Bitcoin Forum

Only a person who wants to end up destitute would obtain Bitcoins. Sending Bitcoin to someone is the antithesis of love, it is a kiss of trouble and woe in the future.

I am very sad about this. I had high hopes for decentralized currency. Unfortunately, unless we can perfect widespread anonymity then this entire decentralized currency concept is dead in the future.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5413937#msg5413937

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5414095#msg5414095

---

Serious problem for Bitcoin now:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5407521#msg5407521

---

More:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486872.msg5408045#msg5408045

Why do dummies like you think posting isolated scary posts on a discussion forum will make the price drop, so you can buy cheaper?

Stop being a complete idiot.

One one-millionth of the people who own bitcoin will see your thread.   And therefore the price wont drop because of it.

-B-

actual economy crash like mtgox crash ... because, economy use "fraudulate paper money" to supply the world.
price up.

so, bitcoin is the next : regulate money (not by the same that they have invented the actual economy).
they can always "play with the wallstreet" ... but, when they lost, the lost "really" !

The price will continue to go up. To suck more of you in to owing larger amounts of clawback.

Please buy.

Selling won't make the culpability go away. Once you own Bitcoins, you are screwed.

Make all the posts you want, you are still screwed.  :'(

You think I am happy about this?!  >:(

The less, the more. ~Bitcoins' law
You're spreading FUD again, why?

I used to think you made some interesting points Anonymint, however after reading your OP and recent posts from you I think you are teetering dangerously into crazy person territory.

Attack the messager please. And continue to dig your hole for yourself. Continue to obtain more Bitcoins. It is your destiny.

I will.

That is great. Because one of us will be correct. And so now the line in the sand is drawn.

On one side is the abyss. Feel free to stay on that side of the line.

He's an foolish person, and possibly has a mental crypto disease or some sort of bitcoinfobia.
My 2 cents.

How about this going forward - financial services providers obtain insurance to cover them in the event of theft/fraud etc, and on the basis that they demonstrably exercise a duty of care and dilligence in their business dealings and in their fiduciary duty to their customers (it may be that the insurer requires a compliance with regulation perhaps ?).

   I buy 5 BTC on BTC-E that subsequently proves to have been stolen from XYZ exchange (and customers A ,B and C) - customers A, B and C receive their stolen BTC back. I (and BTC-E) receive recompense from the insurance company of exchange XYZ.  

Yes the banksters+government will take control of Bitcoin. That is of course the only solution. And of course it appears to have been designed to fall into their lap.

And who was Satoshi again? (Hint: most realize he was likely an NSA researcher or group of NSA researchers)

Bitcoin is the honeypot to suck in all the gullible Libertarians to their demise. And it helps to spread the NWO digital currency, which is taken over eventually.

Could you kindly explain how people holding and using bitcoin are going to be "jailbirds" and "destitute"?

Try reading the OP and the links it contains.

Did you read CoinCube's posts? Did you read the linked thread?

The point is that the law is that stolen property can be clawed back.

A large % of BTC is stolen. You are probably holding some stolen BTC now. The longer that BTC trades, the higher the percentage of theft. Eventually all BTC will have been stolen multiple times. This is yet another reason that perpetual debasement (which Bitcoin doesn't have) is highly desirable (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5388110#msg5388110), because virgin mined coins don't have this stigma.

The chain of ownership it is on the public ledger. All theft can later be traced ex post facto (at any time in the future when the theft is reported and investigated). The Statute of Limitations would probably be at least 5 years.


The Feds recently subpoened Mt.Gox to force them to retain trading records, so the chain of ownership will be known to law enforcement.

In the fiat economy only cash would not be able to be accounted for in the same way as you describe above re.theft/BTC. That is, only cash transactions are anonymous.
  Cash only represents around 3% of the money in circulation in the economy.

The question then becomes - is BTC more prone to theft than say theft via credit cards (for eg) ? Is this what you are saying ? I can't myself see why BTC would necessarily be more prone to theft.

Law enforcement will clawback against any one along the chain of ownership that they can. You are providing more opportunities for them to find someone they can prosecute.

Anonymity is going to be very, very important.

Otherwise move to a system of whitelisting such as described upthread by practicaldreamer.

Much more prone to theft because it is online.

And many coins are aggregated into one place (e.g. centralized exchanges) where the economy-of-scale for stealing is higher.

My 2 BTC were stolen when (using localbitcoins) I couldn't find a buyer to deposit to my USA bank account and I was in a rush. So I sold to someone who paid me in paypal. He had stolen access to someone's paypal account and so the payment was reversed.

And the point is that coins circulate, so eventually they could be stolen multiple times.  >:(  :'(

This is not a moral and upstanding system.

We could potentially fix this with more technology (e.g. decentralized exchanges) and better education (do not use irreversible payment, offline decentralized wallets as standard, etc).

Or using a whitelisting system such as described by practicaldreamer (but then it is no longer decentralized and it becomes owned by the establishment).

What makes you so certain that the nemo dat rule will be applied to bitcoin? Isn't it at least plausible for a court to treat it similar to legal tender or other negotiable instruments?

Ahh, now I understand why you posted this!

With all due respect, you're an idiot for selling something via Paypal in person (or to any non-verified address). If you exchanged cash or gold for PayPal in person you would have been in the exact same situation. That doesn't mean cash or gold is bad.

Learn how to think for yourself. Be gladded the price of the lesson was only 2 BTC - it could have been worse.

For someone capable of producing giant walls of text to illustrate complex points, I find it odd that you're able to fall so flat on your face at the first logical hurdle.  Unless people are posting their addresses in public places, you'll have difficulty finding the actual person who has the coins.  Law enforcement can't do shit if there person who has the coins is in another jurisdiction.  There's no conceivable way you're ever going to force someone on the other side of the planet to give back "stolen" bitcoin unless they were directly involved in the theft and even then it would be incredibly difficult to do.  If you hide your private keys somewhere that no one can find it, there's no way to force anyone to surrender their cryptocurrency, stolen or otherwise.  The list of reasons why you're so monumentally wrong could go on for several pages.

