Bitcoin firm says police shouldn't saw open Bitcoin ATMs to seize cash | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin firm says police shouldn't saw open Bitcoin ATMs to seize cash

tomshardware.com

9 pointsanonymousiam13 comments

Source article: https://decrypt.co/327503/rogue-police-are-destroying-bitcoi...

What if the scammer was actually the person who bought the Bitcoin at the ATM? That's a non-zero possibility. Buy $X worth, claim you were scammed, get your $X back but you also control the wallet you sent the coin to.

It sounds to me like bitcoin ATM operators should hold clients' funds for some time to allow for recovery in the case of fraud. But of course we know that they would have very little business if they did that. Crypto enthusiasts never use them anyway because their rates are terrible, the only real use-case for these machines is scams and money laundering.

In some countries (the UK is one) there is no such thing as a legal bitcoin ATM. Australia appears to be trying to tighten up some of the law in this area too, and it looks like a $5k transaction limit came in. Frankly I think they should be removed everywhere.

In the cases in the article … I mean in some respects the ATM is holding the proceeds of crime right there. It’s an interesting conundrum and it strikes me I don’t know the answer to this - if I was to steal $1k physical money out of your pocket and use it to buy stuff in a shop, and I can’t be traced, would the shop owner have to return the money? With goods they certainly would.

Police are getting told by folks that they were scammed by bitcoin. This is how the police respond to general complaints?

Nope, but it is sometimes how police respond to tips where they can quickly snatch up some sweet, sweet immediate cash for that "confiscated proceeds of crime" trove that many departments have.

It's a win-win overall: look like you're actually being tough on crime while getting away with theft. A quick look at the long history of asset forfeiture laws in the U.S is loaded with related examples.

I assure you that they almost universally wouldn't be so pro-active if you complained about your stolen car.

Might end as rico to provide infrastructure for scamers ?

Boo hoo. Get out of the industry of scamming people entirely. The scam warning on the screen currently doesn't mention that cryptocurrency itself is a scam -- maybe it should?

That is no way justifies cops extra judicially breaking into ATM machines to seize the cash. Imagine if someone filed a criminal complaint about something a bank did and when the cops got a search warrant for the case they drive up to the outside ATM or go to the bank vault, break into it by force using power tools, seized all the cash inside, and then told the bank they have to file a case with the state in order to prove the money is legitimate and they own it instead of the state because some disgruntled person claimed they got scammed.

It justifies banning the machines entirely. Won't have to go through this whole ordeal again if common sense is applied. At best they provide far too easy access to a ludicrously dangerous financial instrument, at worst they are money deletion machines and a perfect vehicle for scams.

And here comes the obligatory "crypto scam, bad" troglodyte who can't say or think of anything about cryptocurrency with the least bit of nuance for how laws, basic financial definitions or practical use cases work.

Why not specify how people using their own money to set up an ATM that dispenses cash for crypto to those willing to exchange one or the other with their OWN money is a scam. Bitcoin itself is also a scam you say? Pray tell, how? By existing as a decentralized cryptographic system of fungible units that the market in general ascribes shifting value to and people happen to be able to exchange? Well shit, that sounds similar to many things that most of the world uses for economic exchange. They're all scams too?

Why not at least argue something semi-coherent?

By having no use in the real world despite people trying to force it on the world. An entire country tried it out and reverted back.

If the bar is set at "no use in the real world", there's a crapload of things that would be canceled in the world.

Use is irrelevant.

Bitcoin is a money scam based on printing monetary surrogates. Why isn't that defined as a scam legislatively? I can't offer direct evidence but there's only one possible reason - people on high places benefit from it. It doesn't take Sherlock to figure it out.

> ATM that dispenses cash for crypto to those willing to exchange one or the other with their OWN money

All money scams involve something and some "willing to exchange one or the other with their OWN money".

> By existing as a decentralized cryptographic system of fungible units.

A scam is a scam irrespective of centralization, decentralization or whatever the buzzword of the day is. For example, properly done, decentralized stable coins aren't money scams but Bitcoin most definitely is.

> Well shit, that sounds similar to many things that most of the world uses for economic exchange.

Close but no cigar, I mean, not even close.

> They're all scams too?

An interesting question with no binary answer.

> And here comes the obligatory "crypto scam, bad" troglodyte...

Gaslighting is a common tactic of scammers. Also, bad cops don't make Bitcoin good, implying the opposite is a trivial fallacy.

Here's something for the Sherlocks out there - this is how the heavyweight financial gorilla Fidelity defends Bitcoin against the charge that “Bitcoin is not backed by anything.”

Says Fidelity: “Bitcoin is not backed by cash flows, industrial utility, or decree. Bitcoin is backed by code brought to life by its stakeholders’ social contract.”

Well, it's free code with zero financial value outside the scam. It's like something backed by pink unicorns and Cheshire cats. But hey, they birthed an "explanation"...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com