Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[octaft]

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.

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

[aminorex]

As long as BTC is concentrated in the hands of people who have a negative fiat cash flow outside of BTC appreciation, selling pressure will continue.

But it isn't.  Almost no one holding BTC is unable to accumulate more.

[mmitech]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

because they can.... human nature.

My question is : why would they?  You buy litecoin as a speculative play now.  In my mind, people want a "cheap" alternative, so there is a demand for it.  The harder bitcoin rises, the more it is perceived as "expensive" and people look for alternatives.  But what about in a more end-game environment, where bitcoin is more stable, and rises lets say 5% a year (pulling this number out of my ass), based on population growth and productivity gains.  I don't think people would perceive it as 'too expensive', because the appreciation isn't as sudden.  Where is the incentive for an alternative (genuine question)?

PS: of course you could say that litecoin or whatever altcoin have merits of their own which make them better than bitcoin, but then I would expect one of them to take over the field. I am talking about buying alternatives to the dominant crypto because it is too deflationary.

when I said because they can, I meant people like having choices, although what you wrote is really accurate, I am responding to this comment now because just few hours after your wrote this I met an old friend,  he've heard of Bitcoin so he asked me what is it about, I was explaining the whole thing to him... after he asked me how can he invest and while I was explaining exchanges and market cap and volumes he decided to invest in Litecoin because "it is cheaper" and has a bigger chance to take off.... 

[billyjoeallen]

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.

"correct" according to you? It's reasonable to doubt that a person is just as likely to commit a crime when he sees an ad encouraging him to commit a crime as when he doesn't. The ad makes him more likely to buy, as all ads do. That's why we have ads. If ads didn't work, Madison Avenue would be just another street. The ad made him more likely to buy and we don't know by how much, but if it's not reasonable to say that it could have made the difference between deciding to buy and not deciding to buy, then it would also be unreasonable for anyone but cops to place ads in the first place. Since other people do place ads, reasonable doubt should be a given.

Nothing needs to be certain, but the prosecutor's case isn't only that that ad didn't convince him to buy. The prosecution has to claim that the ad COULDN'T convince him to buy in order to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. That's a tough sell. You'd need twelve jurors who never placed or responded to an ad.

[freebit13]

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasm

You could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear 

[dreamspark]

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.

Yeah I agree with that but if the issue for you aquiring the BTC is that its immpossible to buy that many then whoever is selling isnt going to get anyone able to meet their terms. The seller wants to sell as much as a buyer wants to buy, requring an unreasonable or immpossible payment method isn't going to get you any buyers, period.

Going back to the original point how does an alternative crypto solve this problem?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[derpinheimer]

This guy is really loading up on coins without moving the price... makes me very optimistic.

[billyjoeallen]

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.

Yeah I agree with that but if the issue for you aquiring the BTC is that its immpossible to buy that many then whoever is selling isnt going to get anyone able to meet their terms. The seller wants to sell as much as a buyer wants to buy, requring an unreasonable or immpossible payment method isn't going to get you any buyers, period.

Going back to the original point how does an alternative crypto solve this problem?

As I already said, an alt coin would not likely solve this particular problem. A Bitcoin derivative like a futures contract could. The seller could want a bitcoin payment to evade sanctions, avoid charge-backs, or any number of reasons or combination of reasons. 

[octaft]

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasm

You could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear 

Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.

[NewLiberty]

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.

Forfeiture laws create the incentive for LEO to entice folks to commit crimes so that they can seize their property.  The LEO department gets to keep a significant percentage of the proceeds.  Some of this goes to expense accounts which directly affect the quality of life of the LEOs.  

Our laws have created law enforcement that is in the business of creating crime.

... oh yea... look at those walls...

[octaft]

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.

"correct" according to you? It's reasonable to doubt that a person is just as likely to commit a crime when he sees an ad encouraging him to commit a crime as when he doesn't. The ad makes him more likely to buy, as all ads do. That's why we have ads. If ads didn't work, Madison Avenue would be just another street. The ad made him more likely to buy and we don't know by how much, but if it's not reasonable to say that it could have made the difference between deciding to buy and not deciding to buy, then it would also be unreasonable for anyone but cops to place ads in the first place. Since other people do place ads, reasonable doubt should be a given.

Nothing needs to be certain, but the prosecutor's case isn't only that that ad didn't convince him to buy. The prosecution has to claim that the ad COULDN'T convince him to buy in order to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. That's a tough sell. You'd need twelve jurors who never placed or responded to an ad.

It's quite contrarian to argue that someone visiting a site designed to distribute something, then buying that something, was not intending to buy regardless of that one particular ad out of potentially 100's. I notice my edit wasn't included in your quote, so allow me to put it up again: 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?

[billyjoeallen]

This guy is really loading up on coins without moving the price... makes me very optimistic.

Optimistic that we won't run out of sellers?

[KFR]

[freebit13]

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasm

You could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear 

Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.

They don't need to be that blatant, as I said it's a case by case basis, I've been doing some reading and now my head hurts because this is something I doubt I'll ever face because I would not go by the 'normal' court process in any case and I seriously doubt that bitcoin would be made illegal and I'm not up to researching and discussing law right now.

Stated generally, prohibited inducement "includes soliciting, pro-posing, initiating, broaching or suggesting the commission of the offense charged.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2073&context=dlj

I'm sure everyone will read that (probably not) and have hundreds of different interpretations, that's why everyone has to go to court, it's all up to interpretation.

[billyjoeallen]

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.

"correct" according to you? It's reasonable to doubt that a person is just as likely to commit a crime when he sees an ad encouraging him to commit a crime as when he doesn't. The ad makes him more likely to buy, as all ads do. That's why we have ads. If ads didn't work, Madison Avenue would be just another street. The ad made him more likely to buy and we don't know by how much, but if it's not reasonable to say that it could have made the difference between deciding to buy and not deciding to buy, then it would also be unreasonable for anyone but cops to place ads in the first place. Since other people do place ads, reasonable doubt should be a given.

Nothing needs to be certain, but the prosecutor's case isn't only that that ad didn't convince him to buy. The prosecution has to claim that the ad COULDN'T convince him to buy in order to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. That's a tough sell. You'd need twelve jurors who never placed or responded to an ad.

It's quite contrarian to argue that someone visiting a site designed to distribute something, then buying that something, was not intending to buy regardless of that one particular ad out of potentially 100's. I notice my edit wasn't included in your quote, so allow me to put it up again: 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?

No, it's not that simple. It's reasonable that you might have bought her something else. You might have bought her another bow, but you might have bought her something else. Your case is reasonable, but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof that applies here.

[boumalo]

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasm

You could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear 

Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.

In the US, in other countries it will be easier to prove entrapment

To all the bears : Bitcoin is only valued 5billions atm; it is ridiculously cheap

[bitcoinsrus]

One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.

Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasm

You could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear 

Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.

In the US, in other countries it will be easier to prove entrapment

To all the bears : Bitcoin is only valued 5billions atm; it is ridiculously cheap

I am not familiar with commodities and what they should be worth.
What market cap is bitcoin worth (to you)?  (50 bn? 500bn?)

[howzar]

By the way is this the longest thread ever created?

[adamstgBit]

By the way is this the longest thread ever created?

on the entire internet


yes.