Quote from: symbols on May 21, 2012, 03:05:30 AM

There's a lot of straw-man arguing in this thread.

Some of us believe that pirate is PROBABLY laundering drug money or something not too far from it.

There's a lot of conjecture about how law enforcement could or could not influence the bitcoin economy.

Some folks are arguing that no-one has proved that pirate is laundering money. Guess what? You're all right! You're also all missing the point: 7% weekly is questionable, to say the least.

It's a rate that is unsustainable unless there are transactions going on at the level of the entire Bitcoin Saving and Trust market cap with a transaction fee greater than 7%. This is relatively easy to achieve in various lines of *questionable* business, accepted as the fee for the added risk of increased scrutiny and potential for legal action (or worse, depending on who your partners are).

I disagree with the notion that pirate going down would hurt bitcoin. I'm indifferent, either way should be fine for bitcoin. Any economy has a continuum of markets, from black through grey to squeaky-clean white. Even black markets have a continuum: hit-money and human trafficking on the one side, and simple goods smuggling and tariff avoidance on the other.

No-one can reasonably argue that pirate is squeaky-clean white, if for no other reason than the incompleteness of his public disclosure.

So what? Decide where you're willing to operate and operate there. Let's skip the 'you don't have proof!' for assertions of opinion.

-s

Quote from: splatster on May 21, 2012, 02:43:00 AM

Then why not show your probable cause? Your argument right now is "He produces high returns and I think he's doing something illegal." Your hunch is not probable cause.

I'm not involved in prosecuting anybody, and never claimed my beliefs about pirate's activity constitute probable cause. I was just discussing the parameters affecting the hypothetical situation where a money launderer is being investigated by law enforcement in the US.

As an aside, if law enforcement can convince a judge that a money launderer's operation is 'permeated with fraud', in the specific sense relating to document warrants, they can perform seizure indiscriminately, rather than having to name what they expect to find beforehand. So, effective money laundering requires at least an ostensible cover story to avoid that injunction.

+1

Yes, straw-men and red herrings. Grin

And dogs.

You make reasonable points, especially about the continuum. Avoiding VAT is not the same as trafficking children. An obvious point, I know, but it bears repeating.

I don't expect to get straight answers that explain the absurd returns, but the lack of a legit answer is what piques people's interest, including mine. Yes, I am calling out Pirate. Is he running a ponzi scheme? Probably.

Pirate/Trendon is not obliged to explain himself to us, but neither does seeking answers constitute FUD.

So-called 'Pass through bonds' issued by someone who called himself 'Pirate' and who had an outstanding hot check warrant? Years from now a much larger bitcoin community will find this funny. Cheesy

Pirate/Trendon's extraordinary returns obviously bring extraordinary scrutiny. Why would one think otherwise?

[edited for grammar]