Merged: Bitcoin - Part 3

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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.

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 ..

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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.

None of this is true and your repeated lies both about crypto and other posters is becoming deranged. Just stop.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

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 ..

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


okaaayyyyy

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

None of this is true and your repeated lies both about crypto and other posters is becoming deranged. Just stop.

Go buy some JPEGS of Apes to feel better about it then.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

None of this is true and your repeated lies both about crypto and other posters is becoming deranged. Just stop.

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

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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

okaaayyyyy

So you don't know either ? I though so ..

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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


okaaayyyyy

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.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Go buy some JPEGS of Apes to feel better about it then.

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

Originally Posted by wareyin

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

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.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

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.

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?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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.

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.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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?

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.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

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.

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.

[novaphile]

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)

Quote:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-road-bitcoins

[novaphile]

NB.

The risk of being jailed for life because you've lost the keys, is just another risk of crypto currencies.

[jrhowell]

If they seized the wallet the next logical step would be to transfer the bitcoins out of it. But who knows?

(Oops. A page behind in the discussion.)

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

If they seized the wallet the next logical step would be to transfer the bitcoins out of it. But who knows?

(Oops. A page behind in the discussion.)

Yes, I've seen references to government agencies transferring bitcoins to agency-controlled wallets.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by wareyin

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

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.

Originally Posted by psionl0

It is a strategy that has worked every single time somebody has employed it in the past.

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

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.

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wareyin

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.

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.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by novaphile

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)

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.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

Since it has already happened to Americans, I'll let other Americans explain to you why you're wrong.

[marting]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

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

This comes up the most unlocking cell phones.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/ca...-it-is-locked/
https://www.reuters.com/business/leg...re-2021-05-17/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-court-rules/

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by marting

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

This comes up the most unlocking cell phones.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/ca...-it-is-locked/
https://www.reuters.com/business/leg...re-2021-05-17/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-court-rules/

It’s not the same as unlocking a cell phone. Everybody already knows what’s in the wallet - it’s on the block chain. You are not incriminating yourself by providing the FBI with the means to get the BTC out.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by novaphile

Since it has already happened to Americans, I'll let other Americans explain to you why you're wrong.

Or not?

The Silk road seizure was done with the assistance of an unknown hacker. In other cases, the authorities may seize computers and other electronic devices that might have the private key upon gaining a warrant. https://www.pagepate.com/bitcoin-seizures/

But I can't find any cases where somebody was jailed for refusing to disclose a private key nor reveal where they may have stored the private key.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

One of these things is not like the other. Posting factual information that isn't negative about BTC isn't defending a con job.

Sigh, of course not. But defending a con job is defending a con job.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Posting corrections to inaccurate information isn't defending a con job.

You actually think psion posts corrections? Ok...

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Never have I once seen them try to convince other people to buy bitcoin nor say that it will always earn more money.

If telling people bitcoin has always made money isn't trying to convince people that bitcoin is a good buy and that it will continue to make money in your eyes, then I guess you haven't seen that. Around my neck of the woods, even with a disclaimer in the fine print that (past performance does not indicate future results), making claims that 'x financial strategy' has always made people money every time they followed that strategy in the past is an advertisement for 'x financial strategy'.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Sigh, of course not. But defending a con job is defending a con job.

You actually think psion posts corrections? Ok...

If telling people bitcoin has always made money isn't trying to convince people that bitcoin is a good buy and that it will continue to make money in your eyes, then I guess you haven't seen that. Around my neck of the woods, even with a disclaimer in the fine print that (past performance does not indicate future results), making claims that 'x financial strategy' has always made people money every time they followed that strategy in the past is an advertisement for 'x financial strategy'.

Bitcoin has never made money. What it does is transfer money from one person to another. If you bought BTC when it was practically worthless, and sold at $60,000 you have made $60k, but somebody else has lost $60k. Of course they have an opportunity to reclaim some or all of their losses by selling the BTC but only at the expense of somebody else.

It’s a form of gambling, but it’s marketed as “investment”. Psion will claim that there are other things that are sold as an investment but are really just gambling and that may be true, but claiming it makes BTC trading good is a fallacy.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Bitcoin has never made money. What it does is transfer money from one person to another. If you bought BTC when it was practically worthless, and sold at $60,000 you have made $60k, but somebody else has lost $60k. Of course they have an opportunity to reclaim some or all of their losses by selling the BTC but only at the expense of somebody else.

