Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

wareyin said:
How, what?

How did the FBI seize bitcoin? Read the article I posted. How would the FBI seizing your bitcoin still leave bitcoin in your possession? Damned if I know.
Click to expand...

How did FBI seize bitcoin. Article doesn't say. They could of course find your passwords somewhere. Or you might be willing to tell them. But they would have to basically transfer the bitcoins onto their own wallet, to be considered really seized. Even if they had a password .. you could tell it somebody else who would then transfer the money away.

There was some idea of marking wallets as stolen .. where exchanges could refuse to trade with them (and coins originating from them). First exchanges in civilized countries usually have to obey some form of regulation, but also exchanges are the primary target of BTC theft .. so it would be in their own interest. Not sure how far it got ..
 
wareyin said:
I know that bitcoin is a con job foisted on the gullible, which is more than I can say for the staunch devotee (singular) who keeps trying to not only defend it, but convince other people to buy bitcoin with the outrageous claim of always earning more money. Actually, anyone assuring people of gains for buying bitcoin probably knows it's a con as well, but of course such a person would never admit such in writing.
Click to expand...

None of this is true and your repeated lies both about crypto and other posters is becoming deranged. Just stop.
 
Dr.Sid said:
How did FBI seize bitcoin. Article doesn't say. They could of course find your passwords somewhere. Or you might be willing to tell them. But they would have to basically transfer the bitcoins onto their own wallet, to be considered really seized. Even if they had a password .. you could tell it somebody else who would then transfer the money away.

There was some idea of marking wallets as stolen .. where exchanges could refuse to trade with them (and coins originating from them). First exchanges in civilized countries usually have to obey some form of regulation, but also exchanges are the primary target of BTC theft .. so it would be in their own interest. Not sure how far it got ..
Click to expand...

Are we assuming that both the feds and bitcoin.com are lying about the FBI seizure?


okaaayyyyy
 
wareyin said:
Are we assuming that both the feds and bitcoin.com are lying about the FBI seizure?


okaaayyyyy
Click to expand...

Sure. Why not?

Or things are unclear because of differing use of terms as bitcoin is a ledger and every term we use in relation to that ledger is an analogy to something less abstract.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Go buy some JPEGS of Apes to feel better about it then.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? And why would doing so make me "feel better" about someone attacking posters with blatant lies?

wareyin said:
Apparently the "singular" bit might have been false, but the rest is certainly true. So, nope, not gonna stop. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

You intentionally misrepresented another poster in order to attack them and when called on it you double down and lump me in with your bs too. It's just sad because there are legitimate criticisms of crypto. You don't need to lie or exaggerate.
 
Suddenly said:
Sure. Why not?

Or things are unclear because of differing use of terms as bitcoin is a ledger and every term we use in relation to that ledger is an analogy to something less abstract.
Click to expand...

If bitcoin.com is reporting that bitcoin wallets can be seized untruthfully, wouldn't that kinda be an own-goal about their supposed security against that sort of thing not being true?
 
The_Animus said:
You intentionally misrepresented another poster in order to attack them and when called on it you double down and lump me in with your bs too. It's just sad because there are legitimate criticisms of crypto. You don't need to lie or exaggerate.
Click to expand...

I see you missed the pages long reaction to psionl0's claims that buying bitcoin and holding earns money (and has "every time in the past").

As it is, I'm not lying or exaggerating. I'm pointing out legitimate flaws with bitcoin and crypto in general, as are most participants. But there is one (or 2) who apparently feel a need to defend bitcoin/crypto from every exposed flaw.
 
wareyin said:
If bitcoin.com is reporting that bitcoin wallets can be seized untruthfully, wouldn't that kinda be an own-goal about their supposed security against that sort of thing not being true?
Click to expand...


Not really. It depends on the kind of wallet they were referencing and in what context.

If I have a wallet in the sense that I have exclusive possession of my keys then without getting past what security measures I have on that wallet seizing that wallet isn't going to allow anyone to use or move the bitcoin.

If I have a wallet in the sense that I have an account where someone else holds the keys I really don't have a wallet. It's more a bank account as the holder could just give those keys to a third party or run off with them. Having a wallet on an exchange is usually this.


The FBI article referenced suggests they seized an account on an exchange as they refer to it as having other currencies as well as bitcoin. The scammers were moving around assets to make tracing them harder not knowing the FBI was on top of them and the FBI pounced when the assets were vulnerable to seizure. That sort of thing.
 
Suddenly said:
Not really. It depends on the kind of wallet they were referencing and in what context.

If I have a wallet in the sense that I have exclusive possession of my keys then without getting past what security measures I have on that wallet seizing that wallet isn't going to allow anyone to use or move the bitcoin.

If I have a wallet in the sense that I have an account where someone else holds the keys I really don't have a wallet. It's more a bank account as the holder could just give those keys to a third party or run off with them. Having a wallet on an exchange is usually this.


