Topic: Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government? - page 3. (Read 12919 times)

How can we steal fund? Even if we want to there is no way.

And how does Litecoin protect against this problem?

+1
Right my thought.

The fact that blocking transactions is even considered by some, is proof we need litecoin to stick around.

Now don't get me wrong. It would be absolutely horrible if litecoin overtook bitcoin for no apparent reason. I absolutely do not want this to happen, it would be a disaster for cryptocurrencies in general.

But blocking transactions is a very apparent reason for a take-over. The miners need to know and understand that they are not God's, they do not get to decide whom pays whom.

If miners - now or in the distant future - would ever pull of something like this, I will instantly quit bitcoin. Fiat is not an option anymore either though. That's why we need a back-up. A little sister that will keep bitcoin honest. Even if it does nothing but show the miners that their asic's could become worthless overnight if they misbehave.

I believe the "should" question pertains to whether it is, pragmatically, a good idea to do this.  I think the answer to this is so obvious (fuck no) that there hardly needs to be a thread, but here it is, and here I am in it.  A general discussion of the differences between morality, ethics and legality is pretty off-topic for that.

Even this is a pretty speculative discussion, since none of the miners who would actually have to be involved to perpetrate this atrociously silly act are, so far as I can tell, remotely interested in doing something this dumb.

That I agree with

Right, in reality.

In principal, however, much of it is still out of the jurisdiction of the DEA and my ass is a little bit drier because of it. A little flaky, in fact.

Since the world is clearly not about common sense anymore, and one's family can sue the FAA and win because a private pilot family member flew into a storm and died.... then one can't say storing your money in an (Illegal in the US) global marketplace should result in automatic forfeiture of your funds, especially if you're not breaking any laws in your local area. Based on that precedent, perhaps a seller in India selling a Children's book printed in 1950 (Illegal in the US due to possible lead ink) to a buyer in Vietnam on eBay should have their paypal account locked since, because in the US, that is illegal by god.

I understand the reality of this situation. But I also understand hte principal. I don't like where this type of mentality can lead, and in an increasingly global marketplace it's going to get a lot more complicated.

EDIT: That Paypal example, strictly speaking, is more plausible because both eBay and PayPal are US companies and subject to US law. Silkroad nor bitcoin are US owned/based.

Well if people insist on leaving their coins on an extremely illegal drug marketplace what else do they expect?

... Speaking of a Smash and Grab... how in the hell have they kept that from happening? The corruption in government is high, if someone on the inside jacked the private keys, and if they knew what they were doing it would be hard to trace. Way better than the typical embezzlement and such BS.

Edit: They probably saved them on a shared network drive. "SiezedCoins.dat.rar" Perhaps some Chinese 13 year old will obtain them?

Well, it does chap my ass that the US government seized bitcoins from people around the world, many of whom were not engaging in illegal activity on their location. And even if they were, how is that America's problem?

BUT, a huge no to this questions. That would destroy everything bitcoin stands for. You can't have people simply undoing transactions because at that moment they don't agree with something. Think back in history about all the stupid shit mob mentality has resulted in.... so, that precedent should never be set. Maybe tomorrow "we'd" be robbing some rich dude's bitcoins because we're jealous little whiny bitches like most of society. No good.

All that said, if someone liberated those bitcoins I'd laugh, and I think a good 'ol fashioned smash and grab is a better idea. Find there they keep the private keys, and go get them, Oceans 11 style. Easier than doing a 51% attack and reversing god knows how many levels of transactions needed to get anywhere with that. Plus, a smash and grab would be both hilarious AND would not hurt the bitcoin infrastructure.

This sub-forum is designated for:


If you wish to discuss ethics and morals, you can take that discussion to the Politics & Society sub-forum.

I suppose perhaps the entire thread could be moved to that forum, but there seems to be enough technical discussion in the thread to leave those parts here.

I would vote for a "No." If all miners agree to take the money without the standard, normal procedure, I think it will make Bitcoin reputation goes worse.

But I don't mind if a single entity or a single person steals the private key of that address though

So, what exactly are we supposed to do in this thread, then?

It says should miners collude, not could miners collude. The answer to the second question is obviously yes. If you randomly 'split' the thread, then what's this one for?

Discussion about morality and ethics was split and moved here.

No is the answer because of bad precident and bad principle of what this currency is supposed to achieve...

But on the flip side, help the fbi confiscate the 600,000 BTC using these tactics by forcing those coins into their wallet so that proper legal proceedings could take place would be a much more noble cause

Yes, that about nails it right there. How do you know all this about me?



I read the conventional media, if I am interested in what most normal people think. But historically lunatics may see the world in a clearer light than the mainstream. There is a fine line between genius and lunacy.

p.s. Here is an easy solution if you don't like the content of this forum or want to step out of your comfort zone: don't visit it or go and start your own forum.

Huh.. why do you think I'm 25, and have no experience? My profile used to say 18 about 6 months ago, and has never had my real age.


