Hacker News Reader

Comment by pricees | Hacker News Reader

I want to donate to a cause that Justin Trudeau finds "unacceptable." I want to send money to Ukraine. I think this week we saw problems with tradfi in the developed and developing world. And of course in the good ole US of A, I hear stories of civil forfeiture every other month.

View on HN

Note that folks who claimed their bank accounts were frozen because they were “donors to the convoy” never actually verified that that actually happened [1]. At the same time the government, the RCMP, and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen” [2]. Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total, despite claims on HN and various thinkpieces that they would be extended in perpetuity [3].

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mp-mark-stra...

[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-an...

[3] https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/23/justin-t...

And then there was GoFundMe and GiveSendGo. I am not arguing the politics here. I am responding to the critique that crypto is a solution in search of a problem.

Those are companies with policies.

They have to listen to laws.

Guess what happens if crypto would become bigger and actually a problem for all states globally?

Do you really think they will just accept this? In which way do you think they literlay can't control crypto anymore?

Just because its digital and on the internet, doesn't mean its digital only. It is not and as long as that is, its easy for a state to make sure crypto will never ever reach this level.

You don't believe a state can do this? Just a small reminder about the great firewall from china. There are countries who shut down their internet, literaly.

The reason they didn't extend them was that they didn't want to go through the senate vote, and also because of the extreme controversy it caused. Trudeau had said earlier he wanted to extend them past the 30 days. So it's weird to say that the controversy and reactions were baseless because their intended goal was achieved. And that was to make Trudeau's decision as politically costly and controversial as possible.

Also accounts were still seized over a protest, so it doesn't matter if it was from people donating or those who were protesting

https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/banking/convoy-leader-d...

(Url is weird and doesn't match the actual article)

So in other words...the system worked exactly as it was designed to work...

I guess but only because there was a very very vocal backlash. It wouldn't have necessarily worked if everyone was just complacent and apologetic for Trudeau. Trudeau had no intention of showing any restraint until the backlash intensified.

You are literally just describing how a political system was designed to work: politics.

I never said they were baseless, I said folks claimed this would never end and it did, rather promptly.

> Trudeau had said earlier he wanted to extend them past the 30 days.

Can you provide a source because I can’t find anything backing this claim.

>and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen”

The article didn't say it didn't happen. In fact, it says it did happen:

“individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts,” such as “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa””

What exactly does it mean to be an "influencer"? Why are people being punished for "suspected involvement"? You're using circular reasoning claiming the only people affected deserved it.

>Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total

What does this matter if they can turn around and re-enact it tomorrow?

I specifically referred to donors, it is largely understood that convoy organizers and a number of participants had their accounts frozen.

I am not using circular reasoning; I am literally addressing the fact that donating $50 to the convoy did not subject you to your bank account being frozen, despite purported claims to the contrary.

The “illegal acts” are referring to the plain-as-day laws that the protesters (to some, occupiers) were accused of breaking, like parking tractor trailers in the middle of the street for weeks blocking traffic in downtown Ottawa.

If folks outside the immediate circle of downtown protesters and organizers were affected, I would find that deeply concerning. But I can only find unsubstantiated rumors. If you have a credible source indicating otherwise, I’d appreciate it.

“Civil forfeiture” does not and has never meant “fiat forfeiture.” If the government tells you to forfeit your assets (justly or unjustly!), you can be certain that they will not be amused or deterred by attempts to hide those assets via cryptocurrency.

> “Civil forfeiture” does not and has never meant “fiat forfeiture.” If the government tells you to forfeit your assets (justly or unjustly!), you can be certain that they will not be amused or deterred by attempts to hide those assets via cryptocurrency.

If they don't know it exists, they can't take it. Just like I can cross the border with a hundred thousand in crypto in a wallet. And even if they find the hardware wallet, that is not enough to seize the funds, especially if it's a brain wallet or something similar. The same simply doesn't exist for fiat.

> If they don't know it exists, they can't take it.

I've said this before: any financial system that turns a presumed crime (the efficient cause of the asset seizure) into direct evidence of another crime (trying to hide assets) is not a good financial system.

What you're describing doesn't exist in practice for any medium of exchange.

Just like I can cross the border with a hundred thousand in crypto in a wallet.

No, you can't. You can cross the border with the private key for a wallet containing the addresses of a hundred thousand units of crypto, but the crypto isn't in your wallet (either kind), it's in the blockchain ledger of whatever cryptocurrency you're using.

And this is an important distinction from money, because the money is actually in your wallet and you can use it without an internet connection, but the crypto is actually in the cloud and requires an internet connection to access and use.

Interesting. Just for fun, thinking through this more I could just give someone my private key instead of transferring funds on the blockchain. Then the transaction does not require the internet, only the verification of funds in the wallet (which could be elided if the participants so chose).

And how do you feel about economic sanctions for Russia, Putin, etc? (And crypto being a way to evade them)

Do you think a cryptocurrency is any less susceptible to civil forfeiture than cash?

You are correct, evading economic sanctions is another problem crypto solves. :)

(I am not here to make any value judgments)

You've just made one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com