One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to follow the blockchain and see what eventually happens to that BTC. Does the government leave it in a wallet, or cash it out with Coinbase, or what?
One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money. This can be done if you want to save your money for later (perhaps for your defense, or for after your eventual release), or alternatively merely because you believe that civil forfeiture is unethical and dangerous to society as it accelerates the militarization of the police.
Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time. If your aim is to merely destroy the money, you could also get away with having a secret VPS running somewhere that does the deed (it would not matter if it were later found).
If you go with the "destroy" route, then you would not even be destroying the evidence from an ethics standpoint (thanks to the nature of the blockchain). However the authorities, upon being denied their "prize", would undoubtedly throw a childish hissyfit and assert that you destroyed the evidence anyway.
"One of the neat things about bitcoin that hasn't been talked a lot about is that bitcoin makes it possible (with a little planning) to create seizure and "civil forfeiture" resistant money"
Sounds like burying your cash on an island. I think you might be able to publish an exciting novel about this...
Imagine a system where the private material of a wallet is shared among one or more trusted individuals (using secret sharing) who are under instructions to cooperate with each other in destroying or moving the money if you are ever arrested or fail to check in after a certain period of time.
Don't you think that people involved in money-laundering already engage in such conspiracies? There's a reason they call it 'organized crime.'
It's naive to assume the government wouldn't be able to figure out such an obvious scheme. I disapprove of civil forfeiture laws as a matter of policy, but your proposed mechanism for outwitting them is absurd.
They would of course "figure it out". Actually, there wouldn't even be anything to figure out in the first place, it would be painfully obvious what had happened and they would strike out at you for doing it. Your bitcoins are transferred out of your wallet hours after you are arrested but before you give them the passphrase to your wallet... what is there to figure out?
You seem to be entirely misunderstanding what I am proposing.
How is destroying bitcoins not an effective way of ensuring that nobody has those bitcoins? How is that not effective?
You seem to be under the impression that I think the authorities would not realize what happened, or would not strike out at you for doing it. I am suggesting neither of those things. They can be as angry as they want to be, but that will not un-transfer those bitcoins. Hell, they can beat you with a wrench for the rest of your natural life but that will not get the bitcoins back.
You plainly do not understand what I am suggesting. "That would be organized crime and authorities are good at recognizing organized crime" is not a coherent response. Speak plainly, what specifically do you think the flaw is?
The problems are threefold. First, civil forfeiture is not the end; destruction of wealth doesn't achieve anything in particular. Second, your scheme involves coopting others and putting them at risk of conviction for conspiracy, reducing liberty in the aggregate. Thirdly, it's unlikely that anyone has all their worldly assets in bitcoin, so this will simply result in attempts to seize other assets of similar value (if prosecutors reasonably suspect the money to have been hidden or transferred elsewhere) or indifference (if it has inarguably been destroyed). The purpose of civil forfeiture laws (notwithstanding their scope for abuse) is to prevent the criminal enjoyment of ill-gotten gains.
You're so obsessed with getting one over on the government that you've adopted the position of the dog in the manger; if you can't have it, nobody else will, ha-ha-ha!
They can be as angry as they want to be, but that will not un-transfer those bitcoins.
I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old. Your entire position is predicated on the fallacious belief that government's primary goal is to get its hands on your property. You're in the grip of an ideological delusion. If anything, your scheme is going to widen the government's reach by exapnding the number of prosecutable individuals.
>They can be as angry as they want to be, but that will not un-transfer those bitcoins. Hell, they can beat you with a wrench for the rest of your natural life but that will not get the bitcoins back
Actually it is, because it means that since they provably have no way to coerce you, anything they do can be shown to be petty revenge, and that's really the worst way to support one's case.
Governments are used to having a stick to support their arguments with; take it away, and you will find them very bad at making an argument.
>Actually it is, because it means that since they provably have no way to coerce you, anything they do can be shown to be petty revenge, and that's really the worst way to support one's case.
Petty revenge is the bread and butter of lesser bureaucrats in government.
Of course they have to be moved to really be considered "seized", otherwise they just have a copy which can be invalidated before they control the value of the coins.
Interesting. I guess that means the DEA has some technology people who have been tasked with figuring out how Bitcoin works, sufficiently well to understand what it would mean to "seize" it and actually carry that out.
It is, but the normal assumption I've always seen made of governments is that they are a collection of those who were too dumb to make it "in the real world". At least, until that assumption becomes inconvenient for whatever point the person was trying to make.
I don't think mpyne considers people in government to be brain dead, but it's a popular stereotype here on HN - whenever people disapprove of some government policy they complain that government bureaucrats are too stupid to understand technology. See, for example, the Bitcoin foundation thread on the front page, or any court case whose outcome disappoints people.
I am well aware of the naive sentiment that can be found on *any forum/list" (not just HN) regarding the "guberment." mpyne is on the mental list of usernames that triggers my "read this comment don't merely skim" reaction. If it was a comment by a username I did not recognize I probably would not have responded.
I'm on board with the assessment that government and government agencies have some truly brilliant, dedicated people working in them.
However, some - maybe most - of those people work all day long to impede the effectiveness of others. And that's in the best governments.
I agree that we shouldn't assume that government workers are hacks.
But I think you can fairly label almost any government "stupid," when you consider how it behaves as an entity, regardless of the mixture of the people that act as its cells.