It’s a form of gambling, but it’s marketed as “investment”. Psion will claim that there are other things that are sold as an investment but are really just gambling and that may be true, but claiming it makes BTC trading good is a fallacy.

Bitcoin is a brand.
So is coca cola.
There is no nutrition in either one might suggest.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by Samson

Bitcoin is a brand.
So is coca cola.
There is no nutrition in either one might suggest.

I think you're being harsh to the cola brand...

If you're dying of starvation, or thirst, the cola will give you some sustenance.

(It contains water and sugars).

In places where the local water supply is basically enteritis in a cup, the cola is safer to drink.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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).

That is a pretty fair summary of my position. Of course, it would take a massive effort to interpret me any differently - but some do because they want to present bitcoin in the worst possible light and part of that agenda is trying to demonstrate that only a bitcoin lover would give a balanced view of it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

If you bought BTC when it was practically worthless, and sold at $60,000 you have made $60k, but somebody else has lost $60k.

Why is this only true of bitcoin? If a philatelist sells $60k worth of used stamps do you say that the buyer "lost" $60k (or that he gained some used stamps)?

It is only a bad investment if bitcoin is absolutely guaranteed to go down to 0 (this time for sure). Otherwise it is no different to any other instrument of speculation. There are no unique rules for bitcoin.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why is this only true of bitcoin?

It isn't.

In fact, if you had read the rest of my post, you would see...

Quote:

If a philatelist sells $60k worth of used stamps do you say that the buyer "lost" $60k (or that he gained some used stamps)?

... Bingo

Quote:

It is only a bad investment if bitcoin is absolutely guaranteed to go down to 0 (this time for sure). Otherwise it is no different to any other instrument of speculation. There are no unique rules for bitcoin.

It's not an investment. It's a gamble.

If buying and selling stamps is also a gamble, it doesn't make trading in BTC "good". Anyway, some people collect stamps to have the stamps, not because they might later be able to sell them again. Nobody does that with Bitcoin.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

It's not an investment. It's a gamble.

What's the difference?

[gabeygoat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

What's the difference?

Seriously? You obviously know the difference in a financial investment in a business and a craps game

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

Seriously? You obviously know the difference in a financial investment in a business and a craps game

I don't know how that poster is using the word. For all I know they are calling a "good" instrument of speculation "investing" and a "bad" instrument of speculation "gambling".

They obviously want everybody to believe that bitcoin is a sure money loser but since that claim is falsifiable, they don't dare spell it out.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I don't know how that poster is using the word. For all I know they are calling a "good" instrument of speculation "investing" and a "bad" instrument of speculation "gambling".

There's nothing bad about gambling as long as you are aware of what you re doing. The problem is that a lot of people don't seem to be aware that BTC is not the same as AAPL.

Quote:

They obviously want everybody to believe that bitcoin is a sure money loser but since that claim is falsifiable, they don't dare spell it out.

It's a zero sum game. All that happens with Bitcoin is that somebody hands somebody else some real money in exchange for a line in a ledger. The only hope of getting the money back is if somebody else is prepared to give the first person more money for the same line in the ledger. Add up all the money made on BTC and it will be the same - or actually slightly less - than the amount of money lost on BTC.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I don't know how that poster is using the word. For all I know they are calling a "good" instrument of speculation "investing" and a "bad" instrument of speculation "gambling".

They obviously want everybody to believe that bitcoin is a sure money loser but since that claim is falsifiable, they don't dare spell it out.

In the same sense that everyone who held bitcoin long enough made money every single time, everyone who predicted the right numbers showing made money on the craps table every single time.

And for all the complaints that people are unfairly painting you as a bitcoin lover merely because you will not hear a bad word spoken against it, you're sure going out of your way to paint anyone who doesn't look at bitcoin as favorably as you do as both too hard on bitcoin and too cowardly to be as hard on bitcoin as you're sure in your heart of hearts that they are.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by psionl0

But I can't find any cases where somebody was jailed for refusing to disclose a private key nor reveal where they may have stored the private key.

