Shrem to jail for two years!!! Holy shit!

[moni3z]

Automatic release after 85% of his sentence, so out in 1.7 years, likely earlier as the federal system is overcrowded. Federal system has better food and facilities than state dungeons too plus he can access email through corrlinks. Send him some books (directly from Amazon only) once he appears in the BOP inmate locator site, libraries there are terrible.

[picolo]

If any of you have heard Charlie speak - say on Lets Talk Bitcoin podcast, or elsewhere, and you are over age .... say .... 30 ... one thing is very clear about Charlie.  He's young.  Psychologically speaking. Just listening to him talk made that very obvious. There's a certain naivety in his thinking, which no doubt played a role.  But he's probably no younger than he should be psychologically, at his age.  He said a lot of things on the podcasts that he knew he shouldn't be saying, and his attorneys advised him never to say - let alone on a podcast.  But he did anyway.  He's got an element of recklessness in him personality-wise, and of course he has political beliefs that don't exactly give a shit about government, nor rules.  So to be completely honest, what did you expect? He was just being who he is.  Although I can't agree the guy harmed anyone. He said he has learned his lesson.  I suppose my point is that you've got a hardcore libertarian / anarchist here who is also a bit young and inexperienced.   Those are relevant factors, though they don't matter when it comes to breaking the law.  He's not a martyr, but he did deserve the extremely toned-down sentence he got.  He was thankful to the judge for being lenient, and I think it was a fair move on the judge's part.  He could've gotten 20+ years.

-B-

If you listen to him and look at things like his court statement the thing that jumps out at me is that he doesn't learn and he doesn't listen.  Bitcoin is a great technology but it is not the biggest thing that has ever happened to the world and he is not the "messiah" that he thinks he is.  He knows something about Bitcoin and he thinks he he knows about everything and predict all kinds of things.  His success in Bitcoin has gone to his head and it has screwed up his decision-making process.

For instance, he speaks out against copyrights.  he points to abuses and says the whole system should be ended.  the guy lives with his parents and made money with Bitcoin.  He never had to work as an independent musician or artist and he does not have the slightest idea how the system works or what it means to all those people.  he goes around talking like the whole world is stupid.  He is ridiculous and he only hangs out with other mentally ill people like Roger Ver who go around talking about how Bitcoin will end war.  He lives in an echo chamber so he never listens to any other point of view.  in one interview he was practically in tears saying how nobody, including his parents, don't understand him and that only other Bitcoiners understand him.  He doesn't realize that is him who doesn't understand the rest of the world.  Theymos is the same way.  There is absolutely zero chance that Bitcoin will have mass adoption by listening to the ideas of these people and allowing them to run things.  However, I believe people will eventually see past the crazies and see Bitcoin for its true value.  See, for instance, https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html for an idea of how the real world sees some of the Bitcoin nonsense.

That being said, I don't like the idea of paying to house jackasses like Shrem for crimes that are not that serious.  He should have gotten probation.

You give an amazing point of view. Living in an echo chamber push you not to be open to others ideas and point of view.
I don't agree there's an absolute zero chance that Bitcoin will have mass adoption by listening to the ideas of these people if mass adoption means a Trillion market cap in the sense that they can be part of the solution and convince people like me who will convince other people in a less passionate way.

[Meuh6879]

separate wall street flux (CDS/ABS) ... and food ... and that it, you don't need trillion of money.

[MarketNeutral]

I don't think the US Government would have came at him so hard if he had not instructed others on exactly how to avoid the law.


~BCX~

This.

[Alonzo Ewing]

If any of you have heard Charlie speak - say on Lets Talk Bitcoin podcast, or elsewhere, and you are over age .... say .... 30 ... one thing is very clear about Charlie.  He's young.  Psychologically speaking. Just listening to him talk made that very obvious. There's a certain naivety in his thinking, which no doubt played a role.  But he's probably no younger than he should be psychologically, at his age.  He said a lot of things on the podcasts that he knew he shouldn't be saying, and his attorneys advised him never to say - let alone on a podcast.  But he did anyway.  He's got an element of recklessness in him personality-wise, and of course he has political beliefs that don't exactly give a shit about government, nor rules.  So to be completely honest, what did you expect? He was just being who he is.  Although I can't agree the guy harmed anyone. He said he has learned his lesson.  I suppose my point is that you've got a hardcore libertarian / anarchist here who is also a bit young and inexperienced.   Those are relevant factors, though they don't matter when it comes to breaking the law.  He's not a martyr, but he did deserve the extremely toned-down sentence he got.  He was thankful to the judge for being lenient, and I think it was a fair move on the judge's part.  He could've gotten 20+ years.

