is worth compared to the past? I don't know.
100000 in 1980 → $304741.30 in 2018 - Inflation Calculator
The goldbugs have an argument against fiat currency. They say that the government and big business have historically favored big investors and banks. And favored borrowers over savers. The goldbugs say the value of the money, whether backed by gold or not, can be measured simply in the cost of something a century ago as compared to the cost of the same quality of good today. They typically use the cost of a good men's suit, like a lawyer or businessman would choose. So they observe that a century ago, when the Federal Reserve was just really getting started and the dollar was still backed (imperfectly) by gold, a good men's suit cost $20. And today a comparable suit costs about $2,000. So they estimate that a dollar today is worth roughly 1% of what it was worth a century ago. So your arguments against crypo aren't as strong when you recognize the "petrodollar tax". Namely, that the U.S. government, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and big institutional investors have a known bias toward devaluing the currency over time while still trying to make it the one indispensable currency globally. Because seeing the dollar as indispensable is part of its power, despite its defects as the chosen currency of dollar manipulators and their cronies. Bitcoin's value can similarly vary but a massively indebted government with its Wall Street cronies and investor class and borrowers et cetera will always be trying to force dollar values down, primarily to benefit the investor class. Since we have allowed federal debt to grow so large, it is virtually guaranteed that the federal government will favor dollar devaluation just so its own books can be (roughly) balanced. While continuing to run a trillion dollar deficit in 2020. The dollar starts to look more and more like a plot by the Federal Reserve to keep the petrodollar as the indispensable currency while using monetary policy (interest rates) to favor the big banks, Wall Street, the investor class, and smaller borrowers and even the small fry like mortgage holders, all to keep that system intact. Even foreign governments and investors are tied into this system and the inevitable "tax" on all dollar holders that the deliberate institutional devaluation of the petrodollar necessarily entails.
Tell you what. Invest with me and I can guarantee that in thirty years your dollars will be worth 30% of what you invest with me. Doesn't that sound like a really good investment plan for you? Just mail me a check already. You see, this is a way to use monetary policy to reduce government (and private) debt, all at the expense of the entire economy. However, since we force the entire oil industry to conduct its business in petrodollars (and no country has yet really escaped the petrodollar system), then this constant devaluation is actually a subsidy that props up the value of a dollar. Look back a few years, to the attempts to establish a different foreign currency like the euro or the Chinese yuan as an alternative to the petrodollar (because those foreigners were pissed at the constantly and deliberately devalued petrodollar at their expense and to the benefit of the American economy and, especially, the biggest American banks and investors and the federal government most of all with its huge ongoing debt crisis). We pulled out the stops and all that talk has amounted to nothing. Yet, some very serious players wanted to proceed. Like Saddam in Iraq looking to sell oil to the EU using a petro-euro or petro-franc. Fast forward some years and Saddam is now gone, a nice object lesson to regional dictators. And the oil contracts Saddam had got invalidated and the contracts for Iraqi oil had to mostly be renegotiated, using the petrodollar of course. And in the meantime, America's fracking explosion has now made the petrodollar more hard to escape than ever since America is now the world's leading producer of natural gas and of oil and of gasoline. Point out the defects of Bitcoin all you like. But don't pretend the dollar is perfect either. It has some serious defects as well.
Bitscamcoin zero. I believe one of the recent hacks was actually insured against loss. And yes, there is no reason why crypto could not be so insured in the same way cars, houses and jewelry is insured.
Crypto has no more in common with the Biblical "mark of the beast" than does dollars at this point. Your credit card is just numbers too, isn't it? Worse yet, it has your name attached to those numbers. At least bitcoin doesn't conflate the two.
If you want a currency that is actually backed by something, that's fine, but don't pretend the US dollar meets that requirement. You are pretty much left with the Swiss Frank, which is partially gold backed, and gold and silver itself. As I've conceded numerous times that crypto is not so backed, but neither is the dollar, I don't see the point of bantering that point further. The people who lose their minds are those who can't admit the fact that bitcoin is almost 10 years old and has not gone away in spite of comparisons to tulip bulb mania. And that tulip bulb mania only lasted about 3 years in times of antiquity. And here in the modern age, bitcoin has done almost 10. Congress has called for hearings about libra and has dragged FB execs to DC to discuss it. They insist it's important to talk about potential illicit use, money laundering, security, Know Your Customer and all those things before FB moves forward with it. It's because of DC's insatiable appitite for controlling money. But they didn't do that for bitcoin, and do you know why? There are no execs to drag to DC to question!. There is no central party that controls bitcoin, and that's a good thing. Yes there is good and bad, but government control is just as bad, or worse, than any other potential illicit use of bitcoin you could name. I believe there are many thing you don't trust the gov with stone. Why do you trust the monetary system with them? But of course professional, lifelong bankers will hate bitcoin. They are oriented to central control of the monetary system and bitcoin is decentralized. What's not to hate? If its real worth was truly zero, there would be no need to investigate.
Good point! The type of money is not the problem.
Sounds about right. So in about 40 years, the US dollar has lost 2/3rds of it's purchasing power.