There are several accounts on this forum that will likely find their way onto my ignore list at some point due to spouting incessant nonsense or outright FUD and you're running pretty high on the list right now.  Go cry wolf at the local looney asylum, or start talking sense, please.  I'm sure I'm not the only one getting tired of reading this shit.

As well 744,000 coins from Mt.Gox were owned by idiots like me.

One day you will learn to accept reality instead of what you dream would be true.

Even very smart people get in a rush and don't have a good option and have to take what is available at the moment.

The point is the theft is ongoing notwithstanding your pompous concept of a perfect world.

Are you that fucking ignorant of the power of the NSA and GCHQ?

For example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

Have you not read that NSA has promised to share data with the G20?


Have you not read the recent declarations from the G20 to cooperate on tax avoidance and law enforcement.



You are one stupid idiot.

Have you not heard that people have physical bodies and possessions.

Debtor's prisons have been reopened recently.


Continue on with your blissful ignorance.

Oh, okay then, I'm sure the NSA and GCHQ and the G20 and every other organisation you can recall the name of and throw into a completely unrelated conversation are going to get on the case of your two stolen bitcoins right away!  They'll drop everything and get some satellites moved into position to track down the culprits and restore those wayward coins to their rightful owner!  Like they give a shit who stole your BTC.  Pillock.   ::)

You don't seem to understand that total theft aggregates over time.

And the government has an obligation to protect the public from massive theft.

And this provides the excuse for the government+banks to take control of Bitcoin.

It all fits together in a perfect plan.

P.S. They can raise the Statute of Limitations ex post facto too, especially if many Grandmas have been harmed.

FTFY.

+1

For your 'theory' to actually play out Anonymint you would have to have all law enforcement agencies around the world able to access anyone in the world - just about guaranteed to never happen. Know who the owners of the public addresses in question were (many of which would never be associated with an exchange or any other business that would have real user details in any way) - impossible. And, have to be able to have some way of tracking chains of millions and millions and millions of transactions, and deal with tumblers etc. In conspiracy land maybe, in reality not going to happen.

Why should the government give a competitive currency (that threatens the power of the government) all its power over legal tender?

Duh.

As well most governments have already ruled it is not legal tender and they have been issuing warnings about using the crypto-currencies.

As well it is quite clear from precedents, e.g. gold and silver are fungible money too yet they are treated as property by all national governments in the world today.

You have a very low IQ.

They can access anyone along the chain of ownership, cherry picking someone in their jurisdication and who didn't use strong anonymity methods.

Orthogonal to that slam dunk, you are discounting the degree of tracking and cooperation that the G20 is doing and planning to do, in response the $150 trillion debt implosion coming and the need to confiscate all wealth to resolve this debt.

Agreed - and this is what I was kind of driving at in my last post. Its ironic that in Anonymints case of being ripped off to the tune of 2BTC it was done via a paypal account.
   How much theft occurs via credit card ? Billions over the years no doubt - although they aren't too keen on letting us know. And how much of it is ever reclaimed by the banks - very little. This is in spite of the fact that all the transactions are transparent in pretty much a similar way to how BTC transactions are transparent right now. Wouldn't the banks, if it were practically possible, what with all their power and resources and Government backing and NSA support etc etc - wouldn't they be able to reclaim that stolen money back ?

You assume mostly that governments and courts will regulate and treat bitcoin like a traditional currency/commodity/whatever...

I think that's wrong. If that was the case then they would have done that already. The fact that most governments are still looking about
what bitcoin exactly is, makes someone think that sooner or later they 'll come up with a more sophisticated regulation.

And seriously mate. You are quoting yourself!   :-[

*Disclaimer*  This is an AnonyMint thread likely to contain unrealistic and purely hypothetical scenarios that may be closer to fiction than any semblance of reality, along with false logic and copious amounts of clutching at straws.

Recommend attachment for all future AnonyMint threads.

All of it is recoved via chargebacks on the merchants. I guess you never had a merchant account  ::)

I did. And sold thousands of units of download software.

I realize I am talking to neophytes here who have no actual experience.

Delusion.

Governments act slowly especially to new things. But they do act predictably. There are many precedents as I explained in my prior reply to you. They will never allow a competitor to their legal tender. And they will protect the public interest from widespread theft.

Bitards!

Ignoring is bliss and abyss.

The issue at hand was the traceability of individuals behind fraudulant but transparent transactions.

Not how unscrupulous banks recoup their losses.



Are you worried Anon, that the IMF are gonna come looking for their 10% out of the Anonymint households rather large stash - and what with BTC not being totally anonymous you are going to have to look elsewhere for a safe haven for your hard earned loot  ;) ?

I will await the first case that confirms your statements.

Due to the nature of bitcoin, I would imagine most every user holds coin that was stolen at some point. What about the logistics for clawing back any significant portion of these coins? It seems that it would be a tremendous use of resources to attempt a claw back of coins from just one major theft.

You are correct that Bitcoin millionaires have more to fear than Bitcoin paupers. Economy-of-scale favors going after the larger of the culpable.

Orthogonal point is the NSA+bankers have no incentive to prosecute when they can solve the problem by putting it on the merchant's back. And its their legal tender system they want to keep in power.

Whereas, crypto-currency can't be charged back and it threatens their power. So they will apply more effort.


Indeed I will look else where for a safe haven and a system which works better for users at preventing fraud. But I am not too worried about the tiny amount of Bitcoins someone gave me to distribute to charity. Btw, I paid out cash here in the Philippines to victims and have all my receipts.

...card issuers bore a 63% share of fraudulent losses in 2012 and merchants assumed the other 37% of liability, according to the Nilson Report, August 2013.

At least get your facts correct.

man you need some zoloft or some anti depressants...  you are depressing me with all of your threads with all this doom and gloom about the future...

And the merchants pay for that in increased fees!

At least get your economics correct!

I am not a loser. I don't talk without also formulating a solution.

I thought one of the benefits of Bitcoin was that all transactions are final.  I'm not expecting to ever have someone be able to randomly "cancel" a transaction.  I guess other than some sort of involuntary fork.

Isn't that what governments do best.

An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. - Lazarus Long

$52 billion annually (http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/29/4672414/leaked-snowden-documents-reveal-details-of-surveillance-budget) for the NSA, CIA, FBI is not enough?

