US Marshals Auctioning $20M Worth of Silk Road's Bitcoins

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Marshals Auctioning $20M Worth of Silk Road's Bitcoins

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @06:48AM from the all-about-the-bitjamins dept.

coondoggie writes: The U.S. Marshals office says it will auction off almost 50,000 bitcoins (about $20 million worth) seized from alleged Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht. The auction, which is the second sale of Silk Road's bitcoin collection, will take place during a 6-hour period on Dec. 4 from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. EST. Bids will be accepted by email from pre-registered bidders only, the U.S. Marshals office said. In June more than $17 million in bitcoins seized from the Silk Road take-down were auctioned off.

119 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I wish they would just auction off the drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you know how hard it is to find quality MDMA?
It's fucking impossible. Unless you want shitty speed you need a really good connection, which I sadly can't find.
1. Re:I wish they would just auction off the drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  I just want a bunch of x. Maybe work would be more bearable.
2. Re:I wish they would just auction off the drugs by fafaforza · 2014-11-18 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  The viability of Bitcoins is an inverse relationship between the ease of mining one versus obtaining quality Molly.
3. Re:I wish they would just auction off the drugs by CauseBy · 2014-11-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but dinnertime would be a drag.
Payment methods by dysmal · 2014-11-18 06:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Will they accept bitcoins?
1. Re:Payment methods by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-18 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  I'd rather buy those Bitcoins with Dogecoins at a 1:1 ratio.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 06:55 · Score: 1

He had 20 mil worth of Bitcoins? He should have sold them all himself and then fled the country.
1. Re:What a moron! by KiloByte · 2014-11-18 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He had 20 mil worth of Bitcoins? He should have sold them all himself and then fled the country.
  Unlike the US marshals, Dread Pirate Roberts has a sense of decency.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, people using his website had 20 mil in btc. Unlike the feds, DPR did not steal anyone's coins to enrich himself.
  
  The feds robbed the users of this popular eCommerce site, and pointed to archaic prohibition laws as a justification for their theft. The US government has been at war with its own citizens for far too long, and needs to be stripped of its power to harm peaceful people.
3. Re:What a moron! by Firethorn · 2014-11-18 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  Dread Pirate Roberts has a sense of decency.
  I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he'd stuck to drugs rather than attempting to hire hits(contract murders) through his own site.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
4. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Oh, that made me laugh. I can set up a website to sell handguns to convicted felons and murderers with no paperwork. To top it off, it would be 100% legal.
  You should read the law, it is amazing what you learn. For example, the working replica of an 1861 naval revolver requires no paperwork, no registration, can be sold online, and can be shipped to anywhere in the US.
  And for the record, I sold gray area items on silk road. Things that you can legally sell, however CC merchant accounts, paypal, google pay, etc. will not let you process the payments. The used of bitcoin and the anonymity of SR allowed me to make a lot of money at it.
  They sold more than drugs on silk road and there were quite a few legal/gray area items available.
5. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  That they also did legal things with it does not invalidate the illegal things they did.
6. Re:What a moron! by easyTree · 2014-11-18 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's a great source of business.
  You can't just say "you're doing it wrong" without providing a better alternative.
  Who else are they gonna rob? There are lots of US citizens.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
7. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  So we should ban cars because sometimes crimes are committed in them.
  Right?
8. Re:What a moron! by iggymanz · 2014-11-18 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  You make me laugh. Black powder revolvers are way too much of a PITA for criminals to want or use. Show me links to black powder pistol homicides after 2004...
9. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  You make me laugh. Black powder revolvers are way too much of a PITA for criminals to want or use. Show me links to black powder pistol homicides after 2004...
  Show me a link to 'military assault rifle' homicides after.... ever. PROTIP: You can't. There is none. But it if big and black, ban it.
10. Re:What a moron! by Shakrai · 2014-11-18 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I can set up a website to sell handguns to convicted felons and murderers with no paperwork.
  Actually, no, you can't. Such a website would doubtless be construed as engaging in the business of selling firearms, which requires a Federal Firearms License. FFLs are mandated to you run background checks before the transfer of any firearm. Private sellers do not face this requirement but they're still forbidden to transfer a firearm to someone that they know to be a prohibited person.
  Set up that website if you doubt me; I hear Club Fed is beautiful this time of the year....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
11. Re:What a moron! by iggymanz · 2014-11-18 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I think all guns can be assualt guns, if used to assault someone. For example, if I bean someone on the head with my black powder 1858 New Army, it becomes a Black Powder Assault Revolver. As opposed to shooting some SOB dead with it, then it's just a weapon.
12. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 16:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I had a few bitcoins stored there at the time. I am not a a US citizen, do not live in the US, nor did I purchase from anyone in the US. Yet suddenly the US government has my money. Regardless of what law they use to justify it, it certainly feels like theft.
13. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  This is not what assault rifle mean. But feel free to redefine anything the way you like; it's not like you opinion matter anyway.
14. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  That is because it is theft.
15. Re:What a moron! by BarefootClown · 2014-11-18 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Under federal law, muzzleloaders aren't classed as firearms, so A) he wouldn't be in the business, and B) the prohibition on felons wouldn't apply.
  State and local laws may vary.
  
  --
  "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
  --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
16. Re:What a moron! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 21:23 · Score: 0
  
  > Dread Pirate Roberts has a sense of decency.
  I didn't realize that hiring hitmen was "decent" these days. How quickly things change...
17. Re:What a moron! by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-11-19 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Don't feel picked on. Our federosaurus steals from Americans as readily as it does from foreigners.
18. Re:What a moron! by iggymanz · 2014-11-19 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Reading comprehension fails you, I was not offering a definition for "assault rifle". Read again.
19. Re:What a moron! by g4sy · 2014-11-20 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Really? So you're claiming that you were instead sidestepping his question, and misleading everyone into thinking you were on about actually answering his valid point? You REALLY want to make that claim?
  How can a rational human prefer to be thought a troll and a moron over just simply ignorant?
  
  --
  somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
  if(color==blue){speed--;}
20. Re:What a moron! by iggymanz · 2014-11-20 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  I was making a joke, but the limited number of actually interconnected neurons between your ears might prevent you from processing such.
But the case hasn't even started! by Chaos+Incarnate · 2014-11-18 06:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, his trial hasn't even started yet, but they're already auctioning off what they seized as part of the investigation.
There's sleazy, and then there's the U.S. Marshals.

--
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
1. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Bitcoins were deemed to be regulated as currency, and thus the remuneration the US government might owe the defendants can be delivered in US dollars, should the property not be found to be forfeit.
2. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Chaos+Incarnate · 2014-11-18 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I wasn't aware that he had agreed. That's what I get for not RingTFA.
  
  --
  Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
3. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by TheCarp · 2014-11-18 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds right to me. That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means. If I want to trade you X for Y, I can do that, but, if you owe me anything, even if its a good, I HAVE to be willing, by law, to accept payment in dollars instead....or else my claim that you owe me anything is forfeit.
  The most common example is something like a restaurant. You come in and eat. Now that you have eaten, a debt has been created, and you owe. The restaurant MUST by law accept US currency as payment for that debt. They can accept something else instead at their option but, they have to be willing to put a dollar amount on the debt and accept that.
  If you ask me though, unless he agreed to this (not sure he did) it is quite a shitty way to go about it, especially since storing the bitcoin keys can't really be seen as presenting any sort of hardship to them. Its not like its a boat the size of the QE2 that they have to dock somewhere and keep afloat.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
4. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anon-Admin · 2014-11-18 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?
  Note: I have not lived in a rented apartment in years, this may have changed. When I did live in apartments they would NEVER accept cash.
5. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by omnichad · 2014-11-18 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?
  Cash is not the only way to pay in U.S. Dollars.
6. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 07:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If it were a debt you owed, they'd be legally obligated to take it. If payment is a condition of keeping your space, it's not.
  Once they evict you, and send you a bill for past-due rent, they have to take cash.
7. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by TheCarp · 2014-11-18 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually this is an interesting question and you might need to talk to a lawyer for a real answer, as IANAL but, as I understand it US dollars must be accepted FOR DEBT. Rent, paid on time, is not debt as its for the upcoming month, then again, I would think it becomes debt after the first since most places have a built in grace period and it takes time to actually kick people out (and any landlord who kicks people out for being a day or two late will be spending a lot of months with empty apartments and have ridiculous turnover rates)
  Now OTOH whether its legal or not, I never paid rent in cash unless I was renting from my own mother. Even then, I usually gave her a check just because it was easier....and as a landlord, I always advised people that even when paying me they should prefer checks or money orders to maintain records.
  I would much rather find out I was wrong and forgot to write down that you paid me than to have a dispute we can't resolve and always have to wonder about.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
8. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by JJJJust · 2014-11-18 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  Despite what the upper level post says, there is no Federal law that imposes a general requirement to accept Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of any debt. The legal tender for all debts wording on the face of those notes is derived from Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103 ("United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."). State and local law may vary and require acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of a debt. LEGAL tender does not in and of itself mean MANDATORY tender.
  An alternative answer to your question would be that you contractually agreed to pay in certain forms and not others. The most restrictive constraint will usually control when there is a conflict between law and a contract.
9. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Zeio · 2014-11-18 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree here. This is the actions of a police state. Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?
  How does the government have standing to claim silk road DAMAGED all those buyers?
  Why doesnt the government go after Jack Ma and Alibaba? (As in they block those transactions and forbid buying off that fraud-racket-exchange)? Alibaba sells stolen fraudulent broken junk that is masqueraded as legitimate (its basically a crime mall) but we let that go and shut down silk road and seize all assets? Doesnt make sense. Criminal rackets operate eyes wide shut but it seems the Fedzilla is only angry that they couldnt collect tax off these transactions in which case he should be sued for that money.
  Total forfeiture seems out of the bounds of due process.
  
  --
  Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
10. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Bill+Dimm · 2014-11-18 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means.
  For some reason, this apparently doesn't apply to driving on roads, since Pennsylvania now has turnpike exits where you can only pay with E-ZPass.
11. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's OK, the money belonged to drug addicts, drug dealers, and potheads, who don't even count as sleaze. E.g. not people.
12. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by f3rret · 2014-11-18 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree here. This is the actions of a police state. Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?
  How does the government have standing to claim silk road DAMAGED all those buyers?
  Why doesnt the government go after Jack Ma and Alibaba? (As in they block those transactions and forbid buying off that fraud-racket-exchange)? Alibaba sells stolen fraudulent broken junk that is masqueraded as legitimate (its basically a crime mall) but we let that go and shut down silk road and seize all assets? Doesnt make sense. Criminal rackets operate eyes wide shut but it seems the Fedzilla is only angry that they couldnt collect tax off these transactions in which case he should be sued for that money.
  Total forfeiture seems out of the bounds of due process.
  ere is what I see Mr. Ulbricht thinking: "Alright so I'm sitting on 20 million worth of BTC, based on what the prosecution has stated, those 20 million dollars are MI NE and do not actually belong to other people. If I let the the feds auction off those BTC and turn them into real money, then if I beat the case I will not have to go through the hassle of finding an exchange willing to handle this much money."
  Basically, if Ullbrict can manage to beat the rap against him, then he's just used the US gov't as a bitcoin exchange.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
13. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by CastrTroy · 2014-11-18 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I can't think of a good reason why anybody would want to pay rent with cash. First, there's a big liability walking around with that much cash. Even if you're just carrying from the bank to the rental office, that's a huge amount of money to lose. Also, there's no record that the transaction took place. If I pay with a check, or using a debit card, there's a record that the money went from my account to the building management account. With cash there's no direct record. The best you can hope for is that they issue you a receipt, but even then they could say you forged it, and that they have no record of the payment. Plus, I can really understand why the building wouldn't want to take cash. Otherwise, they would have a huge amount of money on hand at the beginning of the month. They would have to take a lot of precautions to ensure that the money was not stolen.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
14. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  1) How did the USMS get the authority to sell these bitcoins?
  On January 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New York entered a Stipulation and Order for Interlocutory Sale of Bitcoins. In this order, both the United States and Ross William Ulbricht agreed that “the United States, in its sole discretion, may sell any portion or all of these bitcoins, on a date or dates and in a manner to be determined by the Government.”
  Those bastards! And who exactly is this "Ross William Ulbricht" that he thinks he can agree to sell the property of Ross William Ulbricht without Ross William Ulbricth's permission!!!!!!! Police state! Police State! Police State!
15. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You know, I'm feeling a little wary of that +4 Informative I got.
  I'm not a lawyer, and I could be misconstruing the law, which says
  
  United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
  It could be the concept of "legal tender" is way more complex than I'm giving it credit for. It's certainly the case that people have gotten in legal trouble for paying in nothing but pennies, for example.
16. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Firethorn · 2014-11-18 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?
  1. The assets aren't forfeited(yet). They're being converted to USD with Ulbricht's consent. Doing so locks down the value now, and he might manage to keep some of it.
  2. Who was damaged by the Silk Road? Well, allegedly Ulbricht tried to commission 6 murders on it.
  3. The goods were illegal, even though I disagree with them being so. Well, except when the 'goods' are contract hits and such.
  Jack Ma, being a Chinese Citizen, and Alibaba, a chinese company, would be rather hard to arrest them. Blocking them would be only very slightly easier because it'd become a matter of international treaty. As for being fraud/racket/exchange, I'd ask for citations, because as far as I'm aware it's a more direct source for cheap made in china stuff, with all the usual caveats for cheap stuff from china (buyer beware, probably lower quality than you think).
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
17. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Was there a deal? Was he forced to sell out? The government has no ability to apply pressure to people under duress right?
  Its quite possible that Ulbricht was waterboarded to get this out of him. Who will ever know.
  You seem like an agent to me.
  Looks like the police state is pulling another eGold. Fed dont like it, shut it down and put a guy up on 6 counts of murder.
18. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  That practice would probably have been struck down in court if you bothered to challenge it.
19. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by mirix · 2014-11-18 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Could be. I know in Canada pennies are^Wwere only legal tender in groups of less than 25. (so you can't pay your income tax or parking tickets in pennies). I'm unsure if the US has a similar restriction?
  
  Limitation
  (2) A payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:
  (a) forty dollars if the denomination is two dollars or greater but does not exceed ten dollars;
  (b) twenty-five dollars if the denomination is one dollar;
  (c) ten dollars if the denomination is ten cents or greater but less than one dollar;
  (d) five dollars if the denomination is five cents; and
  (e) twenty-five cents if the denomination is one cent.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
20. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by camperdave · 2014-11-18 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?
  There are security issues with handling, storing and transporting tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cash that the apartment complex would rather not deal with.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
21. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  The restaurant MUST by law accept US currency as payment for that debt.
  Not quite, but close. I can put my prices in gold ounces if I want but if you refuse to pay and I sue you and then get a judgement against you I have to accept THAT debt as payment.
22. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by jratcliffe · 2014-11-18 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  They're auctioning them off because Ulbricht has explicitly denied that they're his. He's in a tough position - if he claims them as his own, he's acknowledging that he was running Silk Road.
23. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, another child of the William Sessions Brainwashing Service.
24. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Bitcoins were deemed to be regulated as currency
  Citation needed. The IRS says bitcoins are property, nothing more.
25. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by jratcliffe · 2014-11-18 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore my post, I've got this completely wrong. Oh, for an edit or delete button.
26. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by dywolf · 2014-11-18 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The trial against the bitcoins, US Government VS 50,000 Bitcoins, was decided already.
  The bitcoins failed to hire a lawyer in their defense, and it's not like they couldn't afford one so there was no need to provide one for them.
  Ah...the joys of civil forfeiture.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
27. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  This is really quite wrong, as in for one part of the same government insisting bitcoins are currency, and another (the IRS) insisting they are not. This is quite an important legal principle that's going under here.
28. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by dywolf · 2014-11-18 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Its probably part of the lease contract. I know it was in mine.
  And there's this:
  
  I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
  The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
  This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
  http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
29. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Because US law is arbitrary. If you have money, you are right. Otherwise not.
30. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-11-18 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  especially since storing the bitcoin keys can't really be seen as presenting any sort of hardship to them
  I would have just guessed that Lockheed Services is charging them $400K/mo to store them.
  I was going to say $40K/mo, but you know, the first rule of government contracting.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
31. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by dywolf · 2014-11-18 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  plus consider, not accepting cash often protects both you, the complex owner, and the actual persons in the lease office.
  The latter is particularly important, because if they accepted cash a typical 500 unit complex would have between 250k and 1M $$ on hand on the first of every month.
  And since their security is usually non existent, that would make leasing offices a VERY ATTRACTIVE target.
  Accepting checks only, which are payable only to the person written on it unlike cash, completely eliminates that.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
32. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by fafaforza · 2014-11-18 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Regardless of whether bitcoins are currency, the government is forcing the defendants onto the bitcoin market. If they're found not guilty, and at the same time the price of a bitcoin doubles, theywere deprived of $20 million of income.
33. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means. If I want to trade you X for Y, I can do that, but, if you owe me anything, even if its a good, I HAVE to be willing, by law, to accept payment in dollars instead....or else my claim that you owe me anything is forfeit.
  So how is it that some places refuse to take $100 bills? Those bills have the same phrase on them.
34. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by jd142 · 2014-11-18 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  That's not arbitrary; that's a firm and understandable rule. Arbitrary would be if my 10 million dollar donation got me a law in my favor and yours did not. :)
  Just like the rule I learned in copyrights class: The Mouse always wins. That means that no matter what the law is or how it has always been interpreted, Disney gets what it wants.
35. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by amicusNYCL · 2014-11-18 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoins were deemed to be regulated as currency, and thus the remuneration the US government might owe the defendants can be delivered in US dollars, should the property not be found to be forfeit.
  At what exchange rate? If the 50,000 bitcoins were seized incorrectly then are they going to give him $20 million in cash?
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
36. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  Citation please. I know they have exit *LANES* where you can only pay with E-ZPass, but I don't believe there are any exits without at least *some* lanes which accept cash.
37. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's the government. They don't need to be consistent across branches, just within any given single document.
38. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that's exactly what this auction is going to establish.
39. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-11-18 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is the real answer. And more specifically, they don't trust their employees with access to thousands of dollars of cash.
40. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Rinikusu · 2014-11-18 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.snopes.com/business...
  
  --
  If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
41. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Bill+Dimm · 2014-11-18 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Exits 320 and 352.
42. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by MacAndrew · 2014-11-18 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  OMG, self-deprecation on the web. Seriously, kudos. (I am not being sarcastic.)
  You're very right that the way the law uses certain words and expressions—"terms of art"—can be very different from expected. "Weapons of mass destruction" for example. :)
  Good link provided in above comment: http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
43. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  Not really. The legal tender laws means that creditors have to accept payment in DOLLARS. Said dollars can be in many forms, and they are well within their rights to refuse cash.
44. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  There are two issues here.
  1) In many of those situations there is no debt. You bring a basket of goods, basically go "what do I have to give you to get these", you receive an offer, you offer a payment to meet this offer, payment is accepted. If you want to pay with a way the place doesn't accept, then there was never the "meeting of the minds" necessary for a contract to be formed.
  2) The law requires you accept payment in dollars. There are other forms of dollars then cash.
45. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by will_die · 2014-11-18 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  And then there are people who don't understand or want to understand what is happening.
  This sale was agreed upon by both parties. The proceeds from the sales will be placed in a fund and will go to whomever proves themselves in court.
46. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  European law is often the exact opposite: if you don't have money, the government gives you other people's money; if you do have money, the government will take it to give it to other people.
47. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  Then US Msrshals should be trying to find out to whom they belong, not sell them.
48. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by OneSmartFellow · 2014-11-19 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means
  Except that is not at all what is meant by that phrase.
  