So someone should take out an insurance policy in case their money disappears in cyberspace. That isn't comforting. I like it the way it is better. Pity to the poor person who couldn't afford to insure their money. Should the government mandate that you have insurance on your "money" you know to protect us? 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Hey that verse up there in the Bible could maybe make crypto more secure. Number everyone with a microchip. Then their microchip could identify them and make sure it isn't stolen money or an illegitimate transaction. Uh Oh 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. No thanks
That is the way it goes. People make more money today. So that is just the way it is. Bitcoin would't change any of that.
Me and you should team up and make a virtual currency. We'll call it the liberty.
Because it works. Everyone in the world wants dollars. It makes Americans richer because everyone wants our money. No one wants pesos. I know it should be backed by gold. Or I used to know or think that. That could be bad too. Not enough gold. Gold theft from Fort Knox possibility.
I agree crypto right now obviously isn't the mark of the beast. I disagree that they are equally unlike the mark of the beast. There will be problems with Crypto. People will want help with the government. They will eventually use mark of the beast to make it secure. That is where I see it going long term from my perspective. With crypto type stuff who is to say you wont be locked out of your money somehow in the future if you are not compliant with governments wishes. Who knows maybe the CIA made Bitcoin. Or some government.
I worked in a grocery store in the 80's. Milk was $1.89 for the red topped vitamin D milk. !0 cents less for the Blue top and another for the watered down 1 percent. Now I can get it for 99 cents or a buck 29. Computers are cheaper too. Why am I telling you. Well you'll have to figure that out I don't have time to develop my thoughts in a manual for you to read. Computers are cheaper too. And Dewalt power tools.
I'm glad the world prefers dollars. It makes us richer. It is to our advantage that we can print money and these other countries take it instead of our gold.
That's just it, and the bottom line with crypto is that it is *decentralized*. That means no other party can lock you out of your funds. Not even the CIA. If someone gets a court order to turn over bitcoin funds, and the person doesn't want to do it, they may be held in contempt and put in jail but ultimately, if that person doesn't want to turn over the funds, then the funds cannot be taken from them. Contrast that to funds in a bank account where the gov can go straight to the bank and take your funds. If you don't understand that then you really don't even come close to understanding crypto currency at all. It is one of the best selling points. It is a free-market currency where no central power has a monopoly on it's creation OR usage. New currency creation is controlled by supply and demand forces. The more demand there is, the more/faster that is created. If demand drops off, then creation drops off as well. In many respects, the US dollar could be a better match for the mark of the beast than crypto currency, as the gov CAN obstruct your usage of dollars. It wouldn't even matter, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread because it is *open source* programming, meaning anyone can see the source code and inspect it for any kind of back door access. Now I say it absolutely was not created by the CIA but EVEN IF IT WAS, it wouldn't matter.
You realize you are talking like a banker, don't you?
They can require isps to make you log in or cut them off. There are lots of ways government can take control of it,
We have a trade defecit. If we gave all those countries our gold for those goods we wouldn't have any gold left here. So that would suck. There is only so much Gold.
While you, as a working joe American consumer, get a little more stability over the years from this scheme, it is fundamentally aimed at making you and countries overseas and all lenders poorer. Well, lenders other than the biggest banks who get their money virtually for free from the source, the Federal Reserve. The petrodollar is a net loss for American consumers but it is a big win for the federal government, good for multinations, good for the Fortune 500 and Wall Street (the greatest beneficiaries as well as a group which makes it a policy to structure their businesses in such a way that they never pay any federal taxes). Its greatest merit is that it is a loss leader for foreigners who hold dollars as well which makes them even bigger losers than average American consumers from the fraud of the fiat petrodollar and the machinations of the Fed. If you're going to heap some scorn on the cryptos, you need to reserve at least as much for the fiat dollar if you are to have any sort of coherent opinion on monetary policy and currency issues. C'mon, Stone. The Federal Reserve policy is good for Wall Street, good for Goldman-Sachs, good for the biggest borrowers. And your last name isn't Rockefeller or Gates or Bezos or Soros or Koch or Zuckerman.
But that is not an argument against cryptocurrencies. You're merely supporting Nixon taking us off the gold standard as our gold reserves waned due to America being such an industrial powerhouse after WW II when Europe's and Asia's strongest industrial economies had been destroyed. It's an empty argument anyway. They could have simply increased valuation of gold in the fiat exchange rate. So we could still have a gold-backed dollar today, no problem. But an ounce of gold would be worth $50,000 instead of a bit over $1,000. Going off the gold standard was not the only solution available in 1973. Nixon also instituted wage and price controls, another very stupid move and also something he didn't have to do to deal with the economy. And none of that has anything to do with cryptocurrency's value as a currency. Maybe currency is too important to leave it in the hands of political scalawags in the District of Criminals.
No they can't. WiFi is practically free, if not from home than from elsewhere. And as far as the gov is concerned, shutting down the internet would shut them down too. The gov is as addicted to the net as any family is, and actually moreso. Not with crypto there isn't. Even if the US gov could shut down all mining operations in the USA, crypto would still keep ticking in other countries. Crypto is borderless.