So does this mean we really didn't land on the moon?

You have severe myopia about relative size.

Do you conceive how large $150 trillion in global debt is?

How much did it cost to go to moon?

Any more low IQ Bitards want to debate me? Bring it on.

I shit on $150 trillion every night at the club bruh.

Well so now you know, Bitcoin is a zillion times worse than cash and gold in this respect, because the chain of ownership is recorded in public forever.

The only way I see to improve this is very strong, widespread anonymity, coupled with decentralized exchanges, etc...

So we can hopefully get the advantages of digital money without the severe drawbacks.

Note Bitcoin has ZERO anonymity (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439357.msg5355485#msg5355485), even when you try to be anonymous using Tor, CoinJoin, Dark Wallets, etc..

Everyone knows that Bitcoin isn't anonymous. How do you think Blockchain.info gets its data?

You've conflated two potentially orthogonal issues about anonymity.

It is theoretically possible to have a public ledger, yet also have widespread anonymity on the owners of those coins.

Bitcoin doesn't.

All wealth confiscated? How about some debt simply doesn't get paid instead.

Click these two links to read more. The quote below is not the entire logic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5309735#msg5309735


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.msg5402853#msg5402853


See also the Economic Devastation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0) and the Mad Max (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.0) threads. For example I mention there the 2013 Oxford U study that says 47% of all existing jobs will be lost to computer automation within 20 years.

OP is doin' som FUD. He want Bitcoin cheaper so he can buy. Don't fall for that theft arguments, it's stupid as hell.

This whole butthurt thread stems from the OP selling bitcoin for Paypal.  :'( :'( :'(

Lol.   :D

Wow. So Ego  Such self importance. Cool.

I get pretty sick and tired of the myopic view of paranoid schizophernic Americans. There is a world outside USA you know. Population of USA: 313 Million (2012 estimate). Population of the world: ~ 7 Billion. That means the USA is 4% of the world population.

Stop spouting on about the Fed and US law, it means jack shit to bitcoin.

You need to study history and stop talking shit. As technology evolves, new jobs get created in new industries. When farming became mechanized in the early 19th century did all those displaced people sit idle and starve? No, they retrained and became wealthier in other work. During the computer revolution in the 1970s -1990s, did all the paper shufflers in banks, insurance companies and accountancy firms sit idle? No, they retrained into new exciting industries.

You display all the signs of a luddite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite).

Indeed, although the clawback-fest will start with former mtgox customers who withdrew fiat:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=489927

Most realize that NSA is paying people to spread BS as you do.



"The Bitcoiners [and the Cypherpunks in general] are going to totally destroy your society and your "laws"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=470593.0

No one can access your wallet to return coins, EVEN IF THEY WERE STOLEN.

EXACTLY! Read the damn wiki!

They can access you physically. Society can throw you in jail until you pay. Debtor's prison have started reopening again.

http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secrets

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5434934#msg5434934

---

You need to study history as I did (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Housing%20Recovery%20Illusion.html), and see there is a lag time with massive unemployment as people have to readjust their skills. And this 200 year high $150 trillion debt bubble means the level of maladjustment is far greater than what we've seen in recent history.

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491465.msg5435064#msg5435064

You rationalize away the actual threats by satisfying your ego about superiority over me. Typical low IQ beta-male chest pounding.

Yea I agree, OP's postings are Bullshit.

No problem. You proceed with your NWO coin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5434934#msg5434934). Don't complain later when your "butt hurts".

I suppose I was thinking more of the logistics of clawing back a significant portion of these coins, not the willingness of government agencies to spend money. With the number of bitcoin transactions that occur per day, can you really pinpoint how much of a user's coin was stolen from a particular theft? Sure I guess it would be possible to cherry pick some users who have a high percentage of stolen coins sitting around in an address, but to say "most bitcoin will be clawed back due to widespread theft" seems like a very bold statement.

Is this something you envision happening today or years down the road?

Everything is traceable on the blockchain, unless it went through a mixer. Mixers are probably compromised by the NSA, and if not, this could taint all the coins coming out of the mixer, so you just proliferated the taint!

We don't even know how much theft is going on.

We don't know how much coin passed through criminal activities, thus can be confiscated due to Admirality Law (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5422422#msg5422422).

BitCON is not the repudiation-proof system we thought it was. It is some kind of other wild, unpredictable chaos.

I don't know how big the mess will be. And I don't plan on hanging around with my life invested in Butt(hurt)coin to find out.

You are free to make your own risk assessment.

Probably true. You're right that lack of anonymity is an issue, but that's an engineering problem.  Geeks everywhere are on that like white on rice. In my view, it's only a matter of time before we have a truely anonymous coin.  So let's bury the hatchet on this thread and work together toward that goal.

Yes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5436067#msg5436067), but it can't be Bitcoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.msg5437107#msg5437107

OP isn't very bright.
That or he just doesn't understand how bitcoin works. (Probably why he tried selling with Paypal.)

 :D

A BS answer to the fact that organized violence of the world government can't be maintained in a crypto world.
The cypherpunks enforce the state mafia to act more and more totalitarian, and the more totalitarian they act, the nearer is the end of a governed society.

Oh I agree, Bitcoin will be part of the totalitarian outcome, and the solution will come from cyberpunks such as myself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5434934#msg5434934).

Readers should also see the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.0) on this same topic.

He appears to be saying buy Darkcoins while they're still low

Indeed those who deserve the NWO coin are lathered up in their groupthink due to salivating at the sight of multiple ZEROs following any non-zero digit.

They intellectually fail to connect the implications (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.0) of whether those ZEROs will ever actually benefit them or instead an illusory trap of noisome woe and gnashing teeth.

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=denver+airport+mural

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Rqr-1ncfKZA/TPAsVvt6wAI/AAAAAAAACsU/aTozc9MJBrI/s1600/denver-airport-mural.jpg

http://www.kaitseomatervist.ee/img/dia/mural1-2.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/969434_436425246452703_1563954802_n.jpg

http://www.grabairdeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/denver-airport-murals-flickr-sharing-193953.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6Crplt3rNfs/UnCDPWjuqaI/AAAAAAAAass/anf0YtZ6ZoI/s1600/DIA-mural-02.jpg

DarkCoin isn't anonymous (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg5458409#msg5458409).

