Thoughts on FBI dumping Silkroad BTC

[Enigma81]

Just a thought: can`t we just hard fork bitcoin to invalidate the coins in posession of the FBI? 

It goes against just about everything I believe in, and yet I can't help but love that idea

[1713919615]

1713919615

[1713919615]

1713919615

[1713919615]

1713919615

[dnaleor]

Just a thought: can`t we just hard fork bitcoin to invalidate the coins in posession of the FBI? 

It goes against just about everything I believe in, and yet I can't help but love that idea

yes indeed. I do not want to steal/invalidate someones money, but if we can just invalidate the coins in possesion of the FBI, it would be great

It would probably cause a hard fork with 2 existing bitcoins:
The ones accepting the FBI-coins, and the other ones

Maybe this is a great altcoin idea LOL

[xybersurfer]

i don't like the idea of invalidating those coins. it would be a big waste. imagine this as a universal rule, everytime coins landed in the hands someone we don't like. there would soon be no coins left.

[dnaleor]

i don't like the idea of invalidating those coins. it would be a big waste. imagine this as a universal rule, everytime coins landed in the hands someone we don't like. there would soon be no coins left.

ok, let us distribute them equally to all other adresses. Number of coins received depends on number of coins in the account.
But bitcoin is infinitely divisible, i do not really see a problem

anyway, it was a thought experiment. Although, a Bitcoin fork/altcoin without the FBI-coins is a nice idea
I already have a name: PureBitcoin (PBC) ^TM

[ElectricMucus]

Ignorant? What do you mean? Considering that the US government is working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success do you not think they would want reserves of their own? Right now there is speculation going on with fiat currencies: does that mean that the government or FBI is not allowed to hold fiat currencies?

No the US goverment isn't "working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success". The hearing on virtual currencies was to prevent money laundering and provide some legal margin for companies.
If you think otherwise you are even more delusional than I thought.

[T.Stuart]

Ignorant? What do you mean? Considering that the US government is working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success do you not think they would want reserves of their own? Right now there is speculation going on with fiat currencies: does that mean that the government or FBI is not allowed to hold fiat currencies?

No the US goverment isn't "working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success". The hearing on virtual currencies was to prevent money laundering and provide some legal margin for companies.
If you think otherwise you are even more delusional than I thought.

Why is that different from "catering for Bitcoin's success"? Surely that's why they want to "prevent money laundering and provide some legal margin for companies" isn't it?

Please enlighten me as to where I went wrong!  

[ElectricMucus]

Doesn't look like the same thing to me.

[T.Stuart]

Doesn't look like the same thing to me.

One example:

Chairman Carper Applauds FEC Quick Action on Bitcoin Campaign Contributions Policy
Friday, November 8, 2013
WASHINGTON- Today, U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, issued the following statement in response to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) draft decision to allow Bitcoin contributions to campaigns, as reported by Politico last night.

“This apparent decision by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) underscores what our Committee has recognized for some time: that virtual currencies are not going away. Their emergence has potentially far reaching implications for the federal government and society as a whole. I applaud the FEC for acting quickly to recognize this and develop a thoughtful policy that gives donors and committees rules of the road to utilize this emerging technology. It continues to be my hope that departments and agencies are working together, in a collaborative fashion, to define and consistently treat Bitcoin and other virtual currencies. I expect this decision and other recent developments will be discussed at our Committee’s upcoming hearing, as we dig into what a whole-government approach to this new and unique technology may look like.”

[ElectricMucus]

One senator making a non-negative statement equals the whole goverment "catering for it's success", right.
On the subject of your example, did you it's not allowed to spend Bitcoins received for campaign donations?

[T.Stuart]

One senator making a non-negative statement equals the whole goverment "catering to it", right.
On the subject of you example, did you it's not allowed to spend Bitcoins received for campaign donations?

What are you talking about? Tom Carper is the Senator charged with being the intermediary between the US government and Bitcoin at the moment. Didn't you know that?

