http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t...
Essentially I could say "I bet $100k that Marcus Badperson will die on the morning of 15 June 2013"; best way to collect is to do the deed yourself (or subcontract.)
The terrifying thing is not so much that someone might be willing to pay $100k to kill someone, but that 1mm people might each be willing to pay $0.10. Not so much kickstarter as kickender.
(this whole thing was my first contact with the federal court system, since I hosted a mailing list archive for the cypherpunks list on which a lot of this was discussed, when Jim Bell got prosecuted back in 1997 for attacking an IRS office. I was so glad I was running a really mediocre mailing list archive where anyone who sent mail directly to the list address on the machine could inject messages, and by picking the right message id, overwrite...and for getting the world's most awesome attorney on retainer...)
But don't you need someone else to take the other side of the bet?
You can't just bet X and get more. You can only get what Y bets in opposition. Assuming no one else agrees with you and makes the same bet, because then you'd have to share what Y put down.
And who's going to be the opposing side in these bets?
I happen to know Marcus Badperson is a janitor for the federal serve and will spend all day on June 15th cleaning the gold bars inside the safest safe in the world. So I bet a billion dollars he does NOT die between the hours of 9am and 5pm on June 15th. Unless someone else bets more than a billion, the best I can do is simply collect the same billion I put down.
I was hoping to find an elaboration of who could be the counter party in the Wikipedia page, but nope nothing there.
I think the assassination market is very probable if you completely skip the question of who's the counter party. Or if you have no idea how betting and payouts work in the first place. Otherwise this "assassination market" is total bullshit.
If you bet me you'll kill Mullah Omar for $10k tomorrow morning, I'll max out a credit card to be your counterparty.
By being specific about the time/place/manner of death, you can avoid the free riders to some degree. At least, all the ones who weren't betting on you specifically. If I find a killer credible, I'd
The whole point of structuring it as bets vs bounties is plausible deniability. A person contracting for an assassination is looking to lose money and gain dead Mullahs, whereas a killer is trying to trade Mullah killing for money. Uninvolved speculators are just betting based on the credibity of specific proposed-killers, I think. It would be easy for killers or contractors to manipulate the market to throw them, I think.
Maybe we need to ask something fundamental (which might sound absurd): "Should money laundering be considered illegal, or a natural human right?"
As loaded as that sounds, I don't think it's that easy. There's a pretty clear prima facie case to be made on each side.
An avid fan of Satoshi could reasonably abandon unregulated currencies in fear of the social ills they enable (a la the argument from the author of "The End of Money" that we stop printing 50s and 100s, since they are disproportionately used in support of crime, while the rest of us use plastic for large transactions [1]).
On the other hand, I could see someone concluding that the world would be better off on net if we don't worry as much about crime, but simply ensure there's a simple way to quickly and anonymously transfer value across long distances.
It would be a serious blow to police (and the Woodward/Bernstein's out there) to lose the ability to "follow the money." But there are also compelling economic arguments that lubricating capital flows makes everything better [2, 3].
I remain a skeptical fan too, but the mounting cognitive dissonance is not for the faint of heart.
1. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/cashless_society/2012...
2. Ferguson's Ascent of Money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Money
3. Maybe various stock European Community arguments pro-liberalization of capital flows, though some of them look weak right now, and it's odd to use these to argue for a new currency...
I don't see the problem. Living in a free world is dangerous, and undesirable things (might) happen. But how is it justified to restrict the freedom of one individual, because of something somebody else did (or worse, might do)?
Money laundering is just a sequence of voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. No reason that should be illegal and there's no reason the government needs to be able to trace every financial transaction back to its source.
Organized crime? Feh... government (or what passes for government these days) is organized crime.
I don't know about others, but I find it very difficult to get upset about a crime that's new, that doesn't impact me, and that the world got along just fine with for centuries.
(Of course that doesn't mean that I support crime in general. I'm just taking a side: the social benefit to money-laundering laws is not as much as the social downside, at least in 2013. In 1995 I might have easily weighed it the other way)
You have to ask yourself a serious question: are these laws being used to protect us from crime? Or are they being used to protect the financial system itself from us?
Money laundering is an interesting crime in that a series of otherwise legal transactions may be considered laundering if the source of the funds was tainted in the eyes of prosecutor in any of several ways. Most usually by being the result of an enterprise that is criminal in nature; such as attempting to avoid taxes...
