On 10/02/13 21:23, Jim Bell wrote:
I can think of another "bad thing with Bitcoin" that hasn't yet been implemented. So, I don't think this is "good news for those that own Bitcoin", quite the opposite. If this prosecution is considered legitimate, could the next step be the prosecution of any persons who have anything to do with Bitcoin? Buy it, go to jail. Mine it, go to jail. Keep it, go to jail. Offer it, go to jail. Spend it, go to jail. Receive it, go to jail. If this guy is being prosecuted, even in part, because others are using Bitcoin for illegal purposes, why aren't 'you' (term used generically) who own even one BTC, guilty of the same 'conspiracy'? What is needed here is a mechanism to very strongly deter any such anti-bitcoin prosecutions. (You can imagine what I'm thinking of...). Separately, and somewhat less controversially, would be a mechanism to implement a 'denial of service attack' on court systems. What if, for example, the Feds were no longer able to prosecute 70,000 people per year (the current figure, approximately), but instead were limited to, say, 5,000 per year? Jim Bell
I'm not so worried. From the Criminal Complaint PDF I get the feeling that the charges are on the narcotics, and the running of the shop where others can sell those narcotics. ie. the normal witch hunt on drugs. I get the impression that the use of bitcoin to hide identities is the problem. Not the bitcoin itself. There are references at paragraph 12b: use of a Bitcoin "tumbler" to hide origins of individual transactions. In paragraph 15: "Ulbricht has required ... Bitcoins, an electronic currency designed to be as anonymous as cash". The good news: The FBI-author even states that "Bitcoins are not illegal in and of themselves and have known legitimate uses. (Para 21.v) In fact, they have been declared legal in Germany. You need to pay tax on them, over there.... So, the biggest challenge is to make sure the general public gets to know this fact. Regards, Guido.