This would be because it never came up. People have spent years in jail for contempt for not turning over assets pursuant to a court order. Once a court rules the bitcoin belongs to someone else and that a person refuses to turn over keys they can be held in civil contempt and jailed until they do. There is nothing special about bitcoin keys as opposed to a hidden bank account that makes it any different.

Quote:

Consider Mr. Chadwick's case. In 1994, during divorce proceedings, a Delaware County judge held Mr. Chadwick in civil contempt for failing to put $2.5 million in a court-controlled account. He says he lost the money in bad investments; his wife's attorney claimed he had hidden it offshore. In April 1995, Mr. Chadwick was arrested and detained. Nearly 14 years later, Mr. Chadwick, who suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is still in jail -- even after a retired judge was hired to help locate the money, and failed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123137263059962659

Cops investigating a crime is a whole different ball of wax, but since they can see the bitcoin the only reason they'd need the keys is to prevent transfer, and once the person holding the keys in on notice destroying the keys would be destruction of evidence....

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

Seriously? You obviously know the difference in a financial investment in a business and a craps game

Speculation is speculation.

I mean, when I did that sort of thing between poker and sports betting my bankroll was basically a small hedge fund. I'd argue with a straight face that it had more social utility than all the real estate market driven speculation going on back in the late 90s / early 00s.

Crypto speculation is a harder sell with the whole energy thing and because it is trying to act like a formal investment thus making it easier to use as a platform for fraud.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Speculation is speculation.

Gambling isn't speculation. Speculation plays a role in connecting prices between buyers and sellers and helps smooth out short term variability in market prices.

Eg when someone wants to sell a large amount of a commodity immediately, but the consumers of that commodity don't need it right now it will generally end up being purchased by a speculator who will then re-sell it when it's needed. The seller gets their money now, the ultimate buyer doesn't need to tie up capital buying something they won't use right away and the speculator walks away with a small profit for bridging the two requirements.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Gambling isn't speculation. Speculation plays a role in connecting prices between buyers and sellers and helps smooth out short term variability in market prices.

Eg when someone wants to sell a large amount of a commodity immediately, but the consumers of that commodity don't need it right now it will generally end up being purchased by a speculator who will then re-sell it when it's needed. The seller gets their money now, the ultimate buyer doesn't need to tie up capital buying something they won't use right away and the speculator walks away with a small profit for bridging the two requirements.

It's the same thing in that it is putting money at risk hoping that you get more back.

Some speculation has more social utility than others and involves more tangible things. Gambling* is more like a type of derivative market in that there is no ownership of anything.

Like prediction markets. These can be efficient in determining the probability of an outcome. The point spread/money line is basically that. When the prediction is about a football game it generally has little real world application. If you own a bar and would profit a bunch in sales if your home team would advance in the playoffs you could hedge that by placing a money line bet against the team. Which isn't exactly a broad application. I once bet against a referendum to allow legal poker in my county for similar reasons...


*Some people define gambling to only include activities of pure chance. Poker and sports betting not being gambling while roulette is gambling, etc. Which on the other hand is close to what a lot of retail investors are effectively doing, really, so that gets in the weeds a bit.

[marting]

Molly White has a deep dive into GBTC. Basically, a consistent, high profit bitcoin bsed arbitrage that worked until it didn't.

Grayscale Bitcoin Trust: the free money machine that went into reverse

https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/...trust-the-free

Quote:

t’s important to remember that it was a lot harder for the average person to buy Bitcoin (BTC) in 2013. Grayscale observed that there was a market there: investors—both institutional and individual—wanted exposure to Bitcoin, but didn’t want to or weren’t able to mine it themselves, buy it peer-to-peer, or use one of the various (and somewhat shaky) crypto exchanges. So, Grayscale launched GBTC.
...
After a six month lockup period, they could sell their GBTC shares on the secondary market. Assuming that GBTC continued to trade at a premium and Bitcoin prices remained stable or increased for those six months, this was an incredibly lucrative trade: institutions could pocket the premium, or they could rinse and repeat with the same trade.
...
As it turns out, this GBTC arbitrage played a huge role in the disaster of a year that the crypto industry just had.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by wareyin

In the same sense that everyone who held bitcoin long enough made money every single time, everyone who predicted the right numbers showing made money on the craps table every single time.