So as with many financial crimes these days; the criminality is entirely dependent on the political power of the accused. An Apple or Google is not committing money laundering by structuring their transactions to avoid having their revenue streams being tainted with taxability. But if you or I were to try such a thing...
1. It permits crime to pay. Yes, drugs ought to be legal, but "crime" also includes other stuff that has a victim, such as theft, extortion, fraud, fake products, misappropriation of funds, forced prostitution, etc.
2. It behaves like economic globalization, to the n'th degree. Don't like your local tax regime? Pick one, with the click of a mouse. Right now big business gets expensive tax lawyers to set them up schemes where they are nominally doing business somewhere else, but you can bet their expensive tax lawyers are eyeing bitcoin with interest. So what if the roads locally have potholes and the school got sold off?
As to why it's a new issue, that's just down to technology. It didn't used to be feasible, except by gold-smuggling or the suchlike. That has changed.
It's be real here. Smugglers and criminals have been around for eons, and motivated police forces have been able to control them.
First, human trafficking is illegal, but (apparently) very profitable. It was an unstated assumption that those people who engage in these sorts of activities do so primarily out of a motive for profit. In other words, that human trafficking could be largely eliminated by making it unprofitable.
In order for traffickers to enjoy the considerable fruits of their (slaves') labors, they need to invent a plausible-seeming and, more importantly, legal source for their wealth. This is called money-laundering. To do otherwise would invite the attention of the local constabulary.
What the GP is suggesting is that a viable means to curtailing human trafficking is to make money laundering difficult. This makes it difficult to use the profits of the crime, which reduces the incentive to commit the crime in the first place.
Money laundering laws have been around for quite some time now. Last time I checked, there are plenty of drug dealers and pimps operating.
I'd argue that the supply-side is probably a more productive place to attack these problems. Make it unprofitable to enslave someone vs. hire someone.
Libertarian anarchist theory is based on non-aggression, that is, the idea that capitalism can be a system where people deal only by consent. But the kind of consent it uses is "affirmative consent" - you said "yes", or you signed a contract agreeing ahead of time.
Feminism introduced me to the stricter idea of "enthusiastic consent" - you ongoingly and genuinely want to. From this improved perspective, contract is unacceptable (it's there to allow you to be forced despite no longer wanting to), and putting someone in an arm twisted position of "say yes or starve" is clearly not consensual. But this is precisely what capitalism does.
Honestly as things are now, I don't agree with the existence of money systems at all. I am not pro-tax, I'm against the whole of the money/paying/salary/finance system in its entirety. But tax is a weak hack to at least claw back a little economic equality. And breaking it without replacing it is harmful.
As to "we should be able to support roads" (or whatever), basically this has the same power and limitation as crowdfunding. A million ordinary people can scrape up a million dollars between them. But most of the economic power has already been sucked out of their reach - any individual in the 1% could pay that $1m out of their personal fortune and not even feel it. Spreading effort over the many when the few hold all the resources is a strategy doomed to fail.
Rothbard's position was that the only proper subject of an enforceable contract was the transfer of title to alienable property. Therefore, the only permissible use of force to compel specific performance would be to compel title transfer. A slavery contract, under this theory, is unenforceable because one's self and one's labor are not alienable.
This breaks down around edge cases relating to alienable property strictly necessary for life, though there's a case to be made that any property strictly necessary for life isn't alienable. That's a hole big enough to drive a system of socialized medicine through.
It is a very important right to be able to bind yourself via contract. In exactly the same way as is the _right_ of getting sued. Tom Schelling wrote about these issues in e.g. The Strategy of Conflict.
The right to commit yourself is important, because it will make other people more likely to commit themselves to you.
I can't even imagine how school would have worked for me that year I lived on my grandparent's farm without the whole school district having to pitch in.
As it stands what you've done is attacked the logic of the argument, as opposed to giving so much as a weak suggestion of how the problem would actually be solved.
Not all market transaction systems are effective at capturing sufficient amounts of consumer surplus to make provision of services possible.
As another example: many private (and public) transit systems were funded and financed by retail and real estate interests. By covering the fixed capital and much of the operating expenses of bus, trolley, and rail lines, they increased demand for their products and services. You see this today, but it comes in the form of providing "free parking" for retail establishments (you think those acres of parking outside your local mall or WalMart don't cost anything?).
Markets have failures too, my friend.
I agree that we should do away with all new laws that don't directly affect DanielBMarkham.