I know, you can't read. Whoever believes that organized violence by the world government can be maintained in a crypto environment doesn't understand anything.

"Let's make the coin we want for ourselves."

Do it! Until then, Bitcoin - whether it is partly or fully anonymous - which can't be mined by the governements is doing a great job to destroy FIAT, which itself is the basis of the government and the so called society of citizens, the living cartoons of the former humans.

The bitcoin community and the governement dont know the identity of satoshi, the most famous bitcoiner. How is that possible, if bitcoin can't be used anonymously?

You can't read. I didn't argue otherwise.


Bitcoin is fully compromised and is fiat(-at-arms-length) already. Dumbass.

This is why I own a gun. You can have my bitcoin after you kill me, surgically remove my brain, hook it up to a computer, and hack out my brain wallet passcode.

Good luck.

Fiat? You are crazy. The bitcoin community and the government dont know the identity of satoshi, the most famous bitcoiner. How is that possible, if bitcoin can't be used anonymously?

 
you win the award for the most agressive FUD... congrats.

Your argument doesn't hold water, and here's why:
 
First, as its been stated elsewhere, clawbacks
aint gonna happen as there is legal precedent
that values accepted in good faith aren't
subject to "clawbacks"... The higher
the number of transactions, the less likely
it is.

And EVEN IF someone had to pay a "clawback", they could
just pay the coin back.  Your argument
is that clawbacks will start happening all over
the place, while bitcoin simultaneously loses all value, and
a court rules you have to pay in fiat the
previous high value of a coin. 

never gonna happen.

 

And how do you think restitution of stolen bitcoins, radically dispersed around the globe, will work across multiple national borders? I doubt there will be retroactive enforcement of any cryptocurrency theft even if governments are able to work together to regulate bitcoin exchanges in the future. They will be too busy arguing over the US government defaulting on national debt, letting inflation wipe that debt away, and dealing with the worldwide recession resulting from the popping of stock, real estate and US dollar bubbles. Theft of bitcoins will be far from the priority.

Crypto will likely be treated like a hybrid currency commodity. An asset class with similarities to gold except it can be used efficiently as an exchange for goods and services.

Best guess is NSA = Satoshi. Ask any insider privately. They all tell me this.

Even if that isn't true, you have no way to know if the NSA knows who Satoshi is.

Also block chain analysis seems to indicate he hasn't spent any of his Bitcoins, and who was recording IP addresses in Utah in 2009. It is 2014 now.

You are ignorant of the legal system and the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.msg5457038#msg5457038).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.msg5454129#msg5454129

Most insiders and heroes here dont share your conspiracy theories.
I'm not a cypherpunk but I am nevertheless able to handle a device which can't be linked to myself.

As I've read in other threads (in your totalitarian 'self-moderated(!) thread and the mad max thread) you dont understand the concept of society, economy, debt and growth. You think the hypercomplex society/economy (that came about solely on the basis of additional debt which is enforced by organized violence of the state) could be maintained in a barter world where crypto currencies replace growing debt. This is mickey mouse economics.
A barter economy is austrian science fiction and did never exist in the real world. Stateless, unruled humans are not doing business, since they are (have been) self-sufficient.

Cryptographics will destroy society/economy. That's the reason why I support it. I dont support it for the purpose of maintaining an endlessly rampant growing economy/society.

Sorry for my poor English. It is not my language.

I didn't say they do. I said they do speculate the Satoshi was NSA. Don't conflate two orthogonal things.


I am.


Tell me more about your method, so I can tell you why you are technically ignorant of the fact that you are linked by the NSA.

I know of only two current ways to be truly anonymous. That is to access the internet from either netcafe with no cameras or from a mobile device for which you have not registered you id, and which you have not used for any other purpose (and remember the device has an id too, not just the simmpak). And you need to be careful about being recorded on the numerous cameras and ways of tracking your location, e.g. license plate tracking and every car now has tracking secretly built in. Because wireless device location can be pinpointed with triangularization.


Hahaha. You are referring to these threads:

Economic Devastation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0)

Mad Max outcome (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.0)

"Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.0)


I never said that. You have reading comprehension problems. Perhaps you didn't read my other thread, where I stated that currency is fundamental to the maximum division-of-labor.

No Money Exists Without the Majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0)


Since you've confirmed you are Malthusian idiot such as the Luddites (http://unheresy.com/Information Is Alive.html#2nd_Law_of_Thermo), I can now dismiss you as delusional.

Btw, the economy and society have continued to grow since Mesopotamia until now. That won't stop.

Patriarchy (= ever growing debt/society/economy enforced by organized violence by priests and militarists, aka the state) startet some thousand years earlier, you idiot. But it will stop.

Economic growth will stop forever. Hahaha. Yeah right. Talk about looney cookie.

I dont need you for that. Non-paranoid cypherpunks already confirmed it to me.

Bullshit.

Of course it will. The decadent citizen as a 'living' cartoon of the former human is an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If you can't see it, your problem.

http://scienceblogs.de/evolvimus/wp-content/blogs.dir/66/files/2012/06/i-c353e2656383d6b832f91b77ddc93c01-evolution_of_man1.jpg
   

The $150 trillion global debt collapse...

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11855-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz2iu5C4Y4Z
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg3902083#msg3902083


...and 47% unemployment due to contagion with Knowledge Age technological unemployment (see Economic Devastation thread) will for about 10 - 20 years implode the Industrial Age economy.

But this will not last forever. The Knowledge Age will march on and be much greater in production.

You are a dreamer. A debt collapse of the society means mad max and dark age, but not only 47 % unemployment. Ridiculous.

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more  ::)

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Ah, so bizarre conspiracy theories and crystal ball predictions about a world government. That's what will lead to restitution. Okay. I'm out.

Before I go, it's much more likely governments will seek to simply shut down all exchanges with inadequate security much like they have done with copyright infringement. You don't see everyone who downloaded Game of Thrones being hauled before the courts. Law enforcement is too busy trying to shut down Pirate Bay. Restitution from the early days of bitcoin, before exchange security, won't be a priority. They didn't chase down Joseph Kennedy after they cracked down on insider trading.

