Biggest Bitcoin Heists – The best and worst of bitcoin!

My view on Property Rights

I have read some intellectuals in this field but I have mostly formulated my own view on it. My approach to property rights is simple:
Property is a moral claim to an entity be it material or immaterial. What is morality is a different subject, but if we accept a set of moral principles, property falls inside that.
A claim by itself is useless, it would be ethical if it would be respected, but it's very impractical to imagine a moralist world, most people will always be immoral, either by chance or by choice.
Thus a claim needs force to be maintained. Property doesn't need force in theory, but in practice unfortunately it does. But the catch is that only defensive force is legitimate.
The most basic property of a human is his own body, that is theirs by birth, it's literally impossible to confiscate, but it can be enslaved or damaged thus it must be protected defensively: self-defence.
From the human body derivative properties emerge, which are also chained to it, morally. The chain of morality applies to derivatives.
The property derived from the human body is that which is made by it's labor, intellect, or their combination.
So you own your house and your car and your computer ,etc... Why? Because you either worked hard for them or you have inherited it (somebody else worked hard for the money and gifted it to you).

The State

Of course you should have sovereign rights over them, but unfortunately we have a State which claims that monopoly.
At best the State could protect your property, from a different State, and the property taxes would be the contribution necessary to maintain a military force strong enough that would deter or defend your property from a different State.
This would be a "Night Watchman State" as it's called, only protecting property and enforcing contracts.
Unfortunately in the present the State is more than this, with income taxes, pension ponzi schemes, and all sorts of immoral laws, the State in it's current form is highly immoral.
At least the "Night Watchman State" can be justified as an institution collectively defending property, unfortunately since the fall of the Roman Republic in 27 BC, most States have been pretty totalitarian since.
The current form of the State is very immoral, a Night Watchman State can be sort of justified, at least until other States demilitarize themselves, you have to keep a deterrent.
But in my opinion it is possible to transition even beyond that. When most property is becoming electronic, you need standing armies less and less.
For example international cloud computing networks storing data in blockchains make military attacks against property very impractical.
You can't just send in troops in 1 location, since the data can be stored in 1 million different locations, any military ground movement against that is highly unfeasible + they would have their own defense force.
Of course the new problem would by cyber-wars, that is a different issue, I am sure there are defenses against that.

Scarcity and IP

By this theory scarcity and IP right can be explained too. Can you own the air or the oceans?
Well you certainly own the air in your house, not by your choice but as an extension of the property. If somebody outside is disposing something smelly nearby, you have a claim for restitution for property damages since it makes your air of degraded quality. If you collectively own a neighborhood with other property owners and share certain costs, insurance, defense ,etc... and if somebody starts up a pig farm nearby and it causes your neighborhood to smelly badly, all of you have a claim to ask for restitution for the damages.
However you can’t claim ownership of air around properties you don’t own, and it would be impossible to enforce without the initiation of force.
Same goes for other abundant stuff like water. Maybe you can own a river, perhaps not alone, since it’s not an object it’s a moving stream, so a river can only be collectively owned by anyone having property nearby.
Also you can’t own the ocean or portions of the ocean. But if you build an artificial island, you can own that and by extension the water surrounding it.
You can on a book, it’s a physical property, you can hold it in your hand, and if somebody tries to take it, by initiating force against you, you can use defensive force to defend it.
However if you digitize it and start selling it online, but accidentally it leaks to a torrent site, then you are not morally allowed to stop that.
I mean what are you going to do, actively assault anyone who downloads the copy of your book? This is exactly what IP law is, using the Government to assault and kidnap anyone who downloads a file.
Therefore IP like this is highly immoral since it can only be maintained by coercion and intimidation.
You still own the book and it’s still your “intellectual property”, it’s just that you can’t initiate violence against anyone obtaining it.
It’s your property, and it’s your job to defend it. If you don’t want it public, then don’t make it public, make it your journal.
If you want to sell it publicly and make money, then it’s your job to ensure the maximum profitability from the book sales, but without initiating violence.
Actually studies show that pirating might even be used as positive marketing and advertising effects, several book vendors and movie makers have “leaked” their products and experienced a massive surge in audience.
It could be a freeware or premiumware technique. You can leak 1 book, to get an audience and sell the other book. Or sell the book and then leak it 1 year later, anyone who didn’t buy it in that 1 year probably wont buy it later either ,but if you leak it, you might get a big audience loving your work and buy your next book. I am sure there are many marketing techniques that can be done from subscription systems to all sorts of clever monetization techniques.
However coercion is not allowed that is immoral.
There are 2 caveats however for IP that I would find important:
1) So I have a non-coercive view on IP, however if the book or music leaked because a spy in your company had leaked it, or a hacker hacked your computer releasing your work, then you have a claim for restitution.
While it is immoral for you to coerce other people to not use your intellectual property without paying. It’s also immoral for others to release your intellectual property before you do, that would be just plain theft. Like if you write a journal on your computer or take naked selfies, and some hacker hacks that and posts it on social media, that is clearly theft. Likewise if your company makes a movie, and a spy leaks it, or worse, leaks it to a different company who start monetizing it, that is clearly theft.
2) The second issue revolves around personality rights and trademarks. Obviously if you own company XYZ which is a reputable Bitcoin company. And then John sets up a ponzi scheme named XYZ that is defamation and it clearly damages your reputation. It will obviously steer clients away, make them confused, and when his scam collapses, the victims will confuse your legitimate business with his scam. This would be a horrible violation of your reputation and you should be able to seek restitution for this.
Also identity theft, where John would say that you are his CTO, when in fact you have no affiliation with him at all. In fact there was a Bitcoin mining scam website that literally took random Facebook user’s face and put them there in the testimonials section, writing fake testimonials with their face on it, when in fact these people had absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin nor the company.
These are horrible reputation violations and even in an Ancap society people should seek restitutions for these.
So I am kind of soft on trademarks, especially if they are used with malice, not necessarily negligence, and ID theft is intolerable.

