You have that inside out. The state intervened in the free market to give some friends a monopoly.

Quite a good point.  It will be very interesting to know what these BTC sell for if that info is public.  Especially whether they command a premium or not.  It will also be interesting to see if they are tagged differently a-la the 'enjoy/sochi' methods.

Interesting way for a (fairly) mainstream publication to start a bitcoin piece:


"A Beginner's Guide to Owning Bitcoin" - http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234742

More idiotic socialist drivel from you.

Why are you even in Bitcoin? You don't seem  to understand what is being attempted here. If you give gov't the right to be the final arbiter about which  coins are clean versus which are tainted, you've lost any advantage over fiat.

You might as well admit you're an opportunist. And don't come back with some bs about being a pragmatist.

It was not said on this occasion, but generally governments will confiscate money that is earned by criminal actions, even if it is not the criminal, but some other, non convicted, party that currently have them. The confiscated money  can then be spent by the governments. It is a double standard and it is not right.

 

Its what steve jobs would have wanted 

It's not a matter of 'giving' the gov't any rights.  It's a matter of what they are willing and able to take.  It's a fair assumption that they'll take as much as they can, and it's important to understand what that might be.  Don't be thick.

You and I are both very much opportunists.  So what?  Who isn't?  My hopes for Bitcoin as a beneficial social phenomenon vary and are currently at a relative low point.  So yes, I want to profit as I can and am distinctly an 'opportunist'.  Calling out the potential threats is not helpful in this pump-n-dump, but I don't stroke my ego by believing that what I write on this board makes much of a difference one way or another.

My argument for Bitcoin has always been that it was likely under-valued and a good speculative play.  Now, 100x profits later, I still make that argument but more weakly.  I argue strenuously on this thread (being on-topic) that gold has some very real advantages in some very possible failure mode scenarios and they should be considered for those deciding their financial strategies.  Relatedly, there are some legitimate threats to Bitcoin and they should be considered as well.

I have zero shame about being either a 'pragmatist' or a 'realist', and people will find that I am a staunch defender of Bitcoin in cases where it is being ignorantly, dishonestly, or unfairly maligned.

At the end of the day, I've benefited mightily from Bitcoin already and at this point I'd just as soon walk away with a clear conscience than with even more of a windfall.  But I'd take either.

Short answer:  no

The government is not going to give up all that revenue by tainting coins.  Besides, they couldn't do it directly.  They would just have to follow UTXOs, which would be much easier said than done if privacy protocols are used such as coinjoin.  Tainting is out of their control.

No, but imo they've been skirting very close to that position.

Look at the Silk Road clients who lost their coins but weren't supposedly buying drugs. Also Shrem who's being prosecuted by association.

But as a self admitted socialist, not only do you expect gov't intervention, you want it.