A great example is the State Senator Joe Bruno case in NY. The Senator was the majority leader of the Senste for many years, an institution that is synonymous with corruption. (At least a dozen members are currently either under indictment or named as the subject of an investigation by the US Attorney.)
The Federal case was essentially that Bruno took bribes, except they couldn't prove it. So they prosecuted him for violation of what i call a meta-law... the so-called "honest services" laws, key parts of which were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So now they are going after him again for bribery -- a case that is probably double jeopardy and is subject to all sorts of appeals, essentially for the purpose of bankrupting the guy.
Acts that potentially support a crime should not be criminal acts. Go convict the money launderer of tax evasion, racketeering or drug sales. Go convict a criminal without the resources for an attorney for whatever they did, not for lying to an agent of the US.
society (seems to) believe that the presence of organized criminal organizations is negative and leads to violence. so how do we fight them? do we lock people up when they pull a trigger? but there are so many people who would pull a trigger and none of them are the people near the top of the food chain. how do you arrest those responsible for and profiting from violent criminal syndicates?
if you follow this train of reasoning long enough you get to criminalizing some financial behavior.
Money laundering has been illegal since basically Roman times, however until it was called out explicitly as a crime it was generally charged and prosecuted as abetting after the fact.
There are lots of ways you could be charged with abetting criminals, from providing shelter and new clothes when they were on the run (harboring a fugitive) to providing false information or failing to cooperate (obstruction of justice) and it has always been a challenge to decide just how far outside the influence ring of a particular crime you can prosecute.
It is an interesting look at market dynamics. And while the 'outer layers' of the criminal enterprise were not being prosecuted it created a weird sort of bubble market where crooks living on the margin could promote suckers to be the 'kingpin' and enrich themselves on things like supplying guns, or laundering profits, or providing transportation, and the kingpin gets caught and sent to jail, these folks need a new kingpin to keep the engine going.
In prosecuting so called 'organized crime' in the late 60's and 70's law enforcement realized that they couldn't just put away the boss. The theory that crime was lead by a small number of people who tricked a much larger number of people into facilitating that crime, turned out to be quite wrong. There were large numbers of people who knew what they were doing to support the criminal enterprise was wrong, they just didn't care because they were earning a living and were unlikely to be prosecuted. So we saw a shift to more systemic prosecution of the entire food chain, and the specific actions which supported criminal activity were called out. The RICO Act is probably the key bit of legislation which reflected that shift. I was living in Las Vegas in the early 70's and that was on the tail end of the authorities trying to 'clean up' that town. Their effort focused on cleaning up the infrastructure (like the mob controlled unions) in addition to the crooks themselves.
But this is something you really need to think hard about:
"I don't know about others, but I find it very difficult to get upset about a crime that's new, that doesn't impact me, and that the world got along just fine with for centuries."
It does effect you, that viagra spam you get? Those Oxycodone and Adderal pills you kids are being offered at school, the insurance rates on your car, the price you pay for things at the store, Etc. We live in a world where some folks take millions of dollars from a wide variety of people. That activity causes your fees to go up which is how the money is transferred from your pocket into the criminals pockets. The carders steal a million dollars from Amazon by using fake credit cards, and Amazon increases their transaction fee for everyone using credit cards to offset that loss, your money goes to the criminals. Sometimes they kill the store/restaurant/company but if the customer base is large enough they just leech off the customers. It is much closer to being a zero sum game than you realize. And when they defraud the federal government they recover that money by getting more tax money.
The key here is that it isn't a "new" crime, its the support of criminal activity which has gone on forever. Making it difficult to profit from crime has been a very potent force in reducing crime in general.
It's even worse than zero-sum. Those actions effectively act as a tax that prevents even more business than they leech off.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=money+launderin...
A brief modern history: http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.html
Posing this question suggests you've already arrived at the answer ("yes").
You seriously think there was no money laundering going on in the 1970's??
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 actually sought to combat money laundering by the Mafia and the early cocaine cartels (didn't you ever see Scarface?). Although many banks didn't abide by these laws, there were subsequent laws to combat money laundering such as:
Money Laundering Control Act (1986) Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1988) Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (1992)
The Money Secrecy Act has actually been amended several times and is now part of the patriot act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
Money laundering is almost as old as prostitution.
