|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
 Online
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1777
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
May 01, 2014, 03:00:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Cosmic
|
 |
May 01, 2014, 03:02:04 PM |
|
We're getting close to the long term trend line again are we not?
Any thoughts on what is happening then? I know at the moment we cannot judge givent the various holidays, but every time we've got close previously all we have seen is massive dumpage
No breakouts, 99% chance.. simply $430-460, ad nauseam, till Huobi/OKC or one of their banks/providers says "Oops" between now & May 15-20th & at THAT time there'll be a huge dump. |
|
|
|
|
infofront (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2632
Merit: 2780
Shitcoin Minimalist
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:06:02 PM |
|
Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.
So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment. I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime. That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it. Indeed. |
|
|
|
|
dyland
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
We must become the pitiless censors of ourselves.
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:07:22 PM |
|
Nothing to back this up at all, but for some reason my bull sense is tingling today.
|
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:13:38 PM |
|
Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.
So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment. I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime. That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it. Even as screwed up as it is, the law still gives jurors discretion over what is reasonable and what kind of pressure is "undue". Buying and selling on localbitcoins has not been determined to be illegal under case law yet, and a minimum amount is still necessary to trigger AML statutes anyway. Selling small amounts should be relatively safe until there is more legal clarification one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
|
dreamspark
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:14:18 PM |
|
Because you're buying the oil from Iran.
Who like the rest of the world primarily trade oil in the world reserve currency which it just so happens you are able to send them. Iranian banks have been cut off from the international bank of settlements due to sanctions and pressure from the U.S. gov. Right and I'm sure the only account that an Iranian oil tycoon has is an Iranian bank account. |
|
|
|
|
|
octaft
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:18:11 PM |
|
Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.
So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment. I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime. That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it. Even as screwed up as it is, the law still gives jurors discretion over what is reasonable and what kind of pressure is "undue". Buying and selling on localbitcoins has not been determined to be illegal under case law yet, and a minimum amount is still necessary to trigger AML statutes anyway. Selling small amounts should be relatively safe until there is more legal clarification one way or another. I don't think it would be illegal unless bitcoin itself were illegal. I'm just saying that if bitcoin were illegal, catching you buying or selling it this way would almost certainly not be considered entrapment under current law. Even if you were laundering money, I doubt you could get a conviction for proof of a bitcoin purchase/sale (which are legal to buy and sell) alone. Any decent lawyer (read: not a public defender) should be able to get you off easily if that was all they had. |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:18:45 PM |
|
pretty sure this is it, in the next few hours 450 resistance will become support
Is your strategy to keep saying it all the way down until the inevitable time when you are correct?  never fails And doubling the size of your position at each iteration, I hope. |
|
|
|
|
|
freebit13
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:20:44 PM |
|
Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.
So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment. I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime. That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it. I think the law is a grey area and it would go on a case by case basis. To say that someone went to a site to buy something is not necessarily true, I'm sure you've looked at products on websites that you've never bought from. Perhaps I was "window-shopping" on localbitcoins and the FBI ad was just too enticing and made me decide to buy when normally I wouldn't have... not a great argument, but it only took me 30seconds to think up. I don't know, but I think it's a little paranoid to think the feds are on localbitcoins selling to people in the first place... I doubt it, and if they are, they're looking for the big fish, so they wouldn't be on localbitcoins  |
|
|
|
|
|
octaft
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:23:04 PM |
|
Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.
So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment. I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime. That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it. I think the law is a grey area and it would go on a case by case basis. To say that someone went to a site to buy something is not necessarily true, I'm sure you've looked at products on websites that you've never bought from. Perhaps I was "window-shopping" on localbitcoins and the FBI ad was just too enticing and made me decide to buy when normally I wouldn't have... not a great argument, but it only took me 30seconds to think up. I don't know, but I think it's a little paranoid to think the feds are on localbitcoins selling to people in the first place... I doubt it, and if they are, they're looking for the big fish, so they wouldn't be on localbitcoins See my above post: I don't think it's a problem as long as bitcoins are legal, and I would not at all be worried about buying or selling bitcoins on localbitcoins. All I'm saying is if bitcoins became illegal, catching you purchasing or selling them through an ad would not be considered entrapment under current law. |
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:24:11 PM |
|
How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.
You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.
What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense. He picked that one ad for a reason. Perhaps a better price or more convenient location. Doesn't matter. It's that one ad he responded to and he wouldn't have responded to it if it wasn't there. Whether or not he would have responded to a different ad is irrelevant. He's not being charged with responding to a different ad. Good luck convincing all 12 jurors, including the one who has the capacity for independent thought, that you are prosecuting an illegal sale that would have occurred without a seller. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinsrus
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:25:22 PM |
|
How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.
You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.