Sum up

So in conclusion in my view legitimate property has to have the following qualities:
I await your comments and criticisms.
submitted by alexander7k to Anarcho_Capitalism [link] [comments]

Why you should not trust Bitfinex

TL/DR: The founder of Bitfinex has a history of supporting ponzi schemes and the exchange was founded using stolen "swiss-cheese" source code. Read the first quote. Don't trust them.
There have already been arguments on here about whether or not Bitfinex is solvent in light of their recent and past issues, so I'll approach this from a different angle.
Take a look here at the first few posts in this thread. Here we see the founder of Bitfinex, "unclescrooge" - Raphael Nicolle, defending one of the biggest Ponzi scammers in Bitcoin's history and demanding apologies from those calling it out (he recently deleted the post itself, but it was quoted by the next person):
INow that Pirateat40 closed down his operatations thanks to all the fud that was going on and growing on the forum, I expect everyone that spreads this fud, accused and insulted Pirate and the people that supported him to apologize.
Not only did Pirate brought us a great opportunity for investors (once in a lifetime actually), he did help stabilise and grow steadily bitcoin price, volume exchange, and thus contributed to the success of bitcoin. For that, Pirate, I want to thank you. You've done a wonderful work, and I hope you're stay around here.
Now, apologies on.
Here's some background on the pirateat40 Ponzi scheme for those unaware:
So what does that mean? In the best case scenario, the founder of Bitfinex is a colossal moron who can't even identify a blatantly obvious ponzi scheme - and is certainly not someone you would trust with your money.
Worst case scenario, he knew what was going on and was looking for more victims to feed the scam - again, not someone who you would trust with your money.
Had I known about this history, I personally never would have put a dime on Bitfinex.
Here's some more info on the origins of Bitfinex - the gist of it is that the exchanged was bootstrapped on the stolen, leaked, bug-ridden source code of Bitcoinica (an exchange that itself was mysteriously "hacked" and all the money disappeared):
There's much more to dig into about the exchanges history of bugs, incompetence, and questionable actions (example: Oh, and remember that the owners see no issues with trading on their own exchange. There are many ways to take advantage of privileged info (stops and liquidations, bfx token trading, etc.) if an owner is dishonest, let alone more serious possibilities of fractional reserve and gambling with user funds. Someone who has no issues with ponzi schemes probably has no issues with the above, either.
This is just the surface of issues discovered, others here have far more knowledge of the history of issues that I do.
And a final parting quote for the next time you hear someone accused of spreading "FUD" about Bitfinex - here's another "unclescrooge" quote about those calling out pirateat40 as a scammer:
Fuck everyone that spreads FUD. You could have made great profits while helping stabilising bitcoin price. Now back to scammers at 2% a week and great volatility that make bitcoin look like a laughing stocks.
Fuck you. At least now you'll look ridiculous, that's my only pleasure.
submitted by halfjump to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