If we did that, then the ever increasing shortage of gold would make gold more valuable at home, and the imports would decrease on that basis and the trade deficit would end. You are now advocating the position that the American people should exploit the working class in other countries, sending them printable dollars in exchange for real goods and services. In my view, that is international counterfeiting, no different from a domestic non-government counterfeiter that prints paper money illicitly representing real value. You are also advocating a permanent trade deficit which is ultimately unsustainable. That's not a boat I'm getting on.
As though no one has ever lost dollar holdings? Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them??? That happened in the Quadriga case where Quadriga CX founder Gerald Cotten died suddenly. The assets of the entire exchange were rendered inaccessible. I never made any such claim. To the contrary, I explicitly stated at #12, to which you purport to reply, that "it is true that inflation or deflation causes a loss of purchasing power for money stored in a bank, or even stored in your wallet or under your mattress," and that "paper currency could devalue to zero." In the United States, in over two centuries, the count Your straw man argument is a fail. [nolu chan #12] This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate. It most certainly is accurate. Your citation reflects a case of keys not being securely protected, just as I stated they must be. It is most certain that after five years, the customers still cannot access their assets, and that hacking or a security failure had nothing to do with it. The founder of the exchange died. The keys were so securely held that nobody has ever discovered a copy. Perhaps they were held in the most secure location, Gerald Cotten's brain. However the keys were secured, they remain secured, as do the assets. The numbers are still there, but they have been rendered useless and without value. The individual investors' only mistake was putting their assets in that exchange. It is small consolation that the block chain and crypto continue to work, and the exchange remains locked out. You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography? It is accurate to call crypto volatile. The term indicates large swings back and forth. That is what crypto has done. Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States. Things may be valued in crypto, but nobody has to accept it, and it cannot be marketed as currency or the marketer can be prosecuted and sent to prison. No, not to evade regulation. It was to evade theft of value as previously mentioned. Righhht. The drugs dealers were concerned with inflation of the dollar, not with prosecution for income tax evasion and civil asset forfeiture of their ill gotten loot. They are really good guys with noble souls when you get to know them. Of course, that was it. /s If the owner or director of the exchange suddenly dies, and he takes his memorized key with him, the exchange cannot access the data. The customers have a learning experience.
I have no idea why you believe worthless paper, devalued to zero, would continue to function as currency. Crypto, Liberty Dollars, and any other invention which attempts to compete with the official currency is unlawful. If one attempts to pass off something as currency, which is not currency, one follows the footsteps of Bernard von Nothaus and goes to jail. If crypto was created with the purpose of qualifying as a currency itself, in the United States it would be unlawful. It MUST be converted into official currency in order for anyone to be required to accept it. Like Monopoly money, you could exchange it for goods and services, provided somebody will accept it. Any official currency is determined by the power of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S Constitution (see Norman v. B & O R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 302-04 (1935)), quoted in relevant part below. Make and declare your own counterfeit currency and you may go to jail. Currencies competing with the official currency are illegal. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141112b90 See United States v. von Nothaus, NCWD (Statesville) 5:09-cr-00027-RLV, (10 Nov 2014), MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 19, 2009, a federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of North Carolina returned a Bill of Indictment against Defendant and three co-defendants. (Doc. 3). This Order pertains only to Defendant von Nothaus. Defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 485 and 486, and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 485, 486, and 2. On November 17, 2010, the grand jury returned a Superseding Bill of Indictment against the same group of defendants.2 (Doc. 103). This Superseding Indictment charged Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 485 and 486, and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 485, 486, and 2, eliminating the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Defendant's jury trial began in Statesville, North Carolina, on March 8, 2011. The Government rested its case after two days of evidence. The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Defendant presented evidence for approximately four days, and rested on March 17, 2011. The Government offered testimony from one rebuttal witness. The jury began deliberations on March 18, 2011. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury found Defendant guilty on all counts in the Superseding Bill of Indictment. Following announcement of the jury verdict, the Court likewise denied Defendant's renewed Rule 29 Motion. Defendant now moves for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rules 29, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [...] The Superseding Bill of Indictment ("Indictment") alleged that between January 1998 and May 19, 2010, Defendant Bernard von Nothaus designed, created and minted coins called "Liberty Dollars," coins "in resemblance or in similitude" [or made to look like] of U.S. coins. The Indictment alleged that the Liberty Dollar coins were to be introduced into the U.S. economy and meant to compete with U.S. currency in violation of federal law. According to the Government, the Defendant sought to have his Liberty Dollar coins accepted by merchants (and distributed by merchants) in the place of U.S. currency in order to make a profit for the Defendant and those associated with