-B-

Charlie is not "a hardcore libertarian / anarchist".

[Kluge]

It's really disappointing to need an anonymous rather than pseudonymous internet. I'd really prefer the infrastructure facilitate honesty than two-faced people with double-lives, where people need to keep discussions on the weather and fake passion, knowing nothing about each other and needing to keep it that way.

[picolo]

I don't think the US Government would have came at him so hard if he had not instructed others on exactly how to avoid the law.


~BCX~

This.

They are punishing very strongly when you show you are against the State and taxes and tell people how to avoid taxes.

[bf4btc]

It's really disappointing to need an anonymous rather than pseudonymous internet. I'd really prefer the infrastructure facilitate honesty than two-faced people with double-lives, where people need to keep discussions on the weather and fake passion, knowing nothing about each other and needing to keep it that way.

The issue in this case was not that he was lacking anonymity it was that he was not following the money laundering laws. All that he really needed to do in order to prevent himself from being in 'hot water' from his dealings with the guy from Silk Road was to collect the identities of people he was doing business which (not even necessarily provide such identities to the government)

[Guido]

Sorry if this was said already (post skipped after page 1), but for those who are crying "Poor Charlie"...

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SchremFaiellaChargesPR/Faiella,%20Robert%20M.%20and%20Charlie%20Shrem%20Complaint.pdf




Long story short, BTCking triggered AML and and email was sent to him by bitinstant (some people CC'ed on the email, Charlie included), and said they were closing his account.


Charlie went behind that email and solicited BTCking to continue using them, and told him how to avoid triggering their AML policy (keep in mind as their AML office in charge of enforcing those policies).


Silk road, drugs, government not getting a cut (taxes), and every other conspiracy here aside, what Charlie did was reckless, stupid, and illegal. Those who are cheering him on as some martyr need a reality check.

agreed

[TheButterZone]

How about instead of freeing slaves on the underground railroad, you stop breaking the law?

[Willisius]

How about instead of freeing slaves on the underground railroad, you stop breaking the law?

I don't think we will see people support this when it comes to people involved in bitcoin. It is arguable that Charlie (as well as Ross) played major a major role in getting bitcoin to be where it is today. If either (or both) of them did not break the laws that they (allegedly) broke then we would probably not have the price, nor adoption that we have today.

For these reasons people who are involved in bitcoin are going to advocate that we turn our eyes the other way when it comes to their crimes

[philiveyjr]

if ubricht gets a lesser sentance.. or btcking.. then shrem should appeal his sentancing as it does not fall into line that a lesser crime compared to the other two deserves a bigger punnishment.

Are you kidding?  Ulbricht is going to get no less than 20 years.  He is in a complete different position than Shrem.  Shrem was a little loose with the folks he chose as business partners and didn't care what they were engaged in.  

Ulbricht set up one of the biggest drug trading platforms known to man.  

Ol' Shremmy was a bit naughty - but not too much more.  Ross is a world class drug lord of epic proportions.  He could go to jail for life.  Size does matter.  Ross sold more drugs that nearly anyone in history.  Many poor suckers caught with a two pound bag of cocaine did 20 years.  Ross does no less than them - I am certain of that.

If that murder for hire stuff sticks - 100% he never sees light of day again.

Lol yeah I agree.!! Uldricht should get around 20 or more if Shrem gets 2 years.!

[picolo]

It's really disappointing to need an anonymous rather than pseudonymous internet. I'd really prefer the infrastructure facilitate honesty than two-faced people with double-lives, where people need to keep discussions on the weather and fake passion, knowing nothing about each other and needing to keep it that way.

The issue in this case was not that he was lacking anonymity it was that he was not following the money laundering laws. All that he really needed to do in order to prevent himself from being in 'hot water' from his dealings with the guy from Silk Road was to collect the identities of people he was doing business which (not even necessarily provide such identities to the government)

He would not have been able to do that and according to the law he should not have process money if he suspected they were involved in criminal dealings.

[wadili89]

It doesnt seem too bad. I guess he will do 18 months at most and the rest will be suspended.
He is well known too and should be able to get a job when he comes out if he needs one. He must be very rich being an early adopter.

[Beliathon]

I don't think the US Government would have came at him so hard if he had not instructed others on exactly how to avoid the law.


~BCX~

This.

They are punishing very strongly when you show you are against the State and taxes and tell people how to avoid taxes.

Gotta make those terrifying examples so the other sheeple don't get any ideas.

This is herd management 101. Think of government as people-farmers and it all makes sense.