PSA: Promoting a Ponzi Scheme is not OK

In the Bitcoin space I often came across people promoting Ponzi schemes and when being called out about it, they brushed it off saying: "Yeah, sure it's a Ponzi. Everybody knows it. But if you are early in and early out, you can still make fantastic profits." The BST [email protected] pass-throughs were a prime example of that. I've even seen websites promoting their project as pyramid scheme openly.
While the above is less and less common as a percentage of Bitcoin news, it still happens and most likely a lot behind closed doors, so here is a reminder that not only the initial scammer's are on the line but also those who promote the scam.
From this article on "Madoff’s Victims Are Close to Getting Their $19 Billion Back":
So far he’s recovered $13.3 billion—about 70 percent of approved claims—by suing those who profited from the scheme, knowingly or not. And Picard has billions more in his sights.
Please, if you have a friend who's trying to sell you the next Bitconnect or something, showing off his new found riches, point him to this.
submitted by giszmo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vladimir (Atlantis admin) official statement

I saw this posted in the SR forum and figured I would repost in case others have difficulty accessing the forums. Hi all,
It has come to our attention that some users on Silk Road believe the following;
1. That I am a scammer and was involved in a Ponzi scam on Silk Road. 2. The moderators at Atlantis market are deleting user comments. 3. Our forums term of use policy is aimed to arrest people and record information. 4. That we are DDoS'ing Silk Road. 5. Our PGP system is crackable.
I'd like to take the time to address each point and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reply to this thread. The staff members at Atlantis and I are happy to address your questions.
1) This belief has come into existence as 'Vladimir' was a scammer on Silk Road and thus people thought I was the same person as him. Unfortunately without knowing Vladimir's past history, this is my name and the one I have chosen to use. Hypothetically if I was Vladimir, why would I use a scammers alias at a market place which deals directly with user funds? It wouldn't help build trust in our market place and doesn't make any sense at all. Its the equivalent of pirateat40 creating a new Bitcoin Savings and Trust scheme and asking people to re-invest in it. We're proud to say that in our 7 weeks of operation, we have suffered no down time, no users have lost funds and security concerns have been addressed promptly (like increasing PGP key support up to 16Kbits).
2) We have deleted posts only related to spam, posts involving unfounded claims or accusations (FUD) and have deleted no posts in which people have given us criticism, bug reports or requests about improving security. You can check the relevant forum sections to find examples of this. We actively encourage this feedback as it helps us create a better market place. We are here to help users and are happy to reply to any security concerns or criticism you have. We have also created a sticky topic in the general forums for people to post whatever conspiracy theories they like. We will not be moderating this thread however the other forum rules still apply.
3) We used the default term of service which comes with the forum software. You can find an exact replica when you download and install the SMF software. This has now been updated.
4) We believe competition is healthy and believe that Dead Pirate Roberts is a great leader. We also need to shed the light that Silk Road has had technical issues in the past, even when we weren't around. Things like item listing image hijacking, denial of service attacks, site upgrades and switching hosting providers all caused down time. Although it would assist in us gaining more market share if our largest competitor is down, we have no desire to resort to dodgy tactics. We believe that what goes around comes around.
5) The auto-encryption service only works IF the user or vendors uploads their PGP public key (we support key sizes of 1024 - 16384 bits). However, Atlantis also supports manual encryption outside of Atlantis in which users can use a PGP client to encrypt their message. Atlantis administrators and law enforcement could not decipher the encrypted message without the users private key. With all this said, the security comes down to the end user. If they don't trust the auto-encryption service, they can STILL manually encrypt the message outside of Atlantis and thus there is absolutely no risk of anyone being able to decipher the message. To this day, PGP with large key sizes (>= 4096bits) is still uncrackable, you can find more information about it here: Noting: 'there is no known method which will allow a person or group to break PGP encryption by cryptographic or computational means.'
As stated earlier, if you have any concerns please don't hesitate to reply to this thread. Lastly, we'd like to thank all the people who have put their trust in Atlantis and believe in where we are heading. The ride is only just starting and we're glad to have you as part of Atlantis
submitted by reaperx2 to SilkRoad [link] [comments]

Legality of cryptocurrencies

Regulations or positions of some countries about cryptoworld Because governments can sometimes be a bit touchy about attempts to create alternatives to the legal tender they enjoy a monopoly on printing, a wise investor might wonder about the legal status of cryptocurrencies. Indeed, the disruptive potential of these technologies has made governments around the world nervous, as they have struggled to devise appropriate regulations for the cryptocurrency realm without stifling innovation. Most potential investors have nothing to worry about from a legal standpoint, but it pays to do one’s homework.
Regulations or positions of some countries about cryptoworld Some countries have banned or ruled unconstitutional the use of cryptocurrencies within their borders, while others have embraced them or even announced plans to issue their own. Of course, due to the inherently decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, enforcement has proven difficult. Taxes levied on profits made trading cryptocurrencies vary based on their legal classification. Check the laws in your country, and make sure you abide by them when investing. Questions of legality in major markets have caused temporary dips in cryptocurrency prices over the years, but they have always recovered. Keep reading for a brief history of legal rulings and government announcements related to bitcoin that have helped shape the current ecosystem.
February 2012
Payments services firms Paxum and Tradehill temporarily cease bitcoin exchange activities due to legal concerns raised by Canadian regulators.
28 March 2013
Cypriot investors drive up bitcoin prices seeking a refuge for savings when a government bailout program threatens to tap bank deposits.
14 May 2013
The United States Department of Homeland Security seizes almost $3 million from a subsidiary of the Mt. Gox exchange, claiming that the business is illegally engaged in money transmission without a license.
30 August 2013
Tradehill stops exchanging bitcoin, again due to regulatory uncertainty, indicating a growing need for government clarification on the legal status of cryptocurrency.
October 2013
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation arrests operator of Silk Road dark web marketplace Ross Ulbricht, alias “Dread Pirate Roberts,” charges him with computer hacking, money laundering, drug trafficking and attempted murder, shuts down the site and seizes over 170,000 bitcoins. In the wake of the shutdown, numerous other illicit marketplaces emerge, but are prone to exit scams in which operators abscond with bitcoins held in escrow.
18 November 2013
U.S. Senate holds hearing titled “Beyond Silk Road: Potential Risks, Threats, and Promises of Virtual Currencies.” Members express reservations about the potential illicit applications of cryptocurrencies so vividly illustrated by Silk Road, frustration at the difficulty of regulating something so difficult to understand, but ultimately hope that government will be able to create a system in which decent people have a “chance to try and play by the rules.”
22 November 2013
China’s central bank issues an equivocal statement on bitcoin that nonetheless greenlights Chinese participation in cryptocurrency exchange and investment, prompting huge price gains over subsequent weeks.
05 December 2013
Backpedaling somewhat in response to the widespread use of bitcoin to circumvent limits on capital outflows, China bans banks and other financial institutions from dealing with or offering services relating to bitcoin, ruling that it is not a currency.
25 March 2014
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service issues its first guidelines for bitcoin, ruling that it is to be taxed as property, not treated as currency.
10 April 2014
Under government pressure, Chinese banks begin to shut down accounts belonging to bitcoin exchanges. Prices drop 10%, but many exchanges exploit loopholes and offshore parts of their businesses to continue operating.
July 2014
The state of New York announces plans to develop licensing requirements for businesses dealing in bitcoin or related services, which proves extremely unpopular with cryptocurrency advocates.
06 November 2014
Trendon Shavers, alias “pirateat40,” arrested for defrauding bitcoin investors in Ponzi scheme in 2012.
19 December 2014
Bitcoin entrepreneur and proponent Charlie Shrem sentenced to two years in prison for illegal money transmission charges related to the Silk Road marketplace.
25 January 2015
Coinbase navigates regulatory frameworks to win approval to operate a fully-fledged bitcoin exchange in 25 U.S. states and sets sights on further expansion.
25 March 2015
Hong Kong officials warn against potential fraud on exchanges, but indicate they will take a light hand regulating cryptocurrencies, classifying them not as legal tender but as “virtual commodities.”
29 May 2015
Ross Ulbricht receives sentence: life in prison without parole. Judge Katherine Forrest explicitly seeks to make an example of him and thereby discourage others from using cryptocurrency and the relative anonymity of the Internet to flout the law.
01 August 2015
Mark Karpeles, former Mt. Gox CEO, arrested in Japan and charged with falsification of records relating to the solvency of the exchange during its collapse.
10 August 2015
Deadline hits for compliance with New York regulators’ “BitLicense” rules, leading many exchanges to stop serving customers in the State.
22 October 2015
Crypto advocates hail a European court ruling that VAT does not apply to bitcoin and other cryptocurrency transactions, thereby classifying them as currency, not property.
10 November 2016
The state of North Carolina creates legislation to address bitcoin and money transmission, which regards businesses dealing in virtual currencies as subject to the same set of rules and licensing requirements that govern transmission
10 March 2017
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission denies Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss authorization to create a bitcoin-based ETF, citing inadequate regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges.
28 March 2017
The SEC denies the Winklevoss brothers’ second request for authorization of a bitcoin ETF, again citing concerns about the lack of regulation and potential for fraud on the exchanges.
01 April 2017
Japan recognizes bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as legal tender and lays the groundwork for supportive regulations intended to permit legitimate investment while discouraging money laundering and terrorist financing.
04 September 2017
China prohibits fundraising via initial coin offerings, which it considers illegal.
07 September 2017
The European Central Bank rules out the possibility of Estonia launching its own national cryptocurrency, reaffirms the privileged status of the Euro as legal tender, and cites concerns that national cryptocurrencies would undermine financial regulations.
06 December 2017
Softening its initial stance, Russian regulators indicate that new rules may allow the purchase of cryptocurrencies, but forbid or heavily restrict mining activities.
07 December 2017
Regulators in South Korea ban trading in bitcoin futures as well as initial coin offerings(ICO), but will permit cryptocurrency exchanges to continue operations.
submitted by Which_Blockchain to u/Which_Blockchain [link] [comments]

How a ponzi scheme works - YouTube Ponzi vs. Pyramid Scheme: What’s The Difference? - YouTube Is Bitcoin a Ponzi? BitClub Network Founders Charged in Cryptocurrency ‘Ponzi Scheme’ The Man Who Stole $65 Billion - Largest Ponzi Scheme In ...

A long time ago, I "invested" 5 BTC with Bitcoin Savings and Trust, an investment scheme that promised 1% daily returns. Other investors had been boasting for months about how much easy money they were making. Less than 24 hours after I sent in my 5 BTC, BS&T was revealed as a massive Ponzi and all the money was gone. Fortunately, 5 BTC was only worth about $50 at the time. Ponzi Scams: Ponzi scams, or high-yield investment programs, hook you with higher interest than the prevailing market rate (e.g. 1-2% interest per day) while redirecting your money to the thief’s wallet. They also tend to duck and emerge under different names in order to protect themselves. Keep away from companies that give you Bitcoin addresses for incoming payments rather than the common ... A Ponzi Scheme is a scam promising high-rates of return with little risk. The Ponzi Scheme pays out the older investors by taking money from new investors. At some point, the Ponzi Scheme operator usually disappears with the investors’ money. Most Bitcoin Ponzi Schemes today appear in the form of cloud mining sites or coin doublers. These are ... Bitcoin’s “Bad Press” The infamous Ponzi scheme has remained inseparable from Bitcoin. Although Bitcoin is having a tough time pulling away from its troubled past. It is quite apparent these operations have been associated with bitcoin since “the media” has started to cover it. The media continuously paints bitcoin’s bad news. Since the collapse of MtGox, public trust... In August 2012, Trendon T. Shavers (aka "Pirate" and "pirateat40"), the founder and operator of "Bitcoin Savings and Trust" (BTCST), [111] a ... The Mantria Corporation Ponzi scheme has been described as the "biggest green energy scam" in United States history. A Federal judge in the Securities and Exchange Commission's civil case found Mantria had scammed more than $54.5 million “by ...

[index] [49889] [5743] [20183] [36149] [40219] [43292] [35426] [35355] [44775] [44719]

How a ponzi scheme works - YouTube

I disagree with their belief that the feedback loops that have increased the valuation of housing, gold, and bitcoin have anything to do with Ponzi schemes. On the contrary, I explain how the high ... Subprime the Musical- Series of light-hearted podcasts designed to explain the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. To learn more visit: www.subprimethemusical.wordpres... 5 ways to identify a PONZI scheme. The after math of bitconnect and USI Tech is that many people have lost 10's of thousands of dollars. These are not the last of them. Protect yourself and learn ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Discovery GO » Subscribe to NowThis World: While con-artist sound like they belong in the ...