Why would the government shut down the greatest global tracking device ever invented.

You Bitards have tunnel vision. All you can see is $1,000,000. Your greedy salivation is shutting down your pre-frontal cortex (http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Existential_Fear).

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable  tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Trying to hold btc mixer accountable is not yet possible by current laws? There's no law, which requires that particular service to keep records. Also by which jurisdiction should that service be approached, if it's based in, say, North Korea?

Ask your Dad

Or google bona fide purchaser without notice

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

You've been notified. The thefts are all over the mass media.

The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk.

Bingo.

Incorrect.

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0KHWrbVW1_EC&lpg=PR12&ots=FZqXLNpjSI&dq=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&pg=PA692#v=onepage&q=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&f=false

The only exclusions from nemo dat are for bank accounts, checks, or anything pertaining to the official currency and financial system. Indeed as the case law above shows, you can't use nemo dat to trace through bank account balances that went negative.

You are misapplying that to assert no tracing on mixed funds, which in fact the opposite is implied by the above resource.

It clearly states that courts have used, "proportionate shares in any substitutable property".

How much more clear of a slamdunk refutation could I possibly find.  :P

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

It's unlikely the bitcoin will be clawed back. Besides juridisctional issues, in 2011 when the theft might have happened, KYC and AML were not yet common things in the bitcoin world and most transactions were anonymous, with accounts with fake names. They aren't going to try and claw this back, it's too much of a mess.

Excuse me, AnonyMyopic, but you're still forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the fact that your case law doesn't apply to the rest of the planet.  Argument null and void.  No one cares what legal precedents your country might have, because it'll be different in every other country in the world.  Cite what you like, but it's irrelevant.  Just like everything else you've said in this thread.


"I'm educated and can link to wikipedia."

Welcome to the internet.   ::)

Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.

I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.

Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.

---

DooMAD and crazy_rabbit, I'm happy if you convince yourselves to make the biggest mistake of life. Please proceed.

nemo dat quod non habet has been fundamental to Western civilization. You proceed in your Alice in Wonderland fantasy.

Besides the USA has succeeded in forcing every major country to acquiese to our FATCA law (http://www.nestmann.com/finally-some-good-news-about-fatca), which is much more intrusive into sovereignty than nemo dat quod non habet norms in western civilization.

DooMAD apparently you are in the UK and nemo dat quod non habet originates from your country.

I think you guys have a few screws loose.

You are the one with some srews not only loose, but lost. You are a pseudoanarchist sociotard who believes that a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.

I must concede that the odds favor your outcome (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg5461592#msg5461592), but I am hoping the Knowledge Age cyberpunks can rejuvenate production. However, it is quite depressing to see how ignorant (tunnel vision, boiling frogs, zombies) most people are even here in these supposedly enlightened forums of libertarian white males.

In either case, we need a more anonymous crypto-coin. Bitcoin won't suffice.

HOPE? Hope for production? (which is an euphemism for destruction)
HOPE, that we can proceed with the 6th great extinction?
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/

High hopes ...



With an anonymous crypto currency you can only destroy the society/economy. You can not maintain it, and that's the reason why we really need it.

Zarathustra, you conflate orthogonal issues.

DooMAD, I like what is linked (http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/) from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution.

If the bitcoincommunity will try to creating an authority what block 'blacklisted' public addresses to send and receive transfers, if impossible to confirm the transfer, the value is vault =0. Haha, and no more hack, and no any country authoity to take anything.
Early implementation of this make bitcoin safer.
The only question is: who will create this one? if the community, then its cool, if a state organised something, then we are hecked...
Blocking the last 5000 'bitcoin-out' from mtgox, and if someone reclame the coins, just need to proove the origin(mining-buy).
If any transfer connected to familiar to employees to gox, then stay blocked, unlock=handling the private key to this coinauthority and they redistribute to the rightful owners.
(so the confiscated coins will be 0 values hihi)
With real money you can not make the same.

The issue that nearly nobody understands is that an economy has never been thing based. An economy is always debt based. Therefore the crypto currencies are tools to destroy the debt and with the debt the economy (society).

" the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice."

 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson

Your turn

Listen to yourself....

This is a idiotic conversation.   Once stolen coins are distributed/dispersed
Through the bitconomy , who are you going to try to "claw" them back from?
Everybody?

Poster is clearly trying to spread FUD and failing miserably.

Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient "had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void".

http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htm

Signing off now (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5463743#msg5463743).

Will reply tomorrow

This whole thread is built upon a fundamental misconception

You assume that there is a thing called "The Law" or "Legal System", which you conceive as being eternal, "underlying" as made out of stone.

Yet in reality there is no such thing.


You can go out on the street, pick some random person, force him by pointing a gun at his head to go to a "court" you have set up, and read to him the verdict, that his money is seized as illegal, because it belongs to the poor hungry people of Africa and was taken away from them by capitalism and imperialism. Chances are that that person will yield and hand over pocket money to you.

But in no way this makes your action legal. Nor did the person hand over the money because you where in right, but because of the gun.

Please note the important point:
You must not draw conclusions about the nature of the money involved here.
You may only draw conclusions about the nature and the meaning of the gun.


In a similar manner, you can imagine some state or legal system in the world declaring Bitcoin as illegal for reason of [insert random ideology here]. Then this state or legal system can use its mechanisms of power to seize Bitcoins whenever a user interacts with some entity under the control of this legal system.

Such actions can be quite effective for people entrapped in such a legal system, but this fact doesn't turn the provisions of such a legal system into an absolute truth. You might be drawing conclusions about the nature of such a legal system itself, but you can't use it as foundation for drawing conclusions about the nature of things like the Bitcoins involved.


The decision to handle and classify Bitcoins in a specific way is a political decision. It is pointless to use logic to derive what is the matter of fact in this respect.

I'm sure you mean well, but the things you're saying look like the exact opposite of enlightenment to most of the people in this thread.


Clearly I'm not the one making the assumptions here.

I don't recall any of us stating that Bitcoin was going to be the only contender or that it was without flaw.  All we're saying is you've gone off the deep end by taking your "what if" scenario well beyond the realms of reality.  If they can't stop people torrenting movies and games, they won't be able to stop the flow of digital money.