his Liberty Dollar Organization. [...] The Government produced evidence during its case-in-chief that Liberty Dollar training materials [dated as early as 2006 and as late as 2007] expressly state that associates are not to "attempt to educate people about money when using Liberty Dollars." (3/8/11 Tr. 121-22). Special FBI Agent Andrew F. Romagnuolo ("Romagnuolo") explained that the FBI's concern was not the merchants voluntarily accepting the Liberty Dollar coin, but rather the folks receiving Liberty Dollar coins without being educated about the coin and its actual value: (3/8/11 Tr. 34; 60, 75-76). Although Defendant admits to most of the facts alleged, namely, that he designed, minted, marketed, sold, and used the Liberty Dollar coins in commerce, Defendant disputes that his purpose or intent was unlawful. The Defendant maintains that his purpose and intent was, and always has been, to promote use of a "local currency" or "private barter currency" and to repeal the Federal Reserve Act as opposed to attempting to compete with U.S. currency. The jury verdict reflects that the fact finders accepted the Government's evidence and theory. [...] 2. Constitutional Authority For Enactment Of 18 U.S.C. § 486 In Article I, Section 8, the United States Constitution specifies that Congress, within its enumerated powers, has the power to "coin money," "regulate [its] value," and to "provide for the punishment of counterfeiting." U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8.19 Congress also has the power to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to achieve those ends that are specifically enumerated. See U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8, cl. 18.20 (3/9/11 Tr. 130-31). Whether characterized as an enumerated power or as "necessary and proper" to any of the enumerated powers within Clauses 5 and 6, it is undisputed that Congress has the ability to enact comprehensive laws concerning the coinage of money, the value of money, and counterfeiting. See Norman v. B & O R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 302-04(1935) (emphasizing "the broad and comprehensive national authority over the subjects of revenue, finance, and currency"); see also United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186, 1190 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 964 (1981) (citing U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 6 and cl. 18, rejecting constitutional challenge to conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 485 for counterfeiting of gold coins no longer in circulation as current coins; finding "Congress had a rational basis for protecting the integrity of non-current gold United States coins."). The Constitution does not expressly state within Article I, Section 8, clause 5 that the Congressional power to coin money is "exclusive." See U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 5. Nonetheless, the exclusive power of Congress and the federal government can be reasonably inferred from the fact that in Section 10 of Article 1, the Constitution expressly prohibits States from coining money. See U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 10, cl. 1. The Government's legal position that Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws to regulate matters of commerce, finance, and money finds significant support in our jurisprudence. (Doc. 201, 7-8, 12)(citing Norman v. B & O R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); and United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560 (1850)). United States v. Marigold stands for the proposition that the United States, through Congress, is tasked with regulating commerce via the power to coin money found within Article I, Section 8, clause 5 of the Constitution.22 The Supreme Court described this power in terms of "the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution. . . ." Marigold, 50 U.S. at 567. In Marigold, the Supreme Court explained in dictum: Marigold, 50 U.S. at 567. Therefore, in the mid-1800's, Marigold anticipated that without the power to maintain uniformity and the value of a national money, different views of policy stemming from different communities might threaten to undermine a "constitutional currency." Id. at 567-68. Indeed, to hold otherwise would deny Congress the power to protect the value of federally issued currency, a currency backed by the United States. Some years later, the Supreme Court weighed in again concerning the constitutional authority granted to Congress in this area. Norman v. B & O R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 302-04 (1935). In relation to currency, and express congressional powers, the Supreme Court stated in Norman that "the source of [Congressional] authority was in all the related powers conferred upon the Congress and appropriate to achieve `the great objects for which the government was framed' —'a national government, with sovereign powers.'" Norman, 294 U.S. at 302-04 (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 404-407 (1819); citing Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 12 Wall. 457, 545 (1870)) (other internal citations omitted). Norman provides insight as to what types of laws could be "necessary and proper" to Article I, Section 8: Norman, 294 U.S. at 303-04 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Both Norman and Marigold place a premium on the ability of Congress to promote a uniform "constitutional currency." The undersigned turns now to cases applying 18 U.S.C. § 486. [...] The Government cites Gellman for the proposition that individuals are likewise prohibited from competing with the United States currency while Defendant and Amicus question application to the individual as opposed to another sovereign. Whether the rationale set forth in Gellman is adopted or not, the Court finds that under the construction of Section 486 applied here, contemplating that if a coin is intended for use as current money then there is necessarily a deceptive quality about its design, Defendant's conviction on Count Three must be upheld. For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned is of the opinion, and this Court so finds as a matter of law, that Congress indeed possesses the power to criminalize an individual's minting of coinage, whether in resemblance of U.S. coins or of original design, that is intended for use as current money.
You do know your modern goldbugs. : ) Very few people now even know who he was after his legal troubles a decade back.