  Next time, try writing about something you know about.
49. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by TheCarp · 2014-11-19 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  That is exactly it. A check is a receipt, its unambiguous, there is record of it at both banks or in both ledgers of the same bank....its perfect for this. I mean hell, as a landlord I would rather not have to issue my own receipts because its much easier for me to remember that I never issued you an explicit receipt for anything than which ones and when.
  and of course, just in the past year I know people who have had issues with the fact that they and others paid rent in cash a lot and money went missing. Digits on a check don't go missing.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
50. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by dywolf · 2014-11-19 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  theres a story, an old one, about a lass who incurred a debt from a disreputable firm. law firm maybe. it changes
  she couldnt afford to pay. so tries to escape it through various means.
  after months of wrangling, she finally had no choice but to pay.
  she finally saved up enough to pay it off.
  being as ticked as she was, she put it all in pennies.
  bags and bag and bags of pennies.
  and when she tried to drop it off, they refused to acept it.
  shes says "are you refusing to accept payment?"
  they says "yes."
  she says ok, walks out, and takes the pennies with her, keeping the money.
  (im not a good story teller)
  its a fun story.
  sadly, while you cant get in trouble for paying with all pennies, nor is the debt wiped away and ignored if they refuse payment.
  http://www.treasury.gov/resour...
  
  This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
51. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by JesseMcDonald · 2014-11-19 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  State and local law may vary and require acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of a debt. LEGAL tender does not in and of itself mean MANDATORY tender.
  When it comes to debts, that's pretty much exactly what it means:
  
  Legal tender is variously defined in different jurisdictions. Formally, it is anything which when offered in payment extinguishes the debt.
  Legal Tender
  If someone who owes you a debt offers to pay the full value in legal tender (regardless of the original form of the debt), you can either take what they're offering or give up on collecting. In general the offer must be exact; if someone who owes you $5 hands you a $100 bill, that legally satisfies the debt but you are under no obligation to provide change.
  This doesn't mean that all transaction must involve legal tender, or that you can be compelled to trade goods or services for legal tender. It only applies to debts. If you insist on payment up front, rather than extending credit, then no debt is created and you can make the transaction conditional on whatever payment method you prefer. (Barring laws in the more restrictive jurisdictions outlawing alternate forms of payment, which is a separate issue.)
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
52. Re:But the case hasn't even started! by CauseBy · 2014-11-20 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  "Then explain why every apartment complex will refuse cash and tell you to go get a money order to pay your rent?"
  Basically because rent isn't a debt. It's a transaction. My local grocer doesn't accept credit cards (debut or cash or check only) and that is fine because shoppers aren't in debt to the grocery store.
And then... by BigSlowTarget · 2014-11-18 06:58 · Score: 2

After the auction the Bitcoins will be confiscated as they were previously the proceeds from illegal drug transactions.
Pre-registered bidders by Tiger4 · 2014-11-18 06:59 · Score: 2

Name:
Address:
Email:
Photo (full face, left and right view):
What is your interest in acquiring seized Silk Road bitcoins:

--
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
1. Re:Pre-registered bidders by MickLinux · 2014-11-18 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, I can see where there could be risk to those who bid, either from the US Marshals (confiscation of property under seizure laws without trial) or from the drug lord.
  ---
  Add to your sig: But they deceived themselves; they did not reckon...
  
  --
  Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:02 · Score: 1

To auction off someones possessions without a conviction.
1. Re:Should be illegal by viperidaenz · 2014-11-18 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Not if the guy they were taken from agrees.
  BTC are on a steady decline in value, so they're being sold now. I assume if he is not proven guilt, he'll get the cash back.
2. Re:Should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  >BTC are on a steady decline in value
  [citation very, very much needed]
3. Re:Should be illegal by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-18 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  BTC are on a steady decline in value. They're also on a steady incline in value. Depends when you look.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
4. Re:Should be illegal by fustakrakich · 2014-11-18 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Civil forfeiture does not require a guilty verdict.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
5. Re:Should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  This is completely tangential to anyone else in the rest of the USA. Currency in possession of the arrested is confiscated, however all other items on their persons are generally returned. It's why "gangsters" tend to wear a lot of jewelry. They use their money and buy nice jewelry. When they get out of jail and have no cash, they pawn the jewelry and get some money back. It's essentially their savings account that never gets confiscated.
Another word for robbery by canadiannomad · 2014-11-18 07:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Civil Asset Forfeiture

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
1. Re:Another word for robbery by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The states that have completely unreasonable standards for when this can happen are:
  Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wyoming, Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington.
2. Re:Another word for robbery by fustakrakich · 2014-11-18 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Conversely, how else can an inanimate carbon rod win the Worker of the Week Award?
  I find the concept truly fascinating. And that people find it acceptable... No doubt about it, they see *five lights*
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:Another word for robbery by ProzacPatient · 2014-11-18 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  According to CNN and Forbes North Carolina is the only state without civil forfeiture where the actual property owner must be convicted of a crime before the property can be seized.
  Unfortunately as the Forbes article points out local law enforcement often gets a federal agent involved so they can use federal overreach to usurp the state's rights so ultimately it doesn't matter what the state law is.
4. Re:Another word for robbery by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but some standards are quite reasonable. Other states can still demand proof from the police seizing things, where the states I listed keeping things alleged to be involved in a crime essentially require an affirmative defense.
Here's my offer by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-18 07:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Dear U.S. Marshals, I am prepared to offer TEN Dogecoins for each ONE Bitcoin.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
But the case hasn't even started! by slashdice · 2014-11-18 07:09 · Score: 5, Informative

They're being auctioned off, with agreement from Ross Ulbricht, due to the volatility of BTC. There will be a separate civil forfeiture trial later.

--
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
I bid $10 by TiggertheMad · 2014-11-18 07:16 · Score: 0

It is interesting that they have to auction off bit coins as property; if it was considered currency, it would probably just get deposited to a federal bank account. It will be an interesting auction, as it should go for 20 million - expected reasonable exchange rate fluctuation - the 'This is going to cost me time and money to purchase' hassle cost.

Basically it will be a bunch of people playing chicken to see who will be willing to take the least profit margin for winning.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:I bid $10 by jratcliffe · 2014-11-18 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Essentially, they're just converting currencies. If they had seized a large pile of Yen, they could just convert it to US$, since there are highly liquid markets to do that. With Bitcoin, there isn't the liquidity to run a transaction of this size through any of the exchanges, so they're auctioning them off. Investors do similar things with stocks every day - if you're a mutual fund, and you want to sell 10k shares of AAPL (which trades about 50 million shares a day), you just sell it through an exchange. If you want to sell 10 MILLION shares, you probably negotiate a price with a major bank, since trying to dump that much stock on the open market will crush the price.
Can they be blockled/filtered? by lhaeh · 2014-11-18 07:38 · Score: 1

It would be nice if this can be protested by making a list available of these BT, and all popular exchanges chooseing not to accept them. At the very least, it would devalue them.
So the US Marshalls are going to give the by mark_reh · 2014-11-18 07:42 · Score: 1

drug dealers, assassins, money launderers, and other shady types who use Bitcoin a chance to buy back the bitcoins they used on Silk Road at a discount!
1. Re:So the US Marshalls are going to give the by Firethorn · 2014-11-18 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Actually fairly unlikely. Give it a few more transactions.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Hey bah yah bah haba by s.petry · 2014-11-18 07:52 · Score: 1