While you're busy preaching to us about the flaws of Bitcoin, please try to consider the shortcomings of any coin you might deem technically superior.  True superiority is usually determined a range of different factors, but a fairly traditional factor would be an overwhelming show of numbers.  If you can get as many people using your chosen coin as are currently using Bitcoin, maybe you'll be on to something.  Until then, your guess is no better than mine or anyone else's.  That's all it is, guesswork.  No one here knows for certain what the future of crypto will be and I'm pretty sure most people here aren't putting all their eggs in one basket because of that fact.   The real beauty of crypto is that we don't have to stick with one individual coin.  In fact, there probably won't be a single "winning" coin.  If you think there will be, maybe you're the one missing the point of decentralised money.

I'm sure no one is going to mind if you want to take your "alpha" mentality elsewhere.   ::)

Lots of mumbo-jumbo

however ...

BTC is not legal tender but clearly a BEARER INSTRUMENT

so, not affected in most countries

http://books.google.ch/books?id=uJxxMrf4MEkC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=Nemo+dat+quod+non+habet+bearer+instrument&source=bl&ots=RNMPS9ew7Z&sig=6UxI9ljhlE7nsAZHMqR1dIRDdds&hl=de&sa=X&ei=CsETU8WLMMLnygP96oGwBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&f=false

...because it is not practically possible to chase bearer instruments, that is why lawmakers all over the world agree on this (still I think a Darkcoin style currency would be a good thing; to protect innocent people from being traced in the real world after receiving tainted coins).

And it is clear why exchanges are so particular about KYC and origin of funds these days...

Case closed.

He's delusional in many ways.

MTGox has applied for "Civil Rehabilitation". Here is some information on possible "clawbacks"

https://www.jurists.co.jp/en/publication/tractate/article_10073.html (https://www.jurists.co.jp/en/publication/tractate/article_10073.html)

As far as I can see the answer in most cases is a resounding no to "bitcoin clawbacks"

Did anyone even mention the legal fees to accomplish all this would probably be equal or higher than the Bitcoin market cap itself? lol

I really want to sign off now, because I have programming work to do. So I hope this is the last time I need to rebutt here.


And my point is I agree with you only if the coin has anonymity which the NSA can't subvert.

Bitcoin does not and will never have it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.0).

Because we are talking about control of money, which is essential to governments' existence, so they will fight with every tool in their warchest. As they have been with 9/11 falseflag to foist AML and KYC laws every where. Now FATCA forced on all sovereign nations. Downloaded media has actually been a boon to Hollywood not an existential threat, and they aren't the government any way.

So as I said, you have a few screws loose in your ability to see reality. Perhaps you can tighten them.

---

Exactly it is a political outcome and the fact of democracy is that it is a power vacuum and always controlled by the vested interests who control the money i.e. the banksters. And you thought I was disagreeing, because you conflate orthogonal issues as non-intellectual people do.

---

And you are too myopic or naive apparently to see that the real cost here is the loss of control of the money, which is an existential threat to government and vested interests. They will spare no expense and besides Japan is complicit state in their network. Haven't you seen that Rockefeller is often over there hobnobbing with the elite and government over there.

---

You searched on a Germanic language Google, the english link is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJxxMrf4MEkC&lpg=PA244&ots=RNMPSafs85&dq=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&f=false

This does not apply to Bitcoin because bearer instruments (e.g. physical ownership certificates without a name on them and no ledger) are an exception only because the law doesn't want to make illegal what it can't enforce, as it makes the law look impotent.

Bitcoin chain of ownership is very explicit in the public block chain (the public ledger), thus the law can very easily trace.

And remember we are talking about an existential threat to governments, so they will spare no effort.

I agree with you that anonymity is the way to defeat the government and make them go away.

However Tor, DarkCoin, CoinJoin, Zerocoin are all fundamentally (meaning can't be fixed) flawed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg5474597#msg5474597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439357.msg5454853#msg5454853

Note I think Zerocoin has a very important role to play combined with my design for mixing, but not by itself.

Then we will fight in the shade, on indian reserverations.

And we need strong anonymity for that. We don't have it. And we won't have it in Bitcoin. Period.

Yes, we do.

Your post is ambiguous.

It is not clear whether you are saying 'yes' agreeing with the first or negating the second sentence.

Price of Bitcoin has nothing to do with adoption.

Kubrick also produced a lot of the nuclear weapons test films.

Good to see you doing a bit of research.

The Islington LBC  case concerns restitution of payments made under a void contract. Thus the decision itself was obviously not concerned with the rights of a bona fide purchaser without notice. However, the passage quoted is directly on point: "other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice.". The legal phrase for such a comment is a "dictum".A dictum is a legally authoritative statement of principle in relation to an issue that does not form part of the decision itself, but which nevertheless carries weight.

Let me explain in a little more detail why you misunderstand the legal framework of bitcoin "theft".

1. The principle of nemo dat applies to certain types of property which are capable of "legal" ownership.

2. "Legal" ownership here has a narrow and technical meaning. It refers to a particular kind of right recognised by the common law.

3. If A has legal ownership of an item of property then, subject to certain limited exceptions (e.g. sale in market ouvert, sale by a buyer in possession), he retains that ownership if the property is wrongfully taken from him and even if it is transferred to an innocent third party.

4. The consequence of this is that if a third party receives the property, the original owner can sue the third party in tort for wrongful interference with goods (sometimes referred to as a claim in conversion) and can obtain an order that the goods be returned to him. This can have harsh consequences for innocent buyers.

5. Even a bona fide purchaser for value without notice has no special protection in a case where the original owner can assert a right to legal ownership in the requisite sense. Thus if I buy a stolen car then I am liable to be sued by the true owner even I bought it in good faith without realising it was stolen.

6. In limited circumstances, the law goes a step further and will even permit a claim to be brought by the original owner not only in respect of the original property but in respect of any subsequent property. This is known as common law tracing: the original property is "traced" into new property.

7. However, these rules (and allied rules for land and other types of property) only apply to things which are capable of being legally owned in the requisite technical sense.

