zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
Seems like a win to me. The government had to physically go to their house and arrest them to get to their funds, whereas normally all they had to do was call up their bank and had their money frozen. Not to mention, this threat could have been easily mitigated by keeping your funds in a multsig wallet, with the keys distributed in multiple redundant locations.

>>gruez+G6
> Not to mention, this threat could have been easily mitigated by keeping your funds in a multsig wallet, with the keys distributed in multiple redundant locations.

And if you're released from prison and recover your Bitcoin, you will be arrested again for contempt of court or a similar charge.

>>mschus+Rj
Why anyone would use BTC and not some privacy coin for this kind of scenario escapes me.

>>notch6+Tk
Because they stole bitcoin. Good luck finding a non institutional buyer for tainted bitcoins when you're dealing in billions usd. Everyone shuffling bits at that level is going to play by the rules and cover their ass. Even large criminal exchanges will avoid stolen bitcoin in any sort of volume because it means instant scrutiny.

>>robbed+lK
Even large criminal exchanges outside of US jurisdiction? (ie, Russia, China, etc.)