The FBI article referenced suggests they seized an account on an exchange as they refer to it as having other currencies as well as bitcoin. The scammers were moving around assets to make tracing them harder not knowing the FBI was on top of them and the FBI pounced when the assets were vulnerable to seizure. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

As I read it, the FBI traced the bitcoin to a particular wallet and then issued a warrant for the seizure of the said coins. It doesn't say anything about how it was done. If the FBI has got the bitcoins now, whoever owned the wallet must have handed the keys over or done the transfer to the FBI themselves. I guess the most likely explanation for that is that it was a wallet held by an exchange that the scammers were going to use to convert the BTC into fiat.

By the way, a wallet can contain more than one type of cryptocurrency. All it is is a collection of key pairs and associated addresses.
 
The simplest way would work like this:

1. Investigators trace wallet IDs to a person (or organisation)
2. Proceeds of Crime legislation is used to get the person (or organisation) to surrender the keys. (By Court Order)
3. If the person (or organisation) refuses to surrender the keys, they go to jail for 'contempt of Court' until such time as the keys are provided.
(In the case of an organisation refusing to comply, jailing the principles would probably cause the keys to be found very quickly) :)


The US government is preparing to auction off more than 29,000 bitcoins seized from the Silk Road website when its alleged chief Ross Ulbricht was arrested, in a move that could net it over $17m.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/us-auction-seized-silk-road-bitcoins
 
wareyin said:
I see you missed the pages long reaction to psionl0's claims that buying bitcoin and holding earns money (and has "every time in the past").

As it is, I'm not lying or exaggerating. I'm pointing out legitimate flaws with bitcoin and crypto in general, as are most participants. But there is one (or 2) who apparently feel a need to defend bitcoin/crypto from every exposed flaw.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss anything. I read it in the context of the post chain and what the poster has previously stated. Here is the post chain for you.

FatherLukeduke said:
Yeah, you might think the price might go up at some point and hold. It's just speculation however, not some kind of wise investment strategy.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
It is a strategy that has worked every single time somebody has employed it in the past.
Click to expand...

FatherLukeduke said:
I don't really understand what you are saying? Is is it that whatever the asset and whatever price you bought it at, if you hold it long enough you will make a profit?

That is evidently not true.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
Er . . this is bitcoin we are discussing.

The price chart clearly shows that up until the beginning of this year, everybody who bought bitcoin could have sold it at a profit some time later. I'm not saying that this proves that the price will exceed $60K at some point but the odds seem good.

It wasn't so long ago that a poster wanted me to be hung, drawn and quartered because I refused to rule out the possibility that the price of bitcoin could reach $20K (it came just short in December 2017). Needless to say, this person is not posting on this thread any more.
Click to expand...

All Psion said was that since BTC's inception people have been constantly saying (paraphrase) "BTC will never go above x" or after a drop in BTC's price that "BTC will never reach or exceed it's previous high point" and over and over again they were wrong. Based on this, Psion believes it has a chance of doing so again. Not that it will, just that it could. They've also said in past posts that BTC could go up or down and that as far as an investment it has rough odds so you better be able to spare the potential loss. (Psion if I've misrepresented you in any of this I apologize and hope you will correct me).

Now let's look at how you framed their position.

wareyin said:
I know that bitcoin is a con job foisted on the gullible, which is more than I can say for the staunch devotee (singular) who keeps trying to not only defend it, but convince other people to buy bitcoin with the outrageous claim of always earning more money. Actually, anyone assuring people of gains for buying bitcoin probably knows it's a con as well, but of course such a person would never admit such in writing.
Click to expand...

One of these things is not like the other. Posting factual information that isn't negative about BTC isn't defending a con job. Posting corrections to inaccurate information isn't defending a con job. Never have I once seen them try to convince other people to buy bitcoin nor say that it will always earn more money.

And even though I've already said this multiple times in this thread let me say it again for you. I personally am ambivalent regarding BTC and cryptos. I think it has a lot of problems. I think that it is often used for scams. I have never invested in any crypto and I doubt I ever will. I do think the technology is interesting and that it has some limited utility. I think that over time the technology may be improved to reduce or eliminate some of the problems and thus give it greater utility.
 
novaphile said:
The simplest way would work like this:

1. Investigators trace wallet IDs to a person (or organisation)
2. Proceeds of Crime legislation is used to get the person (or organisation) to surrender the keys. (By Court Order)
3. If the person (or organisation) refuses to surrender the keys, they go to jail for 'contempt of Court' until such time as the keys are provided.(In the case of an organisation refusing to comply, jailing the principles would probably cause the keys to be found very quickly) :)
Click to expand...
This might be how it works in the rest of the world but I'm not sure that somebody can be compelled to hand over passwords/keys in the US. It sounds like a 1st Amendment issue.
 
psionl0 said:
This might be how it works in the rest of the world but I'm not sure that somebody can be compelled to hand over passwords/keys in the US. It sounds like a 1st Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Since it has already happened to Americans, I'll let other Americans explain to you why you're wrong.
 
psionl0 said:
This might be how it works in the rest of the world but I'm not sure that somebody can be compelled to hand over passwords/keys in the US. It sounds like a 1st Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

It's a Fifth Amendment issue. State courts are divided.

This comes up the most unlocking cell phones.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/can-police-search-your-phone-if-it-is-locked/
https://www.reuters.com/business/le...l-over-forced-password-disclosure-2021-05-17/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...n-suspect-to-reveal-his-password-court-rules/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom