Slashdot Mirror


E-gold Owners Plead Guilty To Money Laundering

Ian Lamont writes "The three owners of Internet currency service e-gold have pled guilty to money laundering in the U.S. District Court for D.C.. The service is based in the West Indies, but the directors apparently live in Florida. They haven't been sentenced yet, but potentially face decades in prison and millions in fines. In addition, the principal director posted a blog entry yesterday saying that 'criminal activity will not be tolerated,' and pledging to eliminate the loopholes that allowed money laundering to thrive on the service. He also claims that e-gold has more transaction volume in a single quarter than all of the first-generation Web currency services like Cybercash, Beenz, and Flooz completed over their lifetimes. Ironically, one of the reasons that contributed to Flooz's demise in 2001 was rampant money laundering."

85 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. E-Gold... Why didn't I think of that? by RandoX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here I am, looking up "Money Laundering" in the dictionary trying to figure it out.

  2. It must be said by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 3, Funny

    We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison.

  3. Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This royally sucks because e-gold was actually a very simple and easy way to purchase gold with very few and simple fees, and none of the tax burden.

    1. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This royally sucks because e-gold was actually a very simple and easy way to purchase gold with very few and simple fees, and none of the tax burden.

      Maybe that's another reason the Feds are going after them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least it isn't as bad as it was during the Depression. They made owning gold ILLEGAL back then. What a crock.

      That ban was unconstitutional, of course. Not that that's stopped the federal government from doing whatever the hell they wanted since the Lincoln administration.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by istartedi · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't pay a tax for switching to gold. You only pay a tax on the CAPITAL GAIN you make if you sell at a profit. Your trading commissions and losses are actually DEDUCTIBLE.

      Also, gold is no more fiat than anything else. Only 20% of it is put to industrial use. The rest is traded because people like it. If people stop liking it, down it goes. Think that can't happen? Think again. When the Conquistadors came to the West, Natives filled their coffers with gold on request. This was, only in part because they wanted to appease the Spaniards. Gold while attractive to them, was not monetary like it was in Spain. They valued jade (another scarce commodity) in that fashion. Had the Spaniards requested a room full of jade, it might have been another story.

      Warren Buffet hit the nail on the head when he said: "It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

      My own quote on the matter: "Under the current system money is managed by the Fed, which reports to Congress. Under a gold standard money is managed by international mining cartels and speculators. This is better, how?".

      Then of course, there's the tendancy of gold standard advocates to ignore the history of business cycles under the gold standard (Hint, it wasn't a recession-free paradise). Why, praytell, have so many otherwise intelligent people been lured onto the gold bandwagon lately?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by jmauro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really, cannot the same be said about the gold standard.

    5. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by murr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never quite understood the appeal of e-gold.

      "When civilization breaks down, I'll have a handy supply of GOLD... in an offshore vault, guaranteed by electronic certificates".

      Does not compute, to me.

    6. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by gnosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the term 'yet' is becoming 'now'

      --
      Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

    7. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why, praytell, have so many otherwise intelligent people been lured onto the gold bandwagon lately?

      They understand the nature of money and what inflation really is, while you, don't.

       

      --
      Deleted
    8. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you're seeing history inverted. I look at the 20th century, and I see cycles an interminable sequence of booms and busts mixed with inflationary and hyperinflationary phases. I look at the 19th century, and I see customer and other prices with almost perfect stability, so much that anyone could save money for bad times by simply storing it in their houses, rather than at some bank, as is required now.

      You also talk about liquidity, but it was precisely the artificial liquidity created during Woodrow Wilson's government, by way of cheap loans at below market rates, that created the boom of bad investments that imploded in 1929. And then it was the New Deal that, by providing even more cheap loans and thus creating more (useless) liquidity, that extended what would have been self-correcting recession, into a full blown, decade-long depression.

      I suggest you search for "1929" and "gold standard" at classic liberal sites such as the Mises Institute one. People usually accuse them of not using measurements as any good scientific method requires, but whenever I read them what I find the most are historical analyzes. These two search terms alone provide plenty of evidence, and good data.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry to do this, but it's "for all intents and purposes." Unless that was ironically intentional, in which case, carry on.

    10. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by istartedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who held stocks and real estate rode out Wiemar quite well! The stock market graph is quite interesting. Note that in the early stages the market fell, but when the inflation was raging there was actually a spike in stocks when measured in a currency that was more stable at the time (the dollar).

      The buyers of stocks in 1920s Germany knew they were buying the productivity and resources of the German economy, which they figured (correctly) would make it through the inflationary period. The fundamentals of stocks make sense. A diversified portfolio represents some portion of the economic output.

      Next came the Nazi period. Then gold makes more sense, and I mean physical bullion since Nazi paper would have had obvious problems. Now, how do you know when to actually do that, and what's a rational way to do that? What is the purpose for physical posession? Can a rational person justify having any physical gold?

      I say yes, but not to the extent that some gold bugs would have us horde the metal, or use it to back the currency. I say yes only to the extent that it's an insurance policy, and one that like all insurance policies may or may not pay out.

      Most people wouldn't consider it a wise investment to spend too much of their income on an insurance policy. Nevertheless, that's what it is; so holding a modest ammount of gold in your portfolio (the rule of thumb is 5%) makes sense if you are really concerned about political turmoil that would cause you to leave your country. Make sure that you also insure your insurance! However much bullion you store in your safety deposit box or home, insure it. Make sure you buy a gun too, so that you can move your gold in the presence of bandits. Be sure to set aside some to bribe the border guards. Coins are better than bars, because they are more practical units. See how insane this gets? You'll probably lose your house, car, and probably a significant fraction of your friends and family in a situation like that. You might lose your life. I don't think you can really insure against a Nazification of the US; certainly not by buying gold anyway.

      One positive thing I can say about gold though, is that since it won't go to zero it makes a fantastic trading vehicle. Accumulate during a volatile period, sell the spikes. Very nice. I haven't been quite gutsy enough to do it with a large fraction of my money though.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    11. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by mmontour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never quite understood the appeal of e-gold.
      "When civilization breaks down, I'll have a handy supply of GOLD... in an offshore vault, guaranteed by electronic certificates".

      Who ever said that e-gold was intended to survive the breakdown of civilization? It was intended to be used *within* a civilization to purchase goods, pay for services, etc. It's not a place to keep your life's savings, particularly as they charge a percentage of your balance as a storage fee (like "negative interest").

    12. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you're seeing history inverted. I look at the 20th century, and I see cycles an interminable sequence of booms and busts mixed with inflationary and hyperinflationary phases. I look at the 19th century, and I see customer and other prices with almost perfect stability, so much that anyone could save money for bad times by simply storing it in their houses, rather than at some bank, as is required now.

      What now? The 20th century has been a lot more stable than the 19th in economic terms.

    13. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "gold theorists" answer to this is simple:

      In any gold-like money system (it doesn't need to be gold, anything that isn't "tamperable" by 3rd parties, be it the government or other, works the same), you have booms and busts, all right. However, they're always local booms and busts, reflecting a multitude of changes in market, be them purely economical or other (for example, externalities). In other words, while a sector of economy might become problematic, another would be booming; if that one then goes kaput, a 3rd sector would be alright; then the 1st one can recover; and so on and so forth. The end result, if you consider the economy as a whole, is that you get in average a linear rate of economical growth.

      When you change this system to that of fiat money, or any other kind of money that can freely tampered with, the economy as a whole ends up indexed by the monetary policy, and as a result, instead of a multitude of economic sectors each one having its own independent booms and busts, the economy becomes a single sector where all booms and all busts become synchronized and end up happening at the same time.

      The important thing on all of this is that having huge synchronized boom/bust cycles is no better than having many small independent per sector booms/busts, because the average growth doesn't change. You simply switch from a slow but regular growth, where people on difficult sectors can switch to other, growing ones, to one of a fast growth of the whole followed by a hard or full stop of said growth followed by a fast growth of the whole etc.

      Thus, while from the perspective of the nation as a whole, on the long range, it makes no difference, since the booms and busts cancel each other and the result is an average growth all the same, from the perspective of the individuals the synchronized cycle system is bad, since once the single sector becomes a mess, he has nowhere to move to.

      Who then actually profits from the synchronized cycles? Just one group: politicians. The "boom half" of the cycle is amazing as far as votes (and taxes, and government money) go, while the "bust half" is amazing for getting the desperate people to vote in a new savior.

      That's all there is to it.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    14. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      BZZT! You lose.

      In any gold-like money system (it doesn't need to be gold, anything that isn't "tamperable" by 3rd parties, be it the government or other, works the same), you have booms and busts, all right.

      So, the United Kingdom wasn't impacted by shipping most of their gold assets to the US in order to pay for the First World War?

      And I suppose Fisk's engineering of the original Black Friday was a minor glitch which only affected New York City?

      And major gold discoveries (or looting) in South and Central America didn't create a centuries-long inflationary cycle in Spain, did it?

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    15. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I understand it, the original intent of the Constitution was something along the lines of "this is a list of things the federal government is allowed to do, and if it's not mentioned here, they can't do it." So it's not an explicit bar against prohibiting gold ownership; it's probably that they couldn't bend the interpretation of one of their granted powers far enough to fit the gold ban into it.

      Of course, IANAL, so take my oversimplified guess with a grain of salt. ;)

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    16. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by nickname29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you're not laundering money or evading taxes

      I want to differ with you. I like confidentiality between me and my doctor and me and my lawyer. I do not see why the relationship should be any different than with your banker. Is confidentiality an outdated concept?

      I simply hate the new laws in my country (under the banner of fighting money laundering â" even when the head of the police is a known mobster and fckall is done). Why should the bank give the government my municipal bill each 6 months? Why should my banker tell the government where I live? Why should the bank give all the details of my account to the government if I make a deposit or withdrawal of more than R10,000 ($1000)? Why must a bank and the government have the ability to freeze my bank account indefinitely for no good reason (without any charge or complaint)? That last situation happened to me and it fucked me over good. I had to borrow money because the bank decided to freeze my account without informing me (they did it twice).

      I think I would prefer a world where the relationship between me and my wife, doctor, librarian, lawyer, banker, etc⦠have nothing to do with the government.

    17. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by afabbro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word.

      You mean "for all intents and purposes". Perhaps observations on the state of language are not your strong suit.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    18. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Purple+Screws · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How so? There isn't anything in the Constitution saying "Congress is here to pass laws, but NOT laws that will piss off gold-standard people". I'm genuinely curious about this, where in the Constitution does it bar this?

      No, that's the wrong question. The right question is, "Where in the Constitution is Congress given the power to pass such laws?" The Constitution defines precisely what the powers of Congress are. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Go read the Tenth Amendment again.

      The Bill of Rights, and later amendments that restrict Congressional power, do tend to confuse people, because they take power away from Congress rather than granting it. Remember that those restrictions apply in addition to the restriction that Congress stay within its Constitutionally delegated powers. That's made explicit by the Ninth Amendment, so maybe you should go read that one again too.

      There is no clause saying that congress MUST pass constitutional laws,

      Um... besides Article Six?

      the Executive branch's veto power exists to make sure Congress stays within constitutional bounds, and if that fails SCoTUS. As a secondary feature, the voters have the power to raise a huff and remove these people.

      Yes, we have checks and balances partly to help enforce the Constitution. That doesn't make, say, the passing of the Sedition Act any less illegal. The fact that the other branches of government are watching over their shoulders does not excuse Congress from their responsibility to obey the supreme law of the land.

    19. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL, that out of the way:

      Actually states rights have been continually marginalized(especially since the Civil War), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the Civil War and several civil rights movements have proven. Federal (congressional) law also trumps state laws, not visa versa, this is implicit in the Consitution (both original, and amended), bringing this to just an issue of "May Congress do thus".

      Looking at Article 1, section 8, I could perceive outlawing gold to be along with "providing for the common defense and general welfare.", or along the lines of "regulating commerce... between states". Reading Article 1 I don't find any implicit statement saying "congress may do nothing but the things listed here", or "congress has the right to make federal laws, but not involving gold". So far I don't see the lack of constitutionality.

      I'll give you Article 6, though. You are correct.

      As for the 10th Amendment... Yes, this would give some ground, but... this can be seen as, as stated, providing for the general welfare, or regulating commerce, and this a power invested in the US Gov't, making the 10th moot.

      The Bill of Rights, and later amendments that restrict Congressional power, do tend to confuse people, because they take power away from Congress rather than granting it. Remember that those restrictions apply in addition to the restriction that Congress stay within its Constitutionally delegated powers. That's made explicit by the Ninth Amendment, so maybe you should go read that one again too.

      Looking at my copy of the Constitution, I notice phrases along the lines of "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" (Amend.XIII Sec.2) more than "congress shall not pass laws along x lines". The above quote, notice, explicitly limited states rights (slavery) in favor of federal bans. Roughly half of the amendments go along the same stripe, limiting states right (mostly to enfranchisement).

      I don't agree with the law criminalizing gold ownership, but not on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, since I don't see how it was. It was a stupid law for other reasons.

      Its amazing how much the constitution is like literary criticism, there are various readings, and various historical contexts that we can take head of, depending on what point we want to present.

      Again, IANAL, or constitutional scholar, I just so happen to have bought a copy for my reference library the other day for such cases.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    20. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually states rights have been continually marginalized(especially since the Civil War), which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the Civil War and several civil rights movements have proven.

      It's not necessarily a good thing, either. It was the right of the Vermont militia to stop the federal troops at the border when they came to enforce the fugitive slave act a couple of years before the civil war, for one example. It's the right of the state of California to let medical marijuana patients take their medicine without harassment, for another example. Since Lincoln overthrew the Republic, states have had no power to resist federal encroachment on their citizens' liberty.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    21. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a US citizen, or an economist, or some financial genius, so feel free to ignore the following:

      Summary:
      Right now the USA is like a casino where the rest of the world uses its casino chips to buy and sell food, oil, services. Can you not see the advantage for the USA? Why should they want to switch to the gold standard, or any other standard? That would be stupid for them.

      Details:
      The US Dollar as a global trading currency, that's _controlled_ by the USA is a good thing for the USA.

      Because what that means is all the countries around the have to keep reserves of US dollars to buy and sell stuff - like _petroleum_ for instance.

      So you have trillions of US dollars, outside the USA, in _foreign_ hands.

      Whenever the US Gov decides to print more US Dollars, it in effect taxes ALL the other countries in the world holding billions of US dollars, and countries lending the US Gov money in _USD_. Because their USD becomes worth less, and therefore they become _poorer_.

      It takes time for the countries to change their prices in USD e.g. random Chinese stuff will still cost USD19.95 for a few months or more, so in that time the USA can still buy the same amount.

      It is thus easier for the US to retain its position in the rich-poor country hierachy.

      In contrast if my country's gov decided to print more of its own currency - its citizens would become poorer, the rest of the world would just laugh and very quickly adjust the exchange rates, then any loans in foreign currencies will become more expensive to pay back, foreign stuff will be more expensive to import nearly overnight.

      Thus as long as the USD is the defacto trading currency and the US Gov gets to control it, the USA gets a free ride and can print USD with relative freedom.

      There are other ways the US prints money - The USA buys goods from Japan, China, Mexico etc, and pays them in USD. If it does not have enough USD, it issues IOUs and sells them to Japan, China et all, who buy it with USD they just got from the USA (Japan etc use the rest of the dollars to buy wheat, oil, other commodities).

      It may appear a strange system, but it has worked reasonably well for quite a while.

      IMO, trouble is the USA has spent a fair amount of the printed dollars in recent wars, so there is a massive "leakage" out of that system, making other countries more likely to notice the USD isn't quite worth so much, and thus forced to change their prices.

      A possibly unrelated note ;). Consider that Iraq started selling oil in euros, the US took it over and Iraq is back to selling oil in USD. Now Iran is selling oil in euros... Saudi Arabia the top friend of the USA has stuck to selling oil in USD.

      --
    22. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      The right question is, "Where in the Constitution is Congress given the power to pass such laws?"

      Right next to where it mentions interstate highways and aviation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say that "states' rights" is actually a misnomer. People have rights, and states have powers which are delegated to them by the people. The important thing about the states' rights doctrine is that it served to limit the concentration of power in the federal government. In my view, power is intrinsically dangerous, like radioactivity. Let too much of it get concentrated, and the results are lethal.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    24. Re:Damn, was an easy way to buy gold... by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about fiat money that isn't backed by any government at all?

      I'm referring to the Iraqi Dinar that had a picture of Saddam Hussein, and is still currently in use in Iraq even today.

      What surprised a bunch of economists with that money was that mild deflation occurred in the Iraqi economy after the 2003 Iraqi-USA war. Of course one of the interesting things was that the "presses" that made the money were no longer operating, so the overall money supply wasn't expanding and gave surprising stability to that currency. Attempts to introduce a new currency in Iraq were in fact not very well received.

      Yeah, I know this is an historical exception, but it is an interesting reaction when the government that issues the currency collapses, and what the real value a fiat currency actually has. Money in any form is really whatever those who have it think it may be worth, including those who may want to exchange it for other stuff.

      Virtual currencies in on-line games is another example of fiat currency that surprisingly isn't even issued by governments at all, yet can carry real-world exchange rates and be used to purchase real-world items. I could go on with this point, but what I'm trying to suggest is that money is a much deeper abstract concept that a great many people don't really appreciate.

  4. Hit the limit by Jadware · · Score: 5, Funny

    The police found out when their gold maxed to 2147483647. Everyone knows glitchers get caught.

  5. eGold now, Paypal next? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFA:

    In harmony with this transformation, we acknowledge that e-gold is indeed a Financial Institution or Agency as defined in US law and should be regulated as a Financial Institution. E-gold Ltd.

    Nw if the federal authorities could get the same concession from PayPal......

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by stry_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.

    2. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by tokul · · Score: 3, Informative

      eGold works with bogus money and is backed by claims of company that it has that amount of gold in safe. Gold standard died more than 50 years ago.

      PayPal works with real money.

    3. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by darjen · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you mean, eGold works with bogus money? How is US currency "real money" any more than using gold as money?

    4. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, I don't know how eGold operates, so there may be a valid point here that I'm not getting...

      But I'm rather confused by what you say. Yes, the gold standard is dead -- that is, gold is not the underpinning of federal currency. However, it remains legal to trade in gold. You can even go to the bank and buy a gold coin (or several) if you care to. (Well, you can if you have that much money sitting around...)

      So it's not clear to me what you're saying is wrong with eGold. They (claim to) hold assets in gold, and use that gold to back transactions... so what?

    5. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.

      I've seen advice to never leave significant amounts of money in a paypal account (or occasionally even a bank account that paypal knows about), because they occasionally lock it or take it away and make this hard to fix. Does this mean that these stories and whatever prompted them will go away?

    6. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by scipiodog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry they will. e-gold was just smaller and didn't have good enough lawyers. Now that they've got a precedent set, the government will turn its attention towards paypal. The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.

      While I do agree with you, I think there's more to this than just regulation.

      The US government (actually the Federal Reserve but by extension their lackeys in the government) is terrified of "competing currencies."

      They come down especially hard on physical currencies, ie. Gold/Silver. Look at the recent attack on the "Liberty Dollar," for an example.

      At the risk of provoking the ire of the anti-Ron Paul people, he's been talking about exactly this for some time.

      Of course, it's quite possible that there actually was money laundering going on (it sounds like there was.) My point is just that these chaps weren't taken down because a) they were too small and didn't have good lawyers or b) just because they were laundering money. If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

      --
      http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
    7. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      US dollars are backed by nothing but the whims of the federal reserve, and it's this very fact that has brought about America's current financial predicament.

      Citation, please.

      Some economists believe that America's current financial predicament was brought about by deregulation of the banking system, allowing banks to create currency by lending far more than they owned. Some economists believe that the current predicament is due to huge federal budget deficits. Some economists believe the current predicament is due to trade imbalance. I'm sure there are other theories out there.

      However, a gold standard is not some magical cure to ecnonomic woes, it carries its own host of problems... and the biggest problem is that it removes the ability to correct for currency valuation issues.

      E-Gold holds audited stocks of gold to the value of its deposits, which is a far safer store of wealth than the US dollar.

      Gold is a commodity, and thus is not a safer store of wealth than currency -- if anything, it is less safe, since there are fewer controls over the world supply of gold then there are over the supply of currency. Apples to oranges -- one cannot compare a commodity to a currency, they are by nature two different things.

      If you really want to consider the problems of a gold standard, look to history. There are reasons the gold standard was abandoned, and no protestations by any number of goldbugs will change the fact that a commodity-backed currency leads to frequent boom-and-bust cycles that are devastating to economies.

      The current system is not perfect, but a commodity-backed currency is a nightmare we should not revisit.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by thealsir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And an effectively oil-backed currency is different how?

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    9. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PayPal works with real money.

      PayPal works with electronic accounting. PayPal employees very most likely handle little, if any, of their customer's money at all. Any money handling is done at the incidental periphery of the transaction involving PayPal, but not by PayPal directly.

      This was the heart of PayPal's defense in New York and Louisiana that they were not a bank, in part because they did not hold or handle customer's money directly.

      Having said that, I think PayPal should be investigated for allowing fraudulent activity to pesist through their services. I don't have a PayPal account and refuse to.

    10. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And an effectively oil-backed currency is different how?

      You answered your own question with your qualifier. The USD is not oil-backed... if anything, it is backed by one thing only: trust.

      Effectively the US earns 1-2% annually by nature of the USD being the world's reserve currency. The fact that oil is priced in dollars (for now, anyway) contributes to this. The biggest factor, however, is the fact that the USD is relatively inflation-resistant. This is not because it is effectively oil-backed (and I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, anyway -- USD cannot be redeemed for oil with the organization that prints it), but because of the Federal Reserve's actions to maintain a low level of inflation... i.e., a fiat-based currency.

      What maintains trust in the dollar is the idea that the US will maintain low inflation.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen a theory that the reason for invading Iraq was that in late 2000 Saddam switched to using the Euro. Iran's promoting the same switch, and the talk of war with them keeps popping up.

      Scarily enough, that makes more sense than most every other theory for the 'real reason for invading Iraq'. Either I need to get some tinfoil, or the world is really that convoluted.

    12. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by timster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, US Dollars are backed by (some) gold and (mostly) US Treasury bonds held by the Federal Reserve. US Treasury bonds are backed by the federal government, which has met its obligations to its creditors consistently for a long time through its unlimited power of taxation over the entire US economy.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    13. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've seen a theory that the reason for invading Iraq was that in late 2000 Saddam switched to using the Euro. Iran's promoting the same switch, and the talk of war with them keeps popping up.

      Yep. It's actually a theory backed by Ron Paul. This the speech where he presented it to the House in 2006: The End of Dollar Hegemony.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    14. Re:eGold now, Paypal next? by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government can't stand to have any "unregulated" exchange of goods, services, or capital.

      Like, say, cash. I really feel that the government would eliminate currency in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. Millions of cash transactions take place every day between private citizens, and the government would dearly love to have a piece of the action (as in taxes) as well as the information (who sold what to whom, and when, and why). Not to mention the IRS. (If I pay my neighbor $20 to clean my gutters because I cannot, or he gives me $50 for my old grill when I get a new one, that's income and we're supposed to be honest and report it! Yeah, right...) Cash transactions with businesses are a bugaboo, too, as the government can't easily track your purchases or link you to them. The powers that be are very upset when they can't snoop into your financial affairs.

      The trend away from cash is slow, but steady. The marketplace helps: we have things like the Green Dot debit cards pushed on the lower classes, painting cash as "old fashioned," inconvenient and risky to carry around. Many government payments at all levels, like welfare/unemployment/etc. are now being paid to people not in the form of a check, but on reloadable debit cards. And the fearmongers are doing a great job associating large cash transactions with crime and terrorism -- obviously if you use an untraceable form of payment, you must have something to hide. Just try paying for an airline ticket in cash, or any large transaction (car, etc.) and you will set off at the very least raised eyebrows, and in some cases alarm bells. You can't even purchase above a certain amount in money orders at the post office now without them having to get more details from you (what they are for, where they are going, etc.). The government would adore having every single financial transaction done electronically so that every cent you spend and the recipients of your payments are trackable.

      I own no plastic, save for an ATM card, and make all my purchases in cash. It's just a matter of time before this brands me as an "enemy of the state..."

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  6. US doesn't want anyone moving from the dollar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They go after these egold folks and the liberty dollar folks because they don't want market forces to be able to leave the growing worthless dollar.

    Also bet that Iran will be attacked not for WMDs but because they refuse to trade oil in dollars. These dollar monopolies are one of the few things propping up the dollar and allowing the warfare and welfare state to over-promise.

    I bet the vast majority of these gold trades were not for child exploitation and laundering. They want to be able to run the printing presses 24/7 and they don't want anyone to be able to leave the US dollar.

    1. Re:US doesn't want anyone moving from the dollar by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, the fresh smell of slashdot paranoia in the morning. Are you suggesting that the only reason the dollar is worth anything is because of oil? Think about this: the WORLD spends 3.7 trillion dollars on oil a year (2008 estimate). The US produces $13 trillion worth of stuff each year. Even if suddenly everyone tried to get rid of their petrodollars at the same instant, it would not destroy the dollar (hurt it, yes, but not destroy it). There is much more to the US economy than the 'power of the dollar.' There is real production going on there.

      Consider this: is the Euro safer? No, remember that the European bankers didn't change the interest rates this month because of inflation worries.

      Furthermore, you are making a very bold accusation here, that the US will attack for such a small reason. Why not attack Venezuela then, or Columbia, for that matter, when an attack on either place would reward us greatly?

      --
      Qxe4
  7. uh-oh by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heard a rattling in my dryer, opened it up and a quarter fell out. Does this mean I'll be doing a nickel upstate? I knew a guy doing a Susan B. Anthony for movie piracy.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:uh-oh by Scutter · · Score: 4, Funny

      I knew a guy doing a Susan B. Anthony for movie piracy.

      What, he was supposed to do 100 years, but only did 25 because the warden didn't look close enough?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  8. Ironic? by absent_speaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ironically, one of the reasons that contributed to Flooz's demise in 2001 was rampant money laundering."

    That's really just coincidental.

  9. Re:but... by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right.

  10. Re:e-Gold...teh new flooze? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Informative
    I know I'm feeding an OT poster, but I have the urge, so:

    As of today, December XX 2004

    So then, you've been reposting a post originally written nearly four years ago, just because it irks you that Roland is capitalizing on his /. submissions? You know, there are much more serious things to get worked up about, why don't you choose a few and make yourself useful? And FYI, you can aways go to your /. prefs page and opt out of RP's stories, and then you won't have to see them anymore.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  11. Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Last year Ron Paul introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 which would make alternate currencies legal, though not change other aspects of what you can do with currencies (e.g. money laundering would still be illegal).

    Few young people realize that until the 1964-1968 time period it was possible to bring your dollars to the government and get precious metal on demand. This gave the dollar real worth. Since that time, the government has found that it can simply make more money out of thin air and spend it on government programs to generate votes. As with any supply and demand equation, when they start running the printing presses to make more dollars, the dollars you have in you bank account become worth less. You're losing money value and the government is gaining money value, but your 'taxes' are low. One can see this in inflation charts which start to skyrocket in the 1970's, relative to decades previous. Interesting note: if we measured inflation today the way we used to back then, our inflation rate would be 11%.

    The Wall Street Journal recently ran a graph showing the value of the dollar vs. gold vs. oil. If we look at the start of the decade until now, if we were holding euros instead of dollars, gas would only be about $2.70 at the pump - that extra $1.30 can be viewed as lost power of the dollar. But, the euro is no panacea either - if you compare the price of gas to the price of gold, it's nearly flat. How about $1.20 gas? I actually saw $5 diesel in CT last weekend.

    Not surprisingly, the government decided to stop keeping track of 'M3', or the money supply of the dollar recently. Private economists have continued the calculations and it's easy to see why the government doesn't want to talk about it.

    So, back to the beginning, the government has taken irresponsible action with the way it manages the value of its currency, and they have laws preventing people from opting out of their mismanagement. Afraid of a little competition, are they? Experience shows that the most likely effect of competing currencies, even ones that mimic the way the government operated in your parents' generation, would be to pressure the government to exercise some restraint. Of course, if this competition is illegal, they'll continue with their outrageous devaluation.

    Folks who think a little competition helps to keep markets fair, and monopolies hurt them, would do well to contact their representatives in government about the aforementioned bill.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Few young people realize that until the 1964-1968 time period it was possible to bring your dollars to the government and get precious metal on demand..."

      All that meant, of course, is that you could bring a dollar bill to the bank and get four quarters in change. Big deal.

      You can still exchange your dollars for precious metal at the local coin shop, by the way.

    2. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with tying money to scarce resources is that it doesn't allow for any growth. To grow your economy, you have to first mine the gold, and then print the money. You have to pay the miners, of course, which means that over time, you'll use up all of the gold resources which are profitable. This isn't like oil, where consumption of the good forces more difficult extraction techniques to become profitable through sheer scarcity. Rather, in a system like this, you simply must not use up your gold, or else your currency strengthens to the point where you can no longer use it.

      You eventually hit a plateau on your currency. Meanwhile, your population is expanding, new technologies are giving people new things to spend money on, and pretty soon, your economy implodes.

      Worse, if we're trading with countries that don't use gold-backed systems, there are a whole slew of other problems.

      That's not to say that the current system works--it doesn't. Eventually, the current system will break down, too. But going to a currency which is backed by precious metals is not going to help things, either. Economies need to be able to expand.

    3. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that basing a currency on the supply of an arbitrary resource is just as foolish, if not more so?

      The reason people abandoned the gold standard was because of two things:
      - random hits to the valuation of a currency due to influx of more resources
      - static size of economy.

      People who pine for the days of the gold standard either never lived through the problems, or have forgotten all about them.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by areReady · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A gold-backed dollar is every bit as illusory as a non-backed dollar. The only thing that makes ANY currency worth ANYTHING is that people are willing to accept it and be sure they will be able to spend it themselves. Gold is no more immune to this than paper dollars in the United States - unless the fact that gold is shiny and malleable makes it carry more intrinsic value. The only reason gold has any value is that we assign it value, which exactly why money has value.

      People who think returning to a gold-backed dollar would be in any way useful lack some extraordinarily basic economic education. If we were sticking to gold-backed dollars right now, gold's value would plummet just as much as the dollar's.

    5. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by numbsafari · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny...

      On a serious note: do we really want the tax dollars of our government being spent on maintaining and distributing massive amounts of gold so that ma an' pa can hide it under their bed?

    6. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by u38cg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pegging the value of money to the value of metal is stupid. Metal only has the value that we assign to it, and there's no practical difference between saying "This banknote is worth $1000" and "This piece of gold is worth $1000". As for the government printing money to pay its bills, look at Zimbabwe. Inflation, in small doses, is a good thing because it encourages you to use your money rather than hide it under the mattress where it loses value. And as for comparing inflation to serious decades, try going back several hundred or thousand years rather than basing them off the post-Depression years, and then talk to me about pegging currencies to precious metals.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by dhovis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Few young people realize that until the 1964-1968 time period it was possible to bring your dollars to the government and get precious metal on demand. This gave the dollar real worth.

      To paraphrase Terry Prachett: "This was true, so long as nobody actually asked for it." The government NEVER had enough gold on hand to back every single dollar in circulation. The last time I had a friend insist that we should be on the gold standard, I did a quick back of the envelope calculation. If you took all the refined gold in the world, all of it, and used it to back the US dollar only, then the price of gold would have to skyrocket to something like $2,000/oz. This assumes that the price would not go up as you try to buy more gold. There simply isn't enough gold, and the rate of gold production was not keeping up with economic growth in the US and around the world.

      Further, I don't understand people who think that the rate of inflation should be pegged solely to the rate of gold mining. Gold isn't particularly rare in the earth's crust, but it is costly to extract. If someone were to develop new technology that extracted gold at significantly cheaper prices, your currency would collapse. This isn't unprecedented. Remember that aluminum was once considered a precious metal until Charles Martin Hall developed an inexpensive electrolytic process for extracting it. From what I hear, there is a new technology coming down the pipe to bring the price of extracting titanium down to the level of aluminum. If something similar happened to gold, a gold-backed currency would be destroyed. In an economy with a fiat currency, you'd just start using the new, cheap gold as a good roofing material.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    8. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by barnackle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know this is not the main thrust of the comment, but it's not practical for money to be backed by gold, diamonds, beads, or fragments of mirrors. Money is backed by what you can buy with it. Then, you say, "what if the economy collapses and no one trusts the dollar anymore?" Well, I don't know about you, but I can't eat gold. Or any other precious metal for that matter. "But you can use the gold to buy food." Ah, only because people trust gold as having value while paper money doesn't. Stepping back a step further, each seems to me to be about as useful as the other for its intrinsic physical properties.

      But I got off track. The main reason precious metals don't make sense as money is the fact that they don't account for the growth of the economy. To simplify things, let's create a little thought experiment and take it to the extreme. What happens when there is no more gold left to pile up in Fort Knox? Does the economy stop growing at that instant? No. People continue to innovate and create value out of nothing using only their minds and bodies. What do we do then? Switch to another precious metal of which we have more? Switch to commodities?

      Or we can just trust eachother. You make something cool and sell it to someone. I make something cool and you use the money you got in your last transaction to buy my cool thing off me. We're just bartering in a huge pool with a little bit of paper to smooth the process.

      To address the concerns of the last poster, all we can do is try to be as transparent as possible. And even then, the economy knows what's happening. The government increases the money supply and the inflation numbers will show it, whether they tell us or not. Just like with anything else we buy and sell. Increase supply and the money value of each individual unit drops.

    9. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Last year Ron Paul introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 which would make alternate currencies legal, though not change other aspects of what you can do with currencies (e.g. money laundering would still be illegal).

      This is the sort of meaningless drivel that marks Ron Paul and his supporters as kooks.

      Today, you are most certainly not obliged to use US dollars. You can use any currency you wish, provided the other party in the transaction agrees. You can take payments in beans, Swiss francs, gold or oil. Many US banks are happy to let you have an account in a foreign currency.

      The only case where you are required to take US cash is for payment of a USD debt (that's the "legal tender" statement you see on USD bills).

      In US states near the Canadian border, you will often see Canadian quarters, nickels & dimes, since they look very similar to US coins and have almost exactly the same value (1 USD is about 1 CAN).

      Few young people realize that until the 1964-1968 time period it was possible to bring your dollars to the government and get precious metal on demand.

      So? Why is gold valuable? It does have some intrinsic industrial value, but the majority of the price of gold is because people think it's valuable. Why do they think it's valuable? Because it's pretty and shiny and people think it's valuable. It's self-fulfilling. It's valuable because people think it is. The degree to which people think something is valuable varies from time to time. iphones seem to be the currency of choice these days.

      The gold standard does prevent some economic problems from occurring, but causes many others. These are well known and have been studied to death by economists.

      Since that time, the government has found that it can simply make more money out of thin air and spend it on government programs to generate votes.

      Government mismanagement & incompetence is not something that only occurs with fiat money.

    10. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by DougWebb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you took all the refined gold in the world, all of it, and used it to back the US dollar only, then the price of gold would have to skyrocket to something like $2,000/oz.

      Actually, you've just figured out a ballpark figure of how much the dollar has been devalued since we left the gold standard, when the value of the dollar was set at 1/20th of an oz of gold, eg: 1oz Gold = $20.

      Another example I once read was that 1oz of gold, at $20, used to be enough to buy a very nice suit. Today, with 1oz of gold costing ~$900, it's still enough to buy a very nice suit. The value of the gold and the suit haven't changed much, it's the dollars that are worth less.

      If we wanted to go back onto the gold standard, then yeah, we'd have to divide the number of dollars in circulation by the ounces of gold the government has left, and that'd be the exchange rate. It's probably not too far from $900/oz, which the gold-trading market has already set as a fair exchange rate between gold and US dollars. You got the order of magnitude right; you were only off by a factor of two.

      Gold isn't particularly rare in the earth's crust, but it is costly to extract. If someone were to develop new technology that extracted gold at significantly cheaper prices, your currency would collapse. This isn't unprecedented.

      Another example is what happened to Spain after they discovered Central and South America. Extracting gold from the natives was significantly cheaper than mining it themselves, and their economy went nuts for a while due to all of the surplus gold they imported.

    11. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      random hits to the valuation of a currency due to influx of more resources

      Sure, if by "random" you mean "not controlled by the Federal Reserve". The U.S. dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the Fed was created and a deliberate policy of continual inflation instituted. The rate of inflation has itself varied quite a bit from year to year as well. Compared to the post-1913 dollar gold commodity currencies are an absolute paragon of both short- and long-term stability, with "gold standard" systems somewhere in between. The limited periods of disruption in that stability can all be directly traced to either natural disasters or man-made ones, typically in the form of government intervention and/or massive fraud by banks.

      static size of economy

      Not a problem.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    12. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by squarooticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Continue my thought experiment, then, into the future so far that each atom of gold is worth, say, a galaxy class starship. But what if I want to exchange my pocket change for gold? I guess I just get a quark or two shaved off of a gold bar?

      LOL... indeed, this is a problem I have considered, but that's a looooong way off. :-)

      There's another reason not to worry about it: even taking into account population growth and a vast increase in the amount of gold and silver mined over the past 700 years, the "value" of gold and silver in terms of what a particular amount buys has remained relatively stable over that period.

      For example, see the following graph, paying particular attention to the nominal price/gallon of gasoline:

      http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price.jpg

      Until the 70's, gasoline was stable between $0.25 and $0.35/gallon. When Nixon withdrew from the Bretton Woods accord in 1971, closing the gold exchange window, oil suddenly became more expensive and never looked back.

      Here's a graph of some measure of consumer prices. I have no idea how accurate this is, but I'm most interested in its demonstration of how stable prices were for a long time, until the final gold backing for the dollar was removed:

      http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/images/0106_1.gif

      Anyway, there's a lifetime of reading out there about money. The best way to start IMO is to read Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to our Money?", available for free.

      --
      [ home ]
    13. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by Hugonz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Today, you are most certainly not obliged to use US dollars. You can use any currency you wish, provided the other party in the transaction agrees. You can take payments in beans, Swiss francs, gold or oil.

      False. The government will not enforce such a payment and will enforce payment in legal tender instead, at the rate its courts determine. Also it will accuse you of money laundering, and you will not be able to pay into its coffers in anything other than USD.

    14. Re:Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007 by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a commodity, the supply of gold via mining is self-regulating. If the price of gold is higher than the cost of mining it (per unit mass) then mining will continue until the price decreases--or the cost increases--such that mining is no longer profitable. In the long run, mining gold is no more or less profitable than any other enterprise. The "commodity producers" thus don't bother me; under normal circumstances they have no incentive, or even ability, to flood the market with newly-mined gold.

      As for the commodities market, anyone can play at that. If you feel you're overextended on cash -- which is what gold would be under a gold commodity currency -- then trade for some other commodity to distribute your risk. In any event, under a gold currency there wouldn't be a significant gold commodity market -- you'd just be trading gold for gold, which is kind of pointless. The only fluctuations would be in the value of refining and/or minting, not the gold itself.

      The only groups that have traditionally been involved in manipulating the supply of gold are governments and their close allies, national central banks. Their actions with respect to commodity currencies are at least limited to the amount of such currencies they actually possess; these are, after all, the same groups that have complete control over the supply of fiat currency. Your options for controlling intervention in the money supply are exactly the same under a commodity currency as under a fiat one.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  12. PayPal IS registered... by nweaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    PayPal IS registered: See Paypal Liscencing page.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:PayPal IS registered... by mybecq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quite a few states missing from that list.

      Generally they are listed as being registered for "Money Transmission" or "Sales of Checks".

      Not the same thing as a depository institution.

  13. Re:Could someone IN the west indies step in plz? by numbsafari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Money laundering is a form of aiding and abetting a criminal act. It is basically a catch-all law for various kinds of fraud that are committed with the express purpose of hiding the source of funds either because they were illegally obtained or because they weren't declared for taxation purposes.

    Very often when someone commits money laundering they are falsifying other financial documents in an illegal manner. Also, in many cases there are persons charged with money laundering who had nothing to do with the original commission of the source crime. So, it's not just a "pile on", very often its a specific act of fraud someone commits.

    It's kinda unclear to me how this shouldn't be illegal. But then, based on the last sentence of your comment you seem to not believe in government and so there is no such thing as "illegal".

  14. If you didnt RTFA... by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 5, Interesting

    E-gold is an online currency service that is backed up by gold. You cannot buy directly from them though, you have to buy through a redistributor, some of which are questionable and only takes certain forms of payment. The nature of the having a third party buy from egold and then sell to another person creates a web of denial effect for money launderes. One of the largest schemes e-gold is used for is in the credit card theft hacker rings, where it is easy to get credit card info, it is harder to "cash out". This is where "cashiers" come in, usually charging a 50 point take on cashing out for someone else. Egold, since it was in a different country, denies US Government requests for transaction records for accounts. E-gold may be in trouble, but for every e-gold there is another replacement, e-platinum, webmoney, and large handful of others. Oh yeah, btw, I didnt RTFA either, I just thought Id share what I know about e-gold, and I might be wrong about some of it.

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
  15. Good riddance! by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    e-gold has tried spam as a marketing tool. When they stopped that, other spammers started following suit, phishing for account info--and e-gold's response was always "it's not our problem."

    They've been actively aiding money laundering, and claiming they can't control what their customers do. Even now, Douglas Jackson is talking about fixing the flaws in an otherwise good system--despite the fact that he's likely going to jail for a few years.

    e-gold is a dirty operation run by dirty crooks. It should be buried deep underground, and the gold reserves (if they really exist) used for something constructive.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  16. Where's the anon online cash, then? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For whatever reason, there are times when people pay cash and have no desire to reveal who they are to the folks with whom they are doing business. (I used to relish, back in the day, going to Radio Shack and refusing to give them my zip or other information as long as I was paying cash. They thought I was weird. I thought being forced to identify myself to buy batteries was just too stupid to put up with.)

    So is there any way to anonymously pay for things online? I can think of only one: buy a pre-paid credit card for cash and use it online. Non-reloadable gift cards can be purchased for cash and activated for use online under any name you can think up; there's no verification.

    However, that method is inconvenient. Do the slashdot hordes know of a better, easier way that remains anonymous?

    1. Re:Where's the anon online cash, then? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess I assumed most everyone was familiar with the way they used to work. Let me be a tad more verbose, then. A long time ago, Radio Shack wanted a full name and address for every purchase. If you refused that (and later, after people reacted badly to them asking for everything) they started just asking for a zip code. Thus, I always refused "to give them my zip or other information ... to identify myself..."

      Clear? If not, feel free to insert your own example. You must know at least one person who does something like swapping their loyalty cards with other people just to screw up the databases of the merchants. Some of us value privacy, even in the little things.

  17. Throw a dart at the periodic table by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I and many many others will take gold any day as it is more likely to keep its value than most anything else you can name.

    I could say the same thing about any element on the periodic table. Point to any metal on the periodic table and you would have exactly as compelling an argument. We're not making any new platinum or copper either and both are equally useful in a practical sense as gold. Personally I find oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen to be FAR more valuable than gold. Perhaps you don't like breathing or food?

    Gold is a fine asset to own but thinking of it primarily as money belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between money and value. I suspect that gold will remain a desirable asset well into the future but I don't expect it to be a better source of value than any number of other metals.

    1. Re:Throw a dart at the periodic table by bmajik · · Score: 2, Informative

      The history of metallic money is actually pretty obvious. Unlike the paper dollar, if the entire economy built on "IOUs" collapsed, a metallic based currency is still a given amount of metal, metal which can be put to a variety of uses.

      In the earliest trade & barter systems, it was inconvenient to use "cow" as the medium of exchange if you wanted to buy something that you felt was only worth half a cow. Or if your trading partner had no particular use for cows in any quantity, whole or otherwise.

      Metals on the otherhand, have some great properties for usage as currency
      - they can be melted and reshaped and reformed again and again without losing any of their worthwhile properties.
      - they can be cut (or recombined) into any size or denomination without diminishing their per-unit qualities (1/2 oz of gold is worth 1oz gold / 2. 1/2 of a cow is not necessarily worth 1 cow / 2.)
      - being elementals, there is little qualitative difference between gold from spain, gold fed grass, gold grown in sunny pastures, etc. Gold is gold. Grain, cattle, etc, all have many qualitative differences such that we can rarely say 2 cows or 2 sacks of grain are equally valuable.
      - the precious metals are exceptionally good at not oxidizing, corroding, or otherwise vanishing or decaying with age.

      Basically, precious metals can be melted and remade in any shape or denomination as many times as you want, and they never decay or expire. Even so, they retain all of the physical properties that make them useful in metallurgy, or desirable to satisfy vanity. Metallic coined money then makes a tremendous amount of sense as a currency. It is not accidental that it was instrumental in the development of market economies.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  18. Business cycles are caused by *credit* by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is, the creation and destruction of credit by banks. Banks lent fractionally on top of gold in exactly the way they do now on top of paper. Whether the currency is based on gold or paper is irrelevant with respect to business cycles, it's the debt based nature of credit and in particular fractional lending practices which are the problem there. Gold on the other hand is naturally scarce and so would restrict inflation whereas paper is not, and does not.

    HTH

     

    --
    Deleted
  19. Re:but... by johndmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Picking up on useful (to the prisoner community) trades can be beneficial to your safety as well. Jailhouse sign-language, as many gangs need people to communicate with the other tanks (50-man sectioned off units), but cannot do so themselves. Also, getting an outside trustee status can enable you to smuggle in tobacco products (or even marijuana if you're brave) with which you can both make money and friends on the inside. You'd also be surprised to find how many friends you can make by smuggling Kool-Aid and cookies from the kitchen back to the tanks, if you've been lucky enough to obtain a trustee position there. The list goes on.

  20. where do you people come from? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its like talking to someone from some weird parallel universe without any foundation in reality and historical lessons. you're economics stinks of some guy in his armchair trying to figure out how his economy works without any foundation in the simple basics of economics 101. and so all of your economic prescriptives will actually only make things worse, not better

    forget the tax objectives, i won't even touch that issue, lets look at this pure insanity of going back to the gold or silver standard. for whatever reason this is attractive to you, i can't figure out

    dude: basing your currency on a previous metal leads to bank panics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

    the value of the metal fluctuates, and this is amplified through the value of the currency, causing much destabilization of financial systems and society. study the bank panics of the 1800s. LEARN from history. getting OFF the gold and silver standard was the wisest economic development of the last 200 years

    the best i reason why i can think that armchair crackpots believe a currency backed by silver or gold is somehow superior is that you think it lends the currency some sort of intrinsic value. which is lunacy: gold and silver have no intrinsic value. the only reason they have "value", is because everyone else thinks they do! well, this same value-from-social-convention also lends currency itself value. except it is far better to attach your notion of what is valuable to manmade currency, as this can be controlled. but if someone finds a bunch of silver in the ground, the value of the silver in your pocket goes down

    which is kind of funny, because i think you armchair economics crackpots believe that just printing more money is a source of your currency being devalued... and so you find your supposed protection from this printing of more currency in the form of placing value in something which has much more exposure to fluctuation in value due to forces beyond your control. your willing to give up the stability of a currency, enforced by a careful central bank, to the whims of commodities markets and mining concerns. insane!

    but that reveals the REAL reason why you economic crackpots love the gold and silver standard: you detest centralized government. individualism, federalism, etc.: these are all noble concepts. but embracing the gold and silver standard takes a healthy instinct and turns into a pathological fear of government, good or bad

    this is the truth, whether you like it or not: you are part of a human society. a currency is something that is only valued in the convention of human society. in other words, attempting to ensure value in something out of the only context in which it has value, is a mixture of stupidity and insanity, and reveals your blind spot in life: YOU are part of a society, and you don't understand it, or pathologically attmept to deny it

    any money you have is nothing more than an abstract representation of your relationship with the society you live in. as such, there is no way you get to keep that value in such a way that means you are invulernable to the ups and downs of that same society's relative richness or poorness. you cannot divorce the value of currency from the government and soceity you distrust, fear, or despise, because currency is and always will be (even when it is gold and silver) merely nothing more than an abstract representation that you live in a human group, not on an island, and are subject to its government

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:where do you people come from? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is the truth, whether you like it or not: you are part of a human society. a currency is something that is only valued in the convention of human society...any money you have is nothing more than an abstract representation of your relationship with the society you live in.

