69 sats \ 22 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr \ parent \ on: Civil Forfeiture And Samurai Mixed Bitcoin bitcoin
And how exactly is that going to be a threat against self-custody bitcoiners?
There a couple of different things I'm concerned about.
One would be that someone upstream from you is accused of a crime that allegedly involved bitcoin: maybe you sold your used car to them, which connects you to them financially. Then the feds can claim that you're in possession of stolen property.
What I'm more worried about is that there could be some sort of certifying agency for "clean bitcoin". That could dramatically reduce the ability to use your bitcoin, because everyone who wants to stay on the right side of the state will only transact in those approved bitcoin.
reply
Oh come on, I'd like to call the above BS, which it still is, IMHO, but the stupidity of today's average Joe and his longing for "compliance" with "the law" wouldn't make the above totally unthinkable.
Still, this is a human problem, and has nothing to do with Bitcoin's inherent usability and fungibility.
reply
On a long enough time horizon, I agree. However, in the short-term this could dramatically impact usability and fungibility.
The dollar is not going down without a fight and there's no chance they're going to play fair.
reply
reply
We definitely shouldn't. My point though is that talking about legality and other such concepts is not relevant, here.
When they start to feel threatened, they will lash out and there will be real people who get crushed.
reply
reply
Look at all the "novel legal theories" being used against Trump right now. That means they know it's not really meant to be a crime, but they're going to call it one anyway.
We're in an era of lawfare and anarcho-tyranny. If you're inconvenient to the regime, they're going to try to deal with you, one way or another.
reply
Edit: I should have said, "the feds can claim you're in possession of property that was used in the commission of a crime"
reply
They can claim a foto of my asshole, which I'll gladly send them a copy of.
reply
The problem is that there's a reduced burden of proof for civil forfeiture, that's why the state loves it.
Obviously, you can keep your bitcoin secure, but you'll be charged with obstructing justice or aiding and abetting, or some other statist bs, for doing so.
reply
And then?
reply
It probably depends on whether they want to make an example of you. Irwin Schiff died in prison for not giving into the state's demands.
Maybe you just sit in jail for a while and lose your job, because you no-call no-showed.
Most people will probably cave, which is the point.
reply
Most people will probably cave, which is the point.
I was thinking yesterday before all this broke about the miner centralization issue (almost 50% of the hash power being essentially antpool). And the thought I had was that it's better we get to these battles now.
Both of these problems (Miner centralization or a state attack on utxo fungibility) go right to the very core of what bitcoin was designed to solve.
If bitcoiners can't resist them we are better off figuring out what needs to change now rather than when there are more players like etfs (who I imagine don't care at all about centralization or fungibility) involved.
reply
And the thought I had was that it's better we get to these battles now.
The problem is, there are no battles being fought. People, by far and large, are compliant, because the state apparatus of fear is extremely effective. Those who resist are few and far between and are effectively (and publicly) made example of.
I'm not an expert in sociology and/or revolutions and I honestly don't see how we get from current state to widespread noncompliance (which they can't handle).
Governments became more effective in modern times (through the use of socialist policies) at keeping the populace content "just enough" so that widespread discontent does not happen on any issue (like "magic internet money").