Am I allowed to go back to 1929, or more recently in other countries? I myself suffered an inability to access my funds for a period of time due to a bank failure in the state of Maryland circa 1984. I was refunded by the state insurance on the bank I recall FSLIC, but my funds were indeed mishandled and lost. We obviously disagree on the definition of "security failure". I define it as, in this context, a failure to preserve the private key to the crypto funds. They lost the key. That was a security failure and I'm completely comfortable classifying it as such. Perhaps you define "security" as when something is completely immune from access by unauthorized parties. If so, then yes, this company's losing of the private key was an overwhelming security "success". I don't define it that way, as losing access for any reason, whether because it was absconded by an unauthorized party or permanently buried in a desert the size of the solar system is just as bad. In fact it's worse as there's no prospect of recovery as there is with theft. I find your characterization of losing private keys as something other than a security failure to be disingenuous. Regardless, it is semantics. The company is what failed. I presume we could agree on that. Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal? Crypto holders certainly should understand the basics of crypto and how to secure their crypto holdings, and they should similarly understand that companies they transfer control of their crypto to are similarly being trusted to know what they are doing. It's done far more "forth" than "back". Far, far more. More accurately, US dollars are the only "legal tender" currency" in the US, meaning that people are obligated by law to accept it as payment for goods and services. Your statement should not be inferred to mean that other forms of currency are forbidden as I do not believe that is the case. Only that other forms of currency do not carry penalties for failure to accept it. That the US dollar requires a law obligating people to accept it is a statement unto itself as, if the dollar does have real value, then why is there a law required obligating people to accept it as payment? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it cannot be marketed as "dollars". Marketing it as "currency" is a bit more obtuse and it would surprise me if that term is in the law. But this is an area I concede you should have better access to than me. I reject the presumption that those in government do not possess fraudulent and criminal motives. The FBI activities with Trump illustrate that well. Hillary Clinton. James Clapper lied to congress about the gov's survailance of the American citizenry. That these individuals violated the law does not incriminate the gov at a whole. That they went unprosecuted does. Civil asset forfeiture is a violation of the 4th, plain and simple. Such is the nature of people and power. We always want more and the erosion of the Bill of Rights is an obvious example of that. They should have a suing experience for the gross negligence of the company.
I agree. It is negligent to deal in bitcoins.
Quadriga CX founder Gerald Cotten died suddenly and, five years later, all the customers remain locked out of their collection of bits and bytes. Also, crypto does have inherent security weaknesses. A Lloyd's report in 2015 [Emerging Risk Report 2015, Innovation Series, Technology, BITCOIN, Risk factors for insurance] cited insider attacks, the 51% attack, and Sybil attacks, among others. Lloyd's also cited regulatory risks, specifically citing the Reserve Bank of India public warning to citizens of December 24, 2013, provided below. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=30247 RBI cautions users of Virtual Currencies against Risks The Reserve Bank of India has today cautioned the users, holders and traders of Virtual currencies (VCs), including Bitcoins, about the potential financial, operational, legal, customer protection and security related risks that they are exposing themselves to. The Reserve Bank has mentioned that it has been looking at the developments relating to certain electronic records claimed to be “Decentralised Digital Currency” or “Virtual Currency” (VCs), such as, Bitcoins, litecoins, bbqcoins, dogecoins etc., their usage or trading in the country and the various media reports in this regard. The creation, trading or usage of VCs including Bitcoins, as a medium for payment are not authorised by any central bank or monetary authority. No regulatory approvals, registration or authorisation is stated to have been obtained by the entities concerned for carrying on such activities. As such, they may pose several risks to their users, including the following: The Reserve Bank has also stated that it is presently examining the issues associated with the usage, holding and trading of VCs under the extant legal and regulatory framework of the country, including Foreign Exchange and Payment Systems laws and regulations. Ajit Prasad Press Release : 2013-2014/1261 Compared to sitting in jail until I give up the money, or having them go the bank and take the money, I would prefer to sit eternally in a jail cell, just to show them that they can't make me do something I don't want to do. /s As a reasonable alternative, they can seize any of your property of value and auction it off to the highest bidder as partial payment.
Am I allowed to go back to 1929, or more recently in other countries? You may go back to any point in history as long as you remain on topic. The question pertains to "all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???" Bankruptcy, where the assets are gone, does not apply. The assets have not been taken, but cannot be accessed, as in the case of Quadriga CX. Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal? In a plea deal you are given an attorney who explains it to you, the Court explains the deal to you, and you must state to the Court that you understand the deal and its consequences, and that you enter into it freely and voluntarily. Bitcoin does not provide a mathematician or geek who explains an Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), a hash function, or a one way function, or a 51% attack or a Sybil attack. As it is unregulated, the user assumes the risk. More accurately, US dollars are the only "legal tender" currency" in the US, meaning that people are obligated by law to accept it as payment for goods and services. I provided the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter: The SCOTUS usage is correct. The distinction is noticable in some other countries where some offcial currency is not legal tender, e.g., not all Bank of England pound notes are legal tender in Scotland. Commerce. Bernard von Nothaus had a learning experience when the Court stated, The Court also stated, A four dollar coin (or bill) intended for use as current money provides the requisite criminal intent. And the Court also stated, If there is intent to compete with official U.S. currency, it ain't a private barter system. I reject the notion that I said any such thing. Strawman argument fail. Under the First Amendment, you are entitled to make and repeat absurd statements of law. Your pronouncement that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional lacks any basis in law. SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that the civil asset forfeit laws may not impose excessive fines, but civil asset forfeiture was left in place and constitutional.
Yep, that's Sybil. I reckon the NSA has the computing power to pull that off if it chose to do so. A way to frustrate Bitcoin miners is to just raise the cost of their electric.
So states can't make money but facebook or some drug dealer can?
They can spend the dollars here all they want. So it is a silly notion to say it is counterfeiting. Unless you say the money we have now is counterfeit. Which I have said in the past. I am not advocating a trade deficit. I'm just telling you how it is working right now and it isn't hurting me. I would rather we get the better deal than another country get the better deal.