      They know they live in a society. The reason they want to get it out of the government's hands is because without a backed currency, the government can alter the value of money legislatively and at whim. If the money is backed by something, any individual or group is limited in its ability to affect the value of money by how much of that money they control, how many dollars they actually have in hand.

      So the issue with them is not that gold is intrinsically valuable (not entirely anyway), but that having your currency backed by something makes it less manipulable. As I said, they know good and well that they live in a society--that is the basis of their argument, that your ability to affect the economy should be proportional to how much money you actually have.

        I agree with you that the flaws of gold-backed currency are well known. I suspect that if you asked any educated person who otherwise believed in the gold standard, they would say flat out that they don't trust the federal government to regulate money. I'm not saying it's a sound argument, but I'm trying to explain why they think that way.

    2. Re:where do you people come from? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you bothered to read the article you linked to, the crash was attributed to excessive, risky loans to railroad developers (a government-backed project, BTW) coupled with insufficient reserves in the banks to cover their depositor's accounts. It had nothing to do with the choice of currency.

      The only difference today is that, instead of a few depositors losing most of their accounts, the FDIC has the Treasury print up however much new currency is required to cover the bank's lack of reserves, devaluing everyone's money by the same total amount and distributing the loss across the entire economy. The risk of investing in a low-reserve bank is thus paid by everyone, not just those who chose to accept the risk and/or failed to perform due diligence before investing.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  21. Re:bastion of criminality by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And drugs are morally objectionable, why?

    I've also been hearing that there is no statistically significant connection between CP and molestation. Of course if it really does involve violation of a child, the PRODUCER who actively perpetrated a real crime should be found. of course, that would involve buying the CP to investigate it, and possibly distributing stills of any adults present seeking identification.

    As for other "black market" banes of our existence.. there's p2p filesharing (omg the poor record executives!), and cigarettes (damn those people who want to kill theselves and not pay a 70% tax in certain states!), and of course various anonymous whistleblowing.

    I don't consider illegal to equal immoral. Governments are increasingly making things illegal with no statistical or moral basis for their claims. They just want control, and our votes are so diluted at this point that a tyranny of the majority exists. Just look at the crusade against the most open part of usenet for an example.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  22. Banks no good by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so much that anyone could save money for bad times by simply storing it in their houses, rather than at some bank, as is required now.

    You can't store your money in a bank without losing a great deal of value. You have to put it into markets to maintain your wealth.

    It's almost as if the head of an investment bank were the head of the Treasury. Wait...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  23. Show trial by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article:

    A systemic flaw in the e-gold design, present from the very beginning, made it vexingly difficult for e-gold to expel a User, in a truly effective way, for criminal abuse of the system. e-gold investigative staff might detect suspicious activity, block or freeze the offending account, and later discover the same perpetrator had created additional accounts.

    One element was logic that allowed an e-gold account full privileges from the moment of creation and only revoked those privileges in the event of suspicion that the account holder was seeking to mask their identity or actually engage in illicit activity.

    Um, systemic flaw? How about important feature? Really charming exercise in doublethink there. "We're crippling the anonymity features that made this product worth a damn in the first place, but we're going to *call* it correcting a 'flaw'".

    This is a bloody show trial, that's what it is. It's not good enough to just prosecute their victims, the Almighty State has to ensure they repent publicly, presumably on pain of being fucked over a lot harder during sentencing. "A systemic flaw in the e-gold design...". We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  24. Links by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is the way I did it the last time I did it. Another poster says this is no longer possible; I'm going to test and see for myself. But the way I used to do this was:

    Go to an Ace Cash Express store and plunk down cash for an All-Access Visa Gift card. (See the bottom of the linked page.) No questions, no ID, no nothing - you just slide $255 under the bullet-resistant glass and they slide back under the glass to you a Visa card with $250 preloaded. You can take it to any store and use it immediately. However, if you want to use it online, you then go to the All-Access card site, plug in the codes on the card, and activate the card for online use. The activation process asks for identifying information but does not verify. Obviously, if you want something delivered to your home, you'll have to plug in the correct information. However, if you're using the card to pay for something like downloadable software, you can make up anything for a name, address, phone, etc.

    Additional info: You can get the card for any amount up to $250. The cost of the card used to be $5. The card is not reloadable. Ace Cash Express sells lots of different kinds of cards and most of them are reloadable so if you're trying to buy one of these gift cards and they start asking you for identifying information, it means they're making a mistake and trying to sell you the wrong product, some sort of reloadable card. Getting the last little bit of cash out of it is difficult; I used to check the credit balance online then go buy exactly that much gas. And if you don't use it, you lose the money because the company charges a small monthly fee against the balance. I don't remember exactly how much (I think it was $5) but it's enough to eat up the balance and kill off the card, eventually.

    Note that this info is old. The fees are probably higher and the allowable balances may be lower nowadays. Due to the fees and other hassles, the card is really only worthwhile for the occasional single online purchase that you want to keep anonymous. Still, I know that it *used* to be possible to buy online, anonymously, if you were willing to put up with the hassle.

    This actually brings me 'round to my original question. Since the method described above is a bit of a hassle, does anybody have a better way to buy online and anonymously?

  25. Re:e-gold transfer agents by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's been a while since I actively used e-gold, but as I recall, unlike such brain-damaged systems as ACH, it was impossible for anyone but the account holder to initiate a transfer out. On the other hand, if you were foolish enough to hand out your account password to random people you were doing business with, well, hopefully you learned your lesson and won't do it again.

  26. Re:but... by johndmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are times which violence ensues. Perhaps one prisoner snitched on anothers' contraband locations - he'll get a bar of soap in a sock to the head or something of that nature. For those people who are just there doing their time and minding their own business, it's not so bad.

    There are a few bad eggs (more so than the rest) who are just prone to violent acts, but it is rather rare outside of maximum security facilities.

    As for "rape", aside from people who did something to justify being punished in such a way (there's an unwritten code of conduct. "honor among thieves" if you will), the only intra-prisoner sex going on is consensual.

    Bottom line, be nice, mind your own business, don't act like you're scared of everything and everyone around you, and you'll be just fine.