Going once! Going twice! Sold to the man with the Facebook lapel pin for 40 Billion dollars!
- not intended to be offensive to auctioneers, but poking fun at the over inflation of everything "tech" -

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Anonymous by tekrat · 2014-11-18 08:07 · Score: 1

I think it's high time Anonymous hijacked the auction and simply take the bitcoins. It would serve the Feds right to have happen to them, what they essentially did to Silk Road.
Since the money isn't "real", nothing of value was taken.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Anonymous by jratcliffe · 2014-11-18 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Who says the money isn't "real?" Bitcoin clearly do have value.
not really buying bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:07 · Score: 0

they don't have the bitcoins and can't transfer them to you. this is a giant hoax, and you're all idiots.
How much more screw up can our government get? by Puls4r · 2014-11-18 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, rather than just selling them on the exchanges, they're pricing them in huge blocks that only the wealthy can afford. I mean seriously, how many folks here have $150k burning a hole in their pocket that they want to plunk down for some bitcoin? I truly hate our government. These bitcoins are going to be sold a huge (unrealized) loss to the wealthy, who are going to turn a giant profit. Fantastic. No wonder it's 'closed' bidding.
1. Re:How much more screw up can our government get? by jratcliffe · 2014-11-18 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  They're not selling them on the exchanges precisely BECAUSE they want to avoid sharply pushing down the price of Bitcoin. $20M is about five days worth of volume on the USD/BTC exchanges. If you tried to dump that much volume into the exchanges, it would crush the price of Bitcoins vs. the US$.
2. Re:How much more screw up can our government get? by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-18 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  They're going to drop anyway, because there's lots more to be auctioned off in the next few months. FTFA:
  
  Including 144,336 Bitcoin found on computer hardware belonging to Ulbricht, the government has recovered 173,991 Bitcoins. A spokeswoman for the Marshals Service, Lynzey Donahue, said in an email that the agency anticipated selling the remaining Bitcoins "in the coming months," but that "no exact dates have been determined."
  So, less than a third are going to be dumped on the market now, with other big chunks in the future. Anyone with insider knowledge of the dates of the auctions could sell before the auction date is announced, and buy back at a lower price after, when the influx lowers the price.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:How much more screw up can our government get? by Lord+Ender · 2014-11-18 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you've worked in IT for a while you should be able to put together a $150k check...
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
$20M, $90M, $2M, $50M, $1, $400M by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 08:46 · Score: 0

The value of the coinage may vary a bit
Thieves by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 09:07 · Score: 0

Did they have a trial? Did the assets get seized under due process of law? If not, then it's stolen property, and selling stolen property is a crime. Just because "authorities" are doing it does not change that. Anybody that "buys" the stolen property does not really own it, and must expect it to be TAKEN from them, without compensation.
Fuck the dope war by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 10:28 · Score: 0

Legalize drugs. We have fucked the whole world with the dope war. All the blood of the Central and South American refugees is on american policy makers hands.
Wait what? Only wealthy people can buy them? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 10:38 · Score: 0

Wait what? Only wealthy people will be allowed to buy them. 100k minimum deposit come on!!!
strange by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 13:05 · Score: 0

Things are getting so weird. Imagine you were talking to someone from, say, 1930. How many things would you have to explain to them before they could understand this story, and would they believe you?
The Obama Connection by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 15:46 · Score: 0

So US Marshals is selling stolen Bitcoins, those Bitcoins that THEY stole, to the highest bidder.
Interesting.
Talk in DC says that O-Boy is fucking flabbergasted with the USA and is engineering a Golden Parachute.
Where will O-Boy land?
Kenya!
So, after 2016 USA taxpayers will be footing the bill for O-Boy's Bong and Cocaine tastes in Kenya for as long as he is alive.
Que Rainbow 6 Team for, "The Hunt of the O-Boy."
Ha ha
I can, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-18 16:49 · Score: 0

Can I pay in bitcoins?
Laundering. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-19 14:20 · Score: 0

So how about some kickass lawyer now try to get the US Marshals on a money laundering charge?