Please, Nolu. Have you lost your reading comprehension ability? Nothaus lost his case because his Liberty dollars were intended to be the equivalent value of dollars. The liberty dollar silver rounds even stated a value in dollars (even though the intrinsic value was worth significantly more than that, though the paper versions were not). That is why he was charged and convicted. Bitcoin is not illegal in the US. I'm suer it could be used in an illegal way but the same is true for cars, guns baseball, bats and knives. And hair dryers. And kitchen sinks. And US dollars.
You present nothing new here. Crypto is new and it has more maturing to do, and which was especially true 4-6 years ago which is when these reports are dated, one of which is from the Central bank of India which would clearly be a biased anti-crypto source. Fraud has existed in regards to dollars and credit cards, but you make it sound like only crypto is vulnerable in this way. Crypto fraud does hurt the value of crypto, and if the amount of fraud and loss due to any means was sufficient, it would kill the value of crypto completely. But that hasn't happened. My obvious point is that crypto cannot be taken from someone via the dictates of the government. Dollars held in a bank obviously can be. Which easily demonstrates that crypto is MORE secure than even physical possessions, doesn't it?
Sigh..... And here I thought we were talking about the merits and safety of dollars vs crypto. So.... People who deposited dollars in a bank account but lost their money in a particular way don't count as having lost their dollars due to a failure of the custodian of dollars themselves. Crypto is worse, you say, because the custodian of the crypto lost the crypto in a different way. So, crypto is much worse than dollars. Okay, got it. Freely and voluntarily? Are you shitting me? There is no "freely and voluntarily" when you are dragged against your will into a courtroom and given a choice of which hell you want to go through. That is an absolute LOAD OF CRAP nolu! Yes they must say they understand and are making the statement freely. And it's a load of SHIT every time because the key word is "must". They have NO CHOICE. And yet somehow, because there's this friendly attorney sitting them telling them their choices, that somehow makes it okay when people who did not commit the crime they were accused of committing end up taking a guilty plea deal that provides a permanent felony conviction and ruins their employment prospects for life. The legal system is no doubt where your profession lies and you stand by it and defend it like it's your only child. You've defended the legal system saying it works as designed or words to that effect. Okay fine, but then you come on and bash crypto likes it's the worst thing that's ever been created because people have gotten hurt with it. Hypocrisy, nolu. Go fix your legal system so innocent people stop getting felony convictions and even executed and then come on back and tell us about how bad crypto is. And one more point on this: No one is forced to participate in crypto. Anyone buying, trading, exchanging or sitting on crypto does so as a matter of free choice. Getting charged with a crime is NOT any such free willed activity. When a woman rides her bike down the road and is stopped by a crooked cop who claims he found drugs in her purse, she doesn't have the choice to participate or not in the legal system. She is arrested and dragged before a court and has her whole life, both present and future, at state. It is NOT a matter of free will. So don't you dare try to demonize crypto as victimizing people who had a choice and then stand proudly by a legal system that has caused injury to innocent people, even sending them to their deaths for murders for which they were later exonerated. And you know full well that has happened. Then the USSC has outlived its usefulness. But it is apparent from the facts that the conviction of Nothaus related to Liberty dollars was because his coins and redeemable bills stated a value in dollars. Many similar silver rounds have been produced over the years as any visit to any bullion dealer can prove, but the only the Liberty dollars attracted legal trouble. I guess that makes the Liberty Dollar coins I still have collectors items!
Neither facebook nor drug dealers can make money or currency. Facebook can make block chains of data and some people can make believe it is money or currency.
Comments (64 - 88) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFunds held by banks are also not safe from seizure requests made by governments
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#24. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#17)
#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)
And who really benefited from this? The biggest banks who, instead of seeing people move their savings over $100K out of their bank to split it up among two more banks. So the big bank would get to keep a lot more of these most desirable customers. And Congress, as usual, supported the big banks (who had caused the financial crisis) at the cost of the smaller banks.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#24)
#27. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#25)
If you account for inflation from when the 100 thousand dollar policy started. Is it about the same today in what a dollar is worth compared to the past?
#28. To: A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
That may be true. But it is also true that peoples money is even more secure.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Your money is always secure in a bank against theft up to 100 thousand per bank account.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Even the mark of the beast huh. Ok. Take the mark under your skin in order to buy or sell. You would do that? Even thought the Bible warned you thousands of years ago?
#31. To: A K A Stone (#20)
As I’ve said before, bitcoin is nothing more than a confidence game. It’s worth nothing if people suddenly lose their confidence in this fake digital currency. It’s backed by nothing. It’s the definition of a con.
That’s why people who are propping up bitcoin lose their minds whenever someone like me writes anything negative about it. That’s what happened on Tuesday.
I’ll keep them handy because I am sure that every one of these writers will be thrilled to defend bitcoin in front of investigators from the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, the IRS, Homeland Security and any other agency that will eventually get in on the action.
Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank .... Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has said .....
I’ve said the same thing when a bitcoin was selling for $20,000. And still was saying it when it plunged to $4,000. Its real worth: $0.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/bitcoin-manipulation-madness-calls-for- massive-investigation/
#32. To: Deckard (#23)
Plenty of banks are used to launder drug money.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#26)
100000 in 1980 → $304741.30 in 2018 - Inflation Calculator
#34. To: Pinguinite (#29)
I believe one of the recent hacks was actually insured against loss. And yes, there is no reason why crypto could not be so insured in the same way cars, houses and jewelry is insured.