Read this: http://techliberation.com/2014/01/02/help-me-answer-senate-committees-questions-about-bitcoin/

Tom Carper is asking questions on behalf of the government.

And by the way, the news that you are not allowed to spend the Bitcoins received for campaign donations is good news. It means they want to "Hodl" too! 

But seriously, get with the program. The US government is working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success. End of story.

[ElectricMucus]

Parroting what you just have written doesn't suddenly make it true.

[T.Stuart]

Parroting what you just have written doesn't suddenly make it true.

My first ever ignore!  

EDIT: seriously though, read this before answering again:
http://techliberation.com/2014/01/02/help-me-answer-senate-committees-questions-about-bitcoin/

[ElectricMucus]

Parroting what you just have written doesn't suddenly make it true.

My first ever ignore! 

congrats.

[BurtW]

Yet another thread about the FBI coins?  Learn to use the damn search function!

They will auction them off just like they do every other asset they take during their investigations.

/thread

[arepo]

I'm pretty sure they said they were going to sell the coins ..... someone can correct me if they didn't

Why? Do you think they need the money right now? Of course they won't sell. Everybody is bullish for Bitcoin this year, including the FBI! Even all the bears on this forum are bullish! 

There is no way the FBI will sell any coins for at least 2 years in my opinion, and only then might they pass some to the treasury as a way to control the price.

you really need to put down the kool-aid...

also, the world tends not to care about "your opinion". there are these things called facts that take precedence

--arepo

[wachtwoord]

Just a thought: can`t we just hard fork bitcoin to invalidate the coins in posession of the FBI? 

It goes against just about everything I believe in, and yet I can't help but love that idea

yes indeed. I do not want to steal/invalidate someones money, but if we can just invalidate the coins in possesion of the FBI, it would be great

It would probably cause a hard fork with 2 existing bitcoins:
The ones accepting the FBI-coins, and the other ones

Maybe this is a great altcoin idea LOL

Don't EVER sacrifice fungubility of Bitcoin. EVER. FOR ANY REASON.

[T.Stuart]

also, the world tends not to care about "your opinion". there are these things called facts that take precedence

--arepo

But it's all opinion in here!

[arepo]

Parroting what you just have written doesn't suddenly make it true.

My first ever ignore! 

congrats.

that's a damn shame. electric would be nearly my last ignore, if i was so inclined. the fact is you're extrapolating things from your own personal opinions and forgetting that not everyone thinks the same way about bitcoin.

"just the place for a snark," the bellman cried, as he landed his crew with care --
supporting each man on the top of the tide by a finger entwined in his hair!
"just the place for a snark! i have said it twice! that alone should encourage the crew,"
"just the place for a snark! i have said it thrice! what i tell you three times is true..."

[T.Stuart]

that's a damn shame. electric would be nearly my last ignore, if i was so inclined. the fact is you're extrapolating things from your own personal opinions and forgetting that not everyone thinks the same way about bitcoin.

OK. Forget the "ignoring". Let's focus on the topic. Can I ask you a serious question?

Please read this first: http://techliberation.com/2014/01/02/help-me-answer-senate-committees-questions-about-bitcoin/

Would you say that the impression I got from reading this and other diverse sources of information, the impression that "the government is working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success", is "delusional"?

[arepo]

that's a damn shame. electric would be nearly my last ignore, if i was so inclined. the fact is you're extrapolating things from your own personal opinions and forgetting that not everyone thinks the same way about bitcoin.

OK. Forget the "ignoring". Let's focus on the topic. Can I ask you a serious question?

Please read this first: http://techliberation.com/2014/01/02/help-me-answer-senate-committees-questions-about-bitcoin/

Would you say that the impression I got from reading this and other diverse sources of information, the impression that "the government is working out how to cater for Bitcoin's success", is "delusional"?

"the government" is not a single, monolithic entity so it's not necessarily delusional it just doesn't make much sense.

the FBI, however, if some sources are to be believed, have a specific and precedented way to deal with seized assets which will likely not be changed without due process.