What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense. He picked that one ad for a reason. Perhaps a better price or more convenient location. Doesn't matter. It's that one ad he responded to and he wouldn't have responded to it if it wasn't there. Whether or not he would have responded to a different ad is irrelevant. He's not being charged with responding to a different ad. Good luck convincing all 12 jurors, including the one who has the capacity for independent thought, that you are prosecuting an illegal sale that would have occurred without a seller.  |
|
|
|
|
|
freebit13
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:28:20 PM |
|
How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.
You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.
What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense. Good luck convincing all 12 jurors, including the one who has the capacity for independent thought, that you are prosecuting an illegal sale that would have occurred without a seller. Pretty much what I was trying to say... thanks for phrasing it better |
|
|
|
|
|
p0peji
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:30:52 PM |
|
We're getting close to the long term trend line again are we not?
Any thoughts on what is happening then? I know at the moment we cannot judge givent the various holidays, but every time we've got close previously all we have seen is massive dumpage
No breakouts, 99% chance.. simply $430-460, ad nauseam, till Huobi/OKC or one of their banks/providers says "Oops" between now & May 15-20th & at THAT time there'll be a huge dump. This is imo also the most likely to happen, I still cant believe there are still people who think the PBOC crackdown on the exchanges is nothing but a bunch of BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
octaft
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:33:24 PM |
|
How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.
You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.
What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense. He picked that one ad for a reason. Perhaps a better price or more convenient location. Doesn't matter. It's that one ad he responded to and he wouldn't have responded to it if it wasn't there. Whether or not he would have responded to a different ad is irrelevant. He's not being charged with responding to a different ad. Good luck convincing all 12 jurors, including the one who has the capacity for independent thought, that you are prosecuting an illegal sale that would have occurred without a seller. You do realize that nothing needs to be certain, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction, right? If someone goes on a website designed to distribute something, then purchases that something after seeing an ad, it's pretty reasonable to think that they intended to buy that something regardless of which ad they read. To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct. EDIT: Let's try this with something legal that isn't bitcoin to see if it sticks. I want to buy the most beautiful bow for my daughters birthday present. I go on etsy or some shit and start looking up bows. I see this one ad with this terrific bow, it's so beautiful and perfect! So I buy it. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if I didn't see that ad, I would not have simply given up on buying bows, but rather would have bought a different bow? |
|
|
|
|
|
dreamspark
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:33:35 PM |
|
Who's said its a bunch of bullshit? The only thing I have seen are people debating the real impacts.
|
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:34:29 PM |
|
Because you're buying the oil from Iran.
Who like the rest of the world primarily trade oil in the world reserve currency which it just so happens you are able to send them. Iranian banks have been cut off from the international bank of settlements due to sanctions and pressure from the U.S. gov. Right and I'm sure the only account that an Iranian oil tycoon has is an Iranian bank account. You're really missing the point. If the seller demands to do the deal in bitcoin for any or no reason, and you don't want to blow the deal, you meet the seller's terms. In extremely large transactions, those terms will likely include provisions for fluctuating value of the currency. |
|
|
|
|
FlyingLotus
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:39:57 PM |
|
We're getting close to the long term trend line again are we not?
Any thoughts on what is happening then? I know at the moment we cannot judge givent the various holidays, but every time we've got close previously all we have seen is massive dumpage
No breakouts, 99% chance.. simply $430-460, ad nauseam, till Huobi/OKC or one of their banks/providers says "Oops" between now & May 15-20th & at THAT time there'll be a huge dump. This is imo also the most likely to happen, I still cant believe there are still people who think the PBOC crackdown on the exchanges is nothing but a bunch of BS. Yes there will surely be more sellers queuing up come the ban, but my observation is we will hit that trendline before that time.. perhaps the dumping will commence ahead of time (just like the last major drop) |
|
|
|
|
|
freebit13
|
|
May 01, 2014, 03:42:17 PM |
|
You do realize that nothing needs to be certain, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction, right? If someone goes on a website designed to distribute something, then purchases that something after seeing an ad, it's pretty reasonable to think that they intended to buy that something regardless of which ad they read.
To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct.
EDIT: Let's try this with something legal that isn't bitcoin to see if it sticks. I want to buy the most beautiful bow for my daughters birthday present. I go on etsy or some shit and start looking up bows. I see this one ad with this terrific bow, it's so beautiful and perfect! So I buy it. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if I didn't see that ad, I would not have simply given up on buying bows, but rather would have bought a different bow?
Let's say a friend of mine told me about this site localbitcoins.com and I went there to go and see what this bitcoin thing was all about with no intention to buy, but I saw this ad (put up by the FBI) and I just couldn't resist because it was just so easy. There are probably 100's of examples for both arguments, so it would all go down to your day in court and how you handle yourself, I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