#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)
Sounds about right. So in about 40 years, the US dollar has lost 2/3rds of it's purchasing power.
#36. To: Pinguinite (#31)
(Edited)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#31)
I believe there are many thing you don't trust the gov with stone. Why do you trust the monetary system with them?
#38. To: Pinguinite (#30)
Crypto has no more in common with the Biblical "mark of the beast" than does dollars at this point.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#28)
Tell you what. Invest with me and I can guarantee that in thirty years your dollars will be worth 30% of what you invest with me.
#40. To: Tooconservative (#28)
Look back a few years, to the attempts to establish a different foreign currency like the euro or the Chinese yuan as an alternative to the petrodollar
#41. To: A K A Stone (#38)
With crypto type stuff who is to say you wont be locked out of your money somehow in the future if you are not compliant with governments wishes.
Who knows maybe the CIA made Bitcoin. Or some government.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#40)
I'm glad the world prefers dollars. It makes us richer. It is to our advantage that we can print money and these other countries take it instead of our gold.
#43. To: Pinguinite (#41)
That's just it, and the bottom line with crypto is that it is *decentralized*.
#44. To: Pinguinite (#42)
You realize you are talking like a banker, don't you?
#45. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#40)
I'm glad the world prefers dollars. It makes us richer. It is to our advantage that we can print money and these other countries take it instead of our gold.
#46. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#44)
We have a trade defecit. If we gave all those countries our gold for those goods we wouldn't have any gold left here. So that would suck.
#47. To: A K A Stone (#43)
They can require isps to make you log in or cut them off.
There are lots of ways government can take control of it,
#48. To: A K A Stone (#44)
We have a trade defecit. If we gave all those countries our gold for those goods we wouldn't have any gold left here. So that would suck.
#49. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#15)
That the crypto may have functioned perfectly is no consolation for those whose virtual fortune has disappeared.
So it is not accuarate to say that always safe in USD form, even when on deposit.
[Pinguinite #5] These keys must be kept secure and the hacking of crypto has always involved accessing these keys or otherwise causing these keys to be used by a hacker to transfer funds on the blockchain. In every case, therefore, hacking has been possible because of security failures related to the keys, which is the responsibility of individual parties that either hold the keys or produced 3rd party wallets, and not the responsibility of the blockchain or crypto as a whole.
As for the members, who entrusted this company, that is most unfortunate for them of course, though ultimately, it was the account holders who chose to trust an incompetent company, so some of that responsibility resides with them, and not with the fundamental design of bitcoin.
it's not accuarte to simply conclude it has been "volatile" without also mentioning the tremendous growth in value it has seen over the years.
Of course, this valuation is in US dollars, which is not necessarily the best benchmark.
It is not demonization to observe that crypto currency was created as a means to evade government regulation.
FTR, most wallets -- all I am familiar with -- translate your private key to a series of 12 or 24 ordinary words that are much more easily memorized. With those words memorized or recorded somewhere, in the correct order, one can recreate their wallet and restore full access to funds.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#15)
The first part of your comment implies that a paper currency that devalues to zero would still constitute "real currency".
It also implies that crypto currency could or would not be exchangable for goods and services directly. It seems your thinking implies that cyrpto as never able to qualify as a currency itself, that it MUST be first exchanged for some kind of paper currency. That is certainly not the idea with which most crypto currencies were designed.
I. BACKGROUND
The problem occurs when these coins that they're distributing in currency leave the pyramid of the people who are educated about the Liberty Dollar Organization and they distribute them by making change with no further information to unsuspecting people in those businesses. They could end up with a 10, 20 or even 50 dollar coin that's worth half, or in some cases less than what the coin is marked as.
The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such a standard of value; and on account of the impossibility which was foreseen of [or] otherwise preventing the inequalities and the confusion necessarily incident to different views of policy, which in different communities would be brought to bear on this subject. The power to coin money thus given to Congress, founded on public necessity, it must carry with it the correlative power of protecting the creature and object of that power.
The Constitution 'was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in all the States.' It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the states. The states cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress. . . . [T]he Congress is empowered 'to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts, as accord with the usage of sovereign governments.' The authority to impose requirements of uniformity and parity is an essential feature of this control of the currency. The Congress is authorized to provide 'a sound and uniform currency for the country,' and to 'secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation.'
#51. To: nolu chan (#50)
Crypto, Liberty Dollars, and any other invention which attempts to compete with the official currency is unlawful. If one attempts to pass off something as currency, which is not currency, one follows the footsteps of Bernard von Nothaus and goes to jail.
#52. To: nolu chan (#49)
Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???
[nolu chan #12] This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate.
It most certainly is accurate. Your citation reflects a case of keys not being securely protected, just as I stated they must be.
It is most certain that after five years, the customers still cannot access their assets, and that hacking or a security failure had nothing to do with it. The founder of the exchange died.
The keys were so securely held that nobody has ever discovered a copy. Perhaps they were held in the most secure location, Gerald Cotten's brain. However the keys were secured, they remain secured, as do the assets. The numbers are still there, but they have been rendered useless and without value. The individual investors' only mistake was putting their assets in that exchange.