8. This is where your analysis falls down.  Bitcoins do not fall into this category. The analogy with commodities is just that - an analogy. Bitcoins are not  tangible (or even intangible) goods in the technical legal sense and cannot be the subject of a claim for wrongful interference or conversion. They are not subject to the rules set out above. The closest analogy (though not a very good one) is probably money "in" a bank account (which is actually a contractual right enforceable against the bank) . As you well know, a "bitcoin" is simply a notional unit reflecting a ledger balance on the blockchain controlled by a confidential private key. It is far removed from tangible property to which the nemo dat and common law tracing principles apply.

9.  This does not mean that the law will fail to recognise the rights of a bitcoin owner. The dichotomy is a false one. It is very likely (though not perhaps completely certain) that the law will recognise and protect the rights of a bitcoin owner in some way.

10. How exactly it will do so has yet to be worked out in any jurisdiction, as far as I am aware. However, the protection of the rights of a bitcoin owner is very likely - in a common law jurisdiction - to be based upon the recognition of some equitable claim (perhaps deriving from the confidential nature of the private key or perhaps based upon the recognition of bitcoins as a novel species of equitable property). 

11. The significance of this is that equitable claims (of all kinds) are - unlike common law claims for wrongful interference with goods -  subject to the rights of a bona fide purchaser without notice. The quotation from Lord Browne-Wilkinson's speech in the Islington LBC case is not some novel principle. It is a fundamental principle of English (and U.S) trusts law that has been established for centuries. It applies to all  kinds of equitable claims, irrespective of the source of the equitable right.

12.  This is why the buyer of bitcoins will not be subject to the rights of the original owner unless he has notice that the coins were stolen.

13. For this purpose, "notice"  has a specific technical meaning. It does not mean there was something about in the newspapers. It refers to the making of such inquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances.

14. Ultimately what counts as notice would be a question of fact in each case, measured against the legal test. Evidence of usual market practice will be relevant. In the context of a bitcoin purchase the Court would consider what inquiries (if any) a reasonable purchaser would make.

15. The answer to that is of course that a buyer from an exchange or market place does not make inquiries as to the provenance of the bitcoins he is purchasing and it is highly unlikely that he would be expected to, even were it technically possible to do so. Thus in all ordinary circumstances the buyer of bitcoins will take free of equitable claims.

16. This does not mean that the original owner has no remedy. He will have a good personal claim against the thief (if he can find him). But the notion that the victim of a bitcoin theft will be able to bring an equitable tracing claim against any subsequent owner whose balance can be traced back to the theft, is thus false.

Thus for all usual cases, the premise of your original post is false.

 

I challenge you to cite case law on this point, but you won't be able to because there has never existed before a decentralized intangible good. Satoshi invented it when he solved the Byzantine Generals problem (formerly a problem with no known solution since 1975).


Not only is it not an analogy because legal tender is issued by a central authority, the future legal interpretation will be founded in the will of the majority.

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=434744.msg5497044#msg5497044

---

It will obviously be an equitable restitution that "benefits" all Bitcoin holders. Don't you know democracy is there in your best interest and protects you.

Thus there will likely be two components to a popular and "equitable" restitution:

• "99% against the 1%", meaning those who got insanely rich because of Bitcoin (i.e. politically popular implication they profited inordinately from Grandmas) can afford to pay their "fair" share of the restitution, especially given the global economy will be collapsing into a chaotic pancake 2016ish due to the $150 trillion global debt bomb (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg3902083#msg3902083).
• Since we can't regulate the technology, the best we can do is take from everyone (a reasonable tax) and redistribute to the victims, since everyone will be a victim eventually.

I hope you know the courts have been seeded with leftists. In the USA at least, this will likely be decided in the NY courts where the "Club" is in complete control of the outcome.

It will not be equitable to tell the naive masses in huge numbers "go fuck your butthurt self, your shit is gone". When your grandma loses her life savings, you too will likely start to bend your idealism towards the left.

Thus the Bitcoin millionaires will get raped and the Bitcoin middle class will get taxed into essentially a fiat system again.

Initially this might be done separately in separate jurisdictions. The chaos of this will cause the community to demand global unification. Thus Bitcoin without strong anonymity (as it stands now) is assisting the demand for global authority for governance and the dilution of national and local authority.

This is why I am reasonably certain that Satoshi was the NSA and Bitcoin was planted with this feature set and is being held at this feature set by the Bitcoin Foundation which is being controlled by powerful interest.


The "bona fide purchaser without notice" can only exist if he is not also the victim.

And since "everyone" (in the eyes of the popular politics) will be stolen from eventually, "everyone" is both a bona fide purchaser without notice and a victim.

Thus doing nothing is not acceptable. Have you ever heard of a government which does nothing? If they did nothing, we would need governments. Governments always have to do something, so that we need them.

You are essentially asking a judge to rule that no one has any rights to restitution. No judge will stand for that concept.


The judge will recognize that notice is either useless or implicit as all coins would have notice. The judge will recognize that to do something equitable will require collectivism. There is no other solution which is equitable.

What we want in our ideal is a system that is not equitable, because we fundamentally understand that life is not equal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5495338#msg5495338). But that ideal of the Dark Enlightenment can only stand if we destroy democracy.

Do you think any judge is going to choose to destroy democracy? Ludicrous if you do.


Obviously if all coins are tainted, notice is futile. So either the court does nothing and abandons equitable restitution since increased regulation (to reduce theft) is technically impossible, or the court applies a fair mechanism to charge the cost of theft to insurance so as to smooth out the losses so the pain is not acute in individual scenarios, since over time all individuals will eventually be subject to (the risk of) theft. The government sees insurance as a very helpful vehicle and doesn't understand that it incentivizes an increase in that which it insures against.

This aids in the commerce in one sense, because the majority has less fear to hold and transact. So the judge will see this as a very normal and equitable way to help better the situation.

It is possible that private insurance is developed to ward off the need for state restitution. Yet remember that private insurance always ends up backstopped by the government. Because as I pointed out, insurance increases the activity which it insures against, thus it is a bankrupting paradigm. Evidence is for example the end game of Hitler's universal heath care, the coming end game of ObamaCare and universal health care in Europe.


That a buyer doesn't normally do tracing on Bitcoins doesn't mean the judge will rule the de facto norm is legally correct.