Yeah, that's not how things work. Sorry. I could be advocating legalizing drugs and prostitution, or advocating money laundering and tax evasion, but unless I'm actually involved in any way myself,  that's still just an opinion. The only thing they care about in my particular position is my job performance. I am not a representative or a face of the government in any way. That would be people two levels above me.


Hmm... nope. Nothing on there about evidence. All that page says is, "You done bad, so we'll take your stuff." It's at most a punishment or claim of the right to everything that was obtained as a result of the crime, and there's absolutely nothing there regarding forfeited items being evidence.
So, it's not evidence. It's stuff the government, and specifically the US government, now claims to own the right to, because they claim that the way the money was obtained was wrong. This despite the fact that the money did not belong to DRP himself, was in a global business with global customers, and belonging to people who either were not breaking the law, or were in countries where what they were buying was legal. US has an annoying knack for pretending that it's government laws apply to the entire world. How would you feel if you tried to buy some electronics from a business in China, and China seized your money, because, despite those electronics being legal in US, China declared them illegal for whatever reason, and decided the rest of the world, including you, should consider them to be illegal, too?
And even if that money were to disapear somehow, it still won't affect the trial, or any evidence, and will only make the FBI a bit poorer (and more pissed off).


What about people who claim to know the people who have been involved with bitcoin for a long time, and claim to know what kind of people they are, and what kind of interests or goals they have? And what if those people are actually fairly well known and established people in the community, who have, and are still, supporting bitcoin in a big way?


First, the people you claim are being "pushed out" are actually running some of the companies you listed (who may not be publicly making such claims, but have in private). Second, you forgot to mention SatoshiDice, Coinapult, and quite a few other businesses that actually helped launch bitcoin and get it to where it is now. Sure, they may seem like government-loving nice people, but trust me, they're not. Their non-radical public image is only maintained for the likes of you.



So... you have experience in physics and computers, you worked in air traffic control in some capacity, sued a bunch of spammers, and are making your wealth domain squatting? So... nothing regarding finance, economics, or business (well, a bit)? Mine is, I had a rather extensive education, if a bit of a crash course (over a few summers, 11am to 8pm daily) in physics and electro-mechanical engeneering, which I needed to help run my grandparent's MAGLEV company. I knew the subject well enough to be an English<>Russian translator at the 2000 International Maglev Conference in Lausanne, and to debate the topics with top researchers and professors there, to the point where people there simply assumed I had a doctorate in the stuff. I don't have any Comp Sci degrees, but I have been writing software since I was 13, was hired by McDonald's Corp in Baltimore as an IT manager and web/software developer, and as a business on the side, ran and managed a web and e-mail server for various web companies, including my family's MAGLEV thing, since 1997. I'm still running that MAGLEV business, which includes doing economic feasibility research all over the world, and establishing and maintaining contacts with various globally dispersed manufacturers, though I'm not really focusing on it as much as I should (I am building a proof-of-concept linear accelerator in my living room though). Oh, and I also have a bachelors in business finance, and a master's in global business and finance. And thanks to my stock, mutual fund, and bitcoin portfolio, and the small consulting and finance jobs I keep getting hired for, and all the trust I have built up over the years (I'm holding over $100,000 of other people's money in trust), I don't have to work at all, either. As I said, the only reason I'm still working where I am is for the cheap health insurance, and to give me some spending money so I can put off dipping into my investments. Actually, the only reason I worked here last year was as a favor to the department, because I was literally the only person left here who knew how to run things, and stayed on, despite earning half of what I could earn in the private sector, until I trained my replacement. Since then, they accused the guy I was training of being inadequate, without even consulting me, because some new person didn't like him or something (he was VERY good, actually), dumped a bunch of shit on me from someone else who was retiring and thus was not doing her job at all in her last month (never gave me the accounting info I needed, and shit rolled right up hill), and have cost me about $60k in lost investments. Frankly, there are two more finance people here who are hoping to quit, who are the only other people who know how to run the department, and I am just here waiting for them to leave, so I can leave at the same time, and have this entire department collapse.

I think you are missing the point.
I'm not saying what I think should be done.
What I'm saying is that if group A decides to taint a certain set of coins because of they believe is morally wrong, why shouldn't groups B, C and D do the same? And they will each have different things that they consider morally wrong.
Now coins will be seemingly randomly accepted or rejected based on some group's view of what the Nth previous holder had done with those coins.
It would render the entire system unusable. Money works because people trust that it will be accepted. If that trust is lost, money loses value.

And, btw, I'm pretty sure there are many many more people in the world would would consider dealing drugs to be morally wrong, as opposed to considering confiscating money found when arresting a drug dealer morally wrong.

Both can change over time.
What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.
e.g. two people in the same state can have different opinions on if gay marriage is morally wrong, but they cannot on if it's legal (or they are just wrong xD).

I certainly could call it morally wrong.
It would just go against the current common sense and most other people would disagree with me.

What's important to notice is that "morally right" isn't the same for everyone. If you say "xy isn't morally right" it's expressing your opinion, not stating a fact.