Fortunately, this case is much more about Charlie Shrem and his penchant for violating laws than Bitcoin itself. I think this guy - who now refers to himself as "Charlie van Bitcoin" - just doesn't get it. There are laws out there, and he doesn't seem to want to follow them. Here's an example:
He is out on bail on this case right now. As someone out on bail for a federal felony, he is prohibited from using or possessing deadly weapons (knives, guns etc.). There are people in his position that have found themselves in trouble over kitchen knives. Yet Charlie publicly posted yesterday that he is the proud new owner of a World War II Nazi Dagger.
"There are laws out there, and he doesn't seem to want to follow them."
Would you apply this idea to 19th century when blacks and women did not have much rights? Or to 15th century Europe to those who are not following the rule of God? Or to 20th century Germany where people democratically voted for policies of you know who (hello, Godwin's law)?
By saying "there are laws out there" you implicitly declare a universal moral theory of yours which makes the laws you mention "legitimate" and "moral", meaning, whoever not following them is "immoral" and thus can be punished with violent coercion.
So as far as I understand, you are very well educated in philosophy of ethics to just say that a guy who was allegedly involved in moving some digital bits back and forth that allegedly helped some other guys to buy some vegetation, deserve violent punishment (being kidnapped, locked up and most possibly raped)?
My opinion is most of the finance-related laws are "thoughtcrime" laws that have no legitimacy at all. Heck, almost every law has no legitimacy because even democracy is not proven as a valid moral basis for human behavior. And so I do not advocate violence towards anyone. Instead, I suggest people use tools to protect themselves against each other (locks, insurance, alarms, crypto, bitcoin, private protection services etc.), instead of trying to retaliate after something bad happens.
Your philosophy is flawed and before you realize it you may be actively advocating for huge evil without knowing it. Like it always happened in the any country where people cheer for their rulers until the rulers come after them. Absolutely in line with the law, after all.
Transferring large sums of money anonymously isn't actually money laundering, though it can help facilitate money laundering (so it is often banned in an effort to make money laundering harder).
Money laundering is the process of making income from criminal enterprises appear to be income from legitimate businesses, usually at a significant discount.
Speaking about that, I am wondering if there are internet businesses out there which are actually a front for money laundering. Say for example an online game or even a porn site. Seems to me like an ideal cover, because it's almost impossible to prove that it's not a real business.
There was some speculation that some high revenue/low quality Android/iPhone apps were. I would try to find the HN link/thread but my phone will die soon.
The best businesses for money laundering are those where your sales aren't directly related to the amount of stock you need to buy, and where the customers typically pay cash. Online games and porn sites fall into the first category but not the second.
Actually, banks, government agencies, and, publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries are explicitly exempted from currency transaction reporting requirements.
> Fortunately, this case is much more about Charlie Shrem and his penchant for violating laws than Bitcoin itself. I think this guy - who now refers to himself as "Charlie van Bitcoin" - just doesn't get it. There are laws out there, and he doesn't seem to want to follow them.
I would argue that his aversion to laws was what led him to Bitcoin in the first place. Which is not to say that Bitcoin users are inherently prone to illegal activities, but it should not be surprising that those already prone to breaking the law would flock to a system designed to evade central regulation.
This is a common behavior among many libertarians/ancaps (although still a minority). They tend to believe that they can live outside the law. And it's sad, because they usually don't harm anybody with their little misdemeanors. It usually looks more like a child reveling against their parent's arbitrary laws, than a crime for which they should go to jail or even prison.
Although I have issues with anyone that would buy Nazi memorabilia (I am not Jewish, but I am human), I agree that his intent probably isn't to take this small sword he bought and go on a stabbing spree. That won't matter though; the moment a pre-trial services officer sees this thing in his house during routine searches that are usually a condition of federal bail, his bail will be revoked at a minimum, and he may face new charges.
He's going out of his way to thumb his nose at the Court; they tend to frown on that.
It does kinda depend on the reason for buying Nazi memorabilia.
For example, if you are ever in the northwestern part of the mitt of Michigan, I highly suggest visiting the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/
But I'm sure the most common reason for someone who would buy a Hitler Youth knife is to be edgy.
I have a Nazi proof-marked Mauser K98 rifle. I like it much more because it was later bought by the IDF, rebarreled to 7.62x51mm, and marked with the IDF star. There are a lot of reasons to own such things.
He is out on bail on this case right now. As someone out on bail for a federal felony, he is prohibited from using or possessing deadly weapons (knives, guns etc.). There are people in his position that have found themselves in trouble over kitchen knives. Yet Charlie publicly posted yesterday that he is the proud new owner of a World War II Nazi Dagger.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566300.msg6202174#ms...
He will eventually learn, but apparently he hasn't yet.