>"Money laundering" is a very recent crime
Sure, it's been around for a long time, but only in the last 40 years has it been illegal in the US. I'd like to see how many of these criminal organizations have been taken down by money laundering laws as opposed to tax fraud or something else. You can be sure that, even though it's illegal, most criminals are still able to launder their money.
We've outsourced our personal and financial security to large and unresponsive governments; on net we are more rather than less victimized by criminals. The only difference is that these criminals wear suits and have names like Draghi and Bernanke.
Rather, it's the current banking system that has drawbacks which pushes myself and, I assume, others, to look for alternatives. For example, thanks to the move of digital cash over physical, banks has gone from being a care taker to a service provider. That might not sound as a big change, but it has a huge impact on the power balance of the bank vs the consumer. I personally am no longer in control my own money. If I wanted today to take out my own money from the bank here in Sweden, I would have to go down there and ask for permission. If I then give them a reasonable argument why I should be allowed to take out my cash from the bank, then they might allow me to come back in a few weeks and take out the cash. If they do not like my argument for taking out the cash, then they are perfectly legally allowed to deny me access to my money.
And that's only about access to my own money. We also have the personal information derived from transactions I make. That data is not even remotely under my control, as it is given out to be data mined by anyone within EU or who has a EU treaty for data sharing (like US). It can also be sold, or data mined by the bank itself, and the bank could claim copyright ownership on it.
Therefore, a major benefit of e-currency is that it removes the negative aspects of the current system. It doesn't really need to be anonymous or a cryptographically-secure form of value representation. It just need to be digital and in control of the individual who "owns" the cash. Those priorities might not sound as attractive for criminals, but for me it sound as the way e-currency will grow.
All to the discretion of the bank. No criminal investigation is needed to stop transactions/withdraws. They might not be able to close the account, but they can prevent any money from being removed from it as long they like.
It's also the same law that are currently is preventing unregistered phones from using sms-purchase for tickets to buses and trains. The law directly forbids any kind of money transfers if one of the participants are not directly identified.
Do people not use fiat currency, as well, for repulsive things like child slavery?
Bank/etc. operated payment systems, at least the above-board ones, at least pay some level of attention to AML, anti other criminal activity, etc. It's not uniformly effective, sure, but it's hard to operate a large child-porn-for-Visa merchant, and visa/card issuers/gateways tend to cooperate fully with various government agencies in both stopping the activity and in catching/prosecuting the offenders.
>Do people not use fiat currency, as well, for repulsive things like child slavery?
Or do they use computers, and weapons, and, and, and...?
I'm still trying to figure out if Zerocoin or another decentralized system can work, or if it will require just having a large number of redundant small-but-individually-centralized blinded currencies. You can make each pretty resilient (hidden behind tor or message pools/offline, k of n threshold cryptography, etc.), but if there are 1000 USD currencies, you can hedge and accept the loss of a few and lose only a small percentage of assets.
I've been speculating that a distributed double-blind commodities ownership system might fit the bill. Some people buy commodities and hold them, then distribute ownership cryptographically. Owners never know holders, only the definition of what they own. Ownership is transferred cryptographically.
Still needs a lot of work, though, even as a blue-sky idea.
Ripple (non-anonymous) and OpenTransactions (potentially anonymous using blinded tokens issued by each participant) kind of take that model.
What I'm unclear on is if Zerocoin can be efficient enough, maybe given an optimized, scrypt-based blockchain underlying, to work with either of those as a base, globally decentralized currency.
I might like Ripple a lot more if XRP got replaced with Zerocoin. Once Ripple's software is open sourced, it wouldn't be too hard to rip XRP out and replace it with Bitcoin or Zerocoin or anything else.
The thing about commodities is that they "plug into" a pre-existing worldwide commodity market. There are futures markets, places to store them, third-party methods to transport, insurance, and so forth. You can have a standard underlying type of thing to value. Things like promissory notes become much more difficult to value. Not impossible, though. The problem is that in order to understand and predict attacks on the currency, you don't want lots of things with different underlying physical realities.
There are two questions here. The first one, as you point out, is risk. The second one is the applicability of international ownership laws. If government X shuts down E-currency #48, everybody gets nothing. But in a decentralized system, if everybody can prove ownership of some tangible item, it might be possible to not lose your shirt. I'd much rather be making a case that these anonymous eight people owe me 10kg of gold -- and demand the government allow me to access it -- than asking for, say, something completely virtual and esoteric like Bitcoin. Asking for my physical property is well-covered by international law. Asking for some cryptographic stuff? You're back into uncharted waters.
[citation needed]
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/04/zerocoin-mak...
Source?
E-Gold actually was helping prosecutors vs. the carders/cp people, and maintaining files on them/actively working with law enforcement, but when it became a criminal case about E-Gold, that information was used as evidence the system itself supported these activities.
LR is probably in the same position; I know they have essentially the same market positioning.
From the little I saw on underground forums LR is used for mid to low criminal incomes, by the like of botnet herding profits and carding infos trade. For things bigger and riskier like cashing out massive amounts of stolen cards and bank drops it's my understanding that cybercrooks are using money mule schemes and networks of off shore companies, not LR or similar... I'd flag child slavery as an high risk activity which can't be done just trough LR-like currencies, that's why I was asking for some sources.
That's the thing though right, it's actually never anonymous?
There is a good chance I'm misunderstanding this, but Bitcoin at the very least is pseudononymous, and all that really means is that it's not tied to your legal name-- it's not anominity. What's worse is that (again, maybe I'm misunderstanding) every transaction you make is essentially public knowledge, by virtue of this knowledge having to exist somewhere, and Bitcoin being intentionally designed without a central secret holder.
That makes Bitcoin to me a secondary currency: a tool to make once-off transactions that are obscured e.g, you want to support Wikileaks but all the banks aren't letting you, use some tool to NZD->BitC (presumably into a new wallet so as to be untrackable) and then give those BitC to Wikileaks.
Which is why I'm confused when people ask regular services whether or not they'll support Bitcoin. Why would anyone buy the Humble Bundle using Bitcoins? What possible advantage does that give them?
Like parent I'm a skeptical fan, mostly because I think it's technically cool, and almost certainly useful in less stable regions of the world (in the same way Twitter was arguably very helpful), but I still can't see why I would ever want to use it (except in the once-off style example above).
Bitcoin, and things resembling it are actual cryptocurrencies and something we could truly call an e-currency. It's about as trackable as cash (in that it can be tracked but it takes very significant effort, and it can be traded like cash.. it's much more than a number in some database.)
You could probably use trusted computing/smartcards with a wallet inside them to do some kind of awesome self-attesting "no one has seen my key yet" physical payment token. Sort of like those Casascius coins, but without the need to trust the maker so much.
Hypothetically someone steals a lot of money from somebody else, if the amount is large enough the victim may be willing to do a lot of detective work in order to trace the funds.
This detective work might include...
* Blockchain analysis
* Offering money to bitcoin mixers in return for information
* Traditional private investigation
Cash has the same problem, bills can be tracked if the parties involved are motivated enough. Cash does go a long way to providing privacy though, for example in days gone by a husband might have bought a pornographic magazine with cash and the wife would be unaware.
This will annoy the libertarian crowd, but a truly anonymous and untraceable medium of exchange is not only most likely impossible, but also undesirable. The failed war on drugs aside, a lot of the things people want to do completely anonymously are illegal for good reasons (CP, human trafficking, etc).
It remains to be seen if bitcoin can offer the same kind of privacy that cash does, if bitcoin adoption continues I expect blockchain analysis to become very sophisticated.
Does child pornography make cameras "undesirable"? How about USB external hard drives? Or the Internet?
Does human trafficking make chains and locks "undesirable"? White cargo vans with blacked-out windows? Freeways?
Seriously, let's focus on attacking the unjust behavior itself, not blaming tools and implements that have no inherent intent or character, for good or for evil.
Freeways is an interesting one, most places license people to drive, for very good reasons (just one of them being a help to law enforcement).
It seems like a bit of silly argument considering I don't believe a truly anonymous untraceable currency is possible but let's suppose it is. My pessimistic nature makes me think that the top 3 things it would be used for would be tax evasion, bribery and extortion.
Ignoring the fact that bad people many times use e-currency for repulsive things like child slavery, the lesson over the past month or two seems very clear: any form of e-currency is a huge tool for governments to monitor and control economic activity.
We think of e-currency as being much easier to move around than printed currency, but it's actually much easier to track and control than printed currency. Yes, it begins as an anonymous and cryptographically-secure form of value representation, but once government adds just a little enforcement tweaking (many times without even having to pass a law) it becomes a big lead weight around the owner's neck. Best-case, it's all tracked down to the penny. Worst-case, you lose all your value.
I remain a skeptical fan, though. Here's hoping the community works through these issues.