The judge is going to see Bitcoins are form of unregulated cash, and compare+contrast with legal tender, since that is the closest analogy. The judge will clearly see an intractable problem due to the inability to regulate against theft because of the technical nature of it being decentralized. He will see that legal tender has much protections against theft because it is not decentralized. Thus he will see that he can't practically apply nemo dat on an individual basis and he can't leave it unregulated because that is lawlessness.

Unlike bearer instruments which are untraceable because they are physical (which is why they aren't popular, possessor beware applies because Grandmas don't use them), Bitcoins have this public ledger so everything is traceable. Thus it is empirically provable that all coins are eventually tainted. With legal tender this is true also, except the system is effectively able to regulate theft (well enough that Grandmas trust their money in bank accounts and exchanges). Yet with Bitcoins the only place that regulation can be applied is at the exchanges to/from fiat or the taxation of those who report Bitcoin income and/or capital gains.

Given those are only place to regulate, then the judge has to choose between lawlessness or applying the law at those choke points.


The thieves are hackers and are almost never brought to justice. Thus it will become more and more popular to hack Bitcoins, especially as more naive Grandmas start using it. Thus you are asking the judge to defer to lawlessness. Grandmas versus hackers. Who do you think society will favor?


You were thinking too-inside-a-box. See the broader, holistic analysis above.

My attorney father once remarked to me, "People are such linear thinkers, if A then B then C". Perhaps I inherited this out-of-the-box brain stem from him, although my mother is also a deep thinker.

;D
 But seriously,so much FUD being passes around here,it's unhealthy.

How prophetic my analysis was! It is already being proposed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=499071.0

I didn't read that before I wrote my analysis.

Still not able to sign off?

Your analysis in this thread claims (wrongly) that innocent purchasers of stolen bitcoins will be liable to return them.

The article you cite refers to the possibility of private insurance against accidental loss or theft of bitcoins.

I fail to see the link.

Well, why don't you sell all your bitcoins to me right away get your beloved cash, close your Bitcointalk account and hit the road?
I actually don't know what you look to achieve with a post like this  but whatever it is  failed!!!!

No that is not what I wrote. Try to read it again and see if you can wrap your mind around more than 1 simultaneous variable.


My analysis concluded the government will be tasked with taxing to creating an FDIC. I have no idea how you failed to read that.

And yet again my prophesy is coming true:



Japan says regulation should be international:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491240.msg5415129#msg5415129

I think I'll become a bitcoin millionaire and take my chances anyway.
Thanks for your oh-so heartfelt concerns for us.

No.

OMG Bitcoin failed?  all will be sold to other people??...may you tell your mother to sell as well???

http://www.nestmann.com/supreme-court-confirms-you-really-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent

Have fun mixing your funds with illegal activity in the non-anonymous coin.

AnonyMint, are you willing to see the BTC you hold? At what rate?

I don't hold any BTC at this time. I don't plan on holding BTC ever again. I do plan on holding crypto-currency and I am very enthusiastic about crypto-currency.

I'm sure this has been said before but I can not be held responsible for spending the money that changed many hands after it has been stolen by someone I don't have any relation to. Because I earned it in a legit way.

You can safely say that every single item you see around you has some percent of their value exchanged in crime somewhere in time. Materials, parts, labor, etc. That doesn't make you a criminal, does it? A solution to all this might be leaving everything behind to go live in a very faraway jungle alone; cleansed from everything and everyone.

You've to have some clue about how laws work in this world before making such funny posts because you seem to be writing from another planet where everybody is guilty unless proven otherwise.

"Most" will be clawed back.  Yeah right, I bet not even 1% would be by end of 2016. 

Care to make a wager?  Oh that's right you can't.  You don't own any coins.

If you don't plan on ever touching BTC again, then please go away and stop bothering folks with pointless and obscurantist FUD. This forum is BITCOINtalk.org. As in, the thing you say you want to get away from. So get away already.

US regulator hates anonymity:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/cohen-regulation-will-support-virtual-currencies-WJJdkFdPTxemGaHivNvMhg.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-18/if-bitcoin-remains-impractical-treasury-will-let-it-be

He also says:

• They will regulate merchants if Bitcoin becomes widely accepted by them.
• They are coordinating regulation with the G20.
• At 47min, he says they will not likely be concerned with an anonymous coin which is only for virtual goods.

jonald:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5826365#msg5826365

ebliever:

Some have posted saying they want to read more of my analysis. I'm still supporting Bitcoin because it is part of the crypto-currency ecosystem. I would like to see Bitcoin grow. I am sharing my candid analysis. Censoring dissenting views is how groupthink ends up making poor decisions.

If you would stop attacking me personally (which is really noise and clutters the threads making them less useful), then I won't have to reply to defend my right of free speech.

I am minimizing my posts now.

...

My paltry holdings of BTC I bought for cash from people I don´t even know (via US Mail and in person via localbitcoins.com (http://localbitcoins.com)) before this Mt Gox imbroglio.  Some was already spent on that 0.25 oz Gold Eagle I bought.

If I decide to spend the rest (or even part) on gold and keep the rest, then:

Molon Labe!



Disclosure: armed to the teeth

My argument is they don't have to "come get it":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5826365#msg5826365

You'd have to break Bitcoin to "claw it back", at which point it would have no worth. So that's all you are trying to do with this bizarre, quixotic effort, just tear it down with arcane legal rationalizations that will never hold up in a real court due to the nature of cryptocurrency. Enjoy tilting at your windmills!

Please read the link before you reply. Tax doesn't require breaking Bitcoin! I am trying to not post much, but you don't even bother to read.

...

@ AnonyMint, reply 157

I should have been more precise: if I have gold tucked away, someone will get hurt trying to take it.

***

I quite agree with your description of .gov power to tax and take.  No doubt that if our overlords start cracking down hard it would be better to run lower under the radar (than I am now, lol).  

-- Run any excess BTC through a good mixer
-- Spend some of it on items of real worth, say overseas
-- GIVE away wallets w/ Bitcoin, like to your cousin in Slovakia...

***

"There are more of us than there are of them."

I really dont think someone can steal  that much bitcoins