You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?
It is accurate to call crypto volatile. The term indicates large swings back and forth. That is what crypto has done.
Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States.
Things may be valued in crypto, but nobody has to accept it, and it cannot be marketed as currency or the marketer can be prosecuted and sent to prison.
Righhht. The drugs dealers were concerned with inflation of the dollar, not with prosecution for income tax evasion and civil asset forfeiture of their ill gotten loot. They are really good guys with noble souls when you get to know them.
If the owner or director of the exchange suddenly dies, and he takes his memorized key with him, the exchange cannot access the data. The customers have a learning experience.
#53. To: Pinguinite (#52)
They should have a suing experience for the gross negligence of the company
#54. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#41)
That's just it, and the bottom line with crypto is that it is *decentralized*. That means no other party can lock you out of your funds.
Date : Dec 24, 2013
Assistant General Manager If someone gets a court order to turn over bitcoin funds, and the person doesn't want to do it, they may be held in contempt and put in jail but ultimately, if that person doesn't want to turn over the funds, then the funds cannot be taken from them. Contrast that to funds in a bank account where the gov can go straight to the bank and take your funds.
#55. To: nolu chan, pinguinite (#54)
#56. To: Pinguinite (#52)
Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???
You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?
Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States.
The Constitution 'was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in all the States.' It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the states. The states cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress. . . .
That the US dollar requires a law obligating people to accept it is a statement unto itself as, if the dollar does have real value, then why is there a law required obligating people to accept it as payment?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it cannot be marketed as "dollars". Marketing it as "currency" is a bit more obtuse and it would surprise me if that term is in the law.
The Court finds that Section 486 means exactly what it says, and that the language within Section 486 is, in fact, plain and unambiguous, with the possible exception of the phrase "intended for use as current money." To the extent deemed ambiguous, the Court construes the phrase "intended for use as current money" consistent with its "ordinary and plain meaning." See e.g., Yeatts, 39 F.2d at 1189 ("A basic canon of statutory construction is that words should be interpreted as taking their ordinary and plain meaning.") (internal citation omitted). "Current money" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "money that circulates throughout a country; currency." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1021 (7th ed. 1999). Commonly understood definitions of related terms such as "money," "currency," and "legal tender" all refer to United States-approved money. Applying plain meaning to the terms themselves, and considering that the thrust of § 486 is to penalize competition with U.S. currency, Section 486 is not meant to be applied unless actual U.S. currency is being competed with.
... it is the view of this Court that the phrase "intended for use as current money" speaks to the requisite statutory intent for conviction under § 486. The Liberty Dollar can be "intended for use as current money" even if the specific coin denominations are different.
In other words, the difference between a private barter system and counterfeiting is intent.
I reject the presumption that those in government do not possess fraudulent and criminal motives.
Civil asset forfeiture is a violation of the 4th, plain and simple.
#57. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#55)
#58. To: nolu chan, pinguinite (#56)
The states cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress. . . .
#59. To: Pinguinite (#48)
You are now advocating the position that the American people should exploit the working class in other countries, sending them printable dollars in exchange for real goods and services. In my view, that is international counterfeiting, no different from a domestic non-government counterfeiter that prints paper money illicitly representing real value. You are also advocating a permanent trade deficit which is ultimately unsustainable. That's not a boat I'm getting on.
#60. To: nolu chan (#50)
The first part of your comment implies that a paper currency that devalues to zero would still constitute "real currency".
I have no idea why you believe worthless paper, devalued to zero, would continue to function as currency.
Crypto, Liberty Dollars, and any other invention which attempts to compete with the official currency is unlawful. If one attempts to pass off something as currency, which is not currency, one follows the footsteps of Bernard von Nothaus and goes to jail.
#61. To: nolu chan (#54)
Also, crypto does have inherent security weaknesses. A Lloyd's report in 2015 [Emerging Risk Report 2015, Innovation Series, Technology, BITCOIN, Risk factors for insurance] cited insider attacks, the 51% attack, and Sybil attacks, among others. Lloyd's also cited regulatory risks, specifically citing the Reserve Bank of India public warning to citizens of December 24, 2013, provided below.
Compared to sitting in jail until I give up the money, or having them go the bank and take the money, I would prefer to sit eternally in a jail cell, just to show them that they can't make me do something I don't want to do. /s
As a reasonable alternative, they can seize any of your property of value and auction it off to the highest bidder as partial payment.
#62. To: nolu chan (#56)
You may go back to any point in history as long as you remain on topic. The question pertains to "all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???" Bankruptcy, where the assets are gone, does not apply. The assets have not been taken, but cannot be accessed, as in the case of Quadriga CX.
You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?
Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal?
In a plea deal you are given an attorney who explains it to you, the Court explains the deal to you, and you must state to the Court that you understand the deal and its consequences, and that you enter into it freely and voluntarily.
Your pronouncement that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional lacks any basis in law. SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that the civil asset forfeit laws may not impose excessive fines, but civil asset forfeiture was left in place and constitutional.
#63. To: A K A Stone (#58)
So states can't make money but facebook or some drug dealer can?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]