[HELP.org]

You give an amazing point of view. Living in an echo chamber push you not to be open to others ideas and point of view.
I don't agree there's an absolute zero chance that Bitcoin will have mass adoption by listening to the ideas of these people if mass adoption means a Trillion market cap in the sense that they can be part of the solution and convince people like me who will convince other people in a less passionate way.

There are plenty of reasonable people who promote Bitcoin and I am convinced they will propel Bitcoin forward.  Those people DO NOT include the usual people you hear about on the discussion boards, like Shrem, Vorhees, Rassah, Ver etc. are all pushing a fantasy agenda, not Bitcoin.  They don't get much traction promoting their agenda alone so they linked their agenda to Bitcoin.  They misrepresent things, make wild claims, talk like it some kind of religion, and act like people will be walking around with Ayn Rand books under their arm once they do a Bitcoin transaction.  If those people ran things there would be zero chance of mass adoption.  Once the nut job wing nuts get pushed out by the reasonable people I think things will be fine.  Not that their ideas are 100% wrong, they just push things to a ridiculous extreme.

[Window2Wall]

I don't think the US Government would have came at him so hard if he had not instructed others on exactly how to avoid the law.


~BCX~

This.

This is 100% true - literally. The crime that he plead guilty to was aiding a money launder, which means he was helping someone break the law

[stefanoRR57]

he is young so he has time to recover and come back,  for bitcoin credibility this must be accepted;  bitcoin people respect the law:  we are in a state of law

[Kluge]

he is young so he has time to recover and come back,  for bitcoin credibility this must be accepted;  bitcoin people respect the law:  we are in a state of law

Bitcoin's credibility derives from its use, not its individual users' use practices. Unlike most technologies, there's no central authority here to tarnish the reputation of the product (unless perhaps there's a "The Bitcoin Foundation" and you have a significant percentage of board members being child molesters, serial scammers, and outright thieves). Shrem can go bite off a baby's head and force the mother to drink its blood, but it'd be completely irrelevant to bitcoin's credibility, and the same would be true if Shrem demanded a BTC1000 payment to not have to bite off the baby's head, and maybe he even offers to take her USD and exchange it through BitInstant without a fee -- bitcoin unaffected.

-Or, to change the thinking process around a bit -- Tide is a popular (and unusually expensive) laundry detergent here in the US. There was a slew of stories last year covering it being stolen in extraordinary quantities from retail stores across the country and being used as a drug currency. -So I'd look at Tide like BitInstant, Charlie as the CEO of Tide offering tips on making safe and LEO-free trades, and Bitcoin like the whole laundry detergent category. Charlie's tips make for an interesting story, feds busting him for something appearing so benign elicits an eye-roll, people might smirk a bit when they see Tide again, but laundry detergent's pretty much completely unaffected. ... Though I suppose there aren't many "laundry detergent enthusiasts" trying to suggest laundry detergent is a superior form of payment, as proven by people involved in drug transactions rejecting USD to swap suds. .... Probably over-thinking it, now.

[Window2Wall]

he is young so he has time to recover and come back,  for bitcoin credibility this must be accepted;  bitcoin people respect the law:  we are in a state of law

Bitcoin's credibility derives from its use, not its individual users' use practices. Unlike most technologies, there's no central authority here to tarnish the reputation of the product (unless perhaps there's a "The Bitcoin Foundation" and you have a significant percentage of board members being child molesters, serial scammers, and outright thieves). Shrem can go bite off a baby's head and force the mother to drink its blood, but it'd be completely irrelevant to bitcoin's credibility, and the same would be true if Shrem demanded a BTC1000 payment to not have to bite off the baby's head, and maybe he even offers to take her USD and exchange it through BitInstant without a fee -- bitcoin unaffected.

-Or, to change the thinking process around a bit -- Tide is a popular (and unusually expensive) laundry detergent here in the US. There was a slew of stories last year covering it being stolen in extraordinary quantities from retail stores across the country and being used as a drug currency. -So I'd look at Tide like BitInstant, Charlie as the CEO of Tide offering tips on making safe and LEO-free trades, and Bitcoin like the whole laundry detergent category. Charlie's tips make for an interesting story, feds busting him for something appearing so benign elicits an eye-roll, people might smirk a bit when they see Tide again, but laundry detergent's pretty much completely unaffected. ... Though I suppose there aren't many "laundry detergent enthusiasts" trying to suggest laundry detergent is a superior form of payment, as proven by people involved in drug transactions rejecting USD to swap suds. .... Probably over-thinking it, now.

The thing is that these examples associate bitcoin with a bad name. You are correct that Charlie does not represent bitcoin and his name is not 100% tied to bitcoin however he is an effective figurehead for bitcoin