Tattoos are proof that a person is bad with money.

This statement is proof that you are arrogant and tend toward pride.

Meh, sometimes you just need to enjoy life.

what about tattoos that cover self-harm scars?

i don’t think supporting tattoo artists is a bad thing.

Strong disagree but to each their own.

The indictment against the alleged Samourai Wallet (SW) operators was unsealed today. A few friends have been asking for my opinion on it and my channels are blowing up. I used to serve in law enforcement as a detective that specialized in cybercrime and blockchain analysis. The following information may be useful or interesting to some.

Reading through the Department of Justice’s press release and the indictment itself, here are my initial thoughts:

There are plenty of examples of past investigations resulting in arrests/convictions related to the operation of custodial mixing services, with Bitcoin Fog being the one in recent news. With a service taking custody of funds and moving funds between other people/users, they are likely going to be considered a money service business. And if a money service business doesn’t block Americans from using the service, the US Department of Treasury will require the operators of that service to register with them and follow their compliance regulations. Many foreigners have been arrested in foreign jurisdictions in order to be prosecuted in the US with an American judge and jury for allegedly violating federal American laws (read that sentence twice).

With these sorts of cases, you are typically dealing with the idea that a service didn’t register correctly and follow compliance regulations. And then the other idea is that the operator of the service knew and allowed funds to move through it that would be considered “illicit” or “sanctioned.”

Examples of illicit funds may be proceeds from illegal drug sales or funds stolen from someone. The sanction piece can involve entities, such as particular Bitcoin addresses, individuals, companies, or countries, using the service or receiving from the service. The US federal government maintains a sanction list.

The above summary has been an on-going fight on privacy, censorship, and regulatory overreach for a while. It isn’t new (and Roman Sterlingov should be free). SW’s indictment is different from the situation I summarized above though.

SW was a non-custodial service. This means that users controlled (their private keys to) their funds themselves and the service provider (SW) allowed the coordination between users through its infrastructure, such as the app, the server, the continued development, etc. This makes this case much more interesting and more concerning to me.

Regarding the first count against the men: Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering. The SW indictment alleges that SW was a service that provided “large-scale money laundering and sanctions evasion.” So we are talking about users using illicit funds with the service and sanctioned entities using or receiving from the service. And we are talking about the SW coordinators “conspiring” with the relevant users to do this.

The indictment is constantly referring to SW as an “application” that is conducting or facilitating the mixing through a “centralized coordinator server.” Who controls the application and server? Allegedly the two men named in the indictment.

When it comes to SW’s Whirlpool service: Through their server, their application is selecting the inputs. Their application is communicating information between all users necessary for the mixing to occur. Their application is using the private keys on behalf of the users. Their application is broadcasting the mixing transactions to the Bitcoin network. The picture the indictment is painting is that the application and server are essentially doing the money laundering, as opposed to the users using the service. Similar verbiage and logic are used to describe SW’s Ricochet service too (adding hops to a send you intend to do).

The above summary is the most shocking piece of the indictment, in my opinion. The implications of this reach beyond Bitcoin-related apps and services. Think of the apps and services, just in general, that a user could use to engage in criminal behavior. Now think of arresting the developers/creators for what the user did.

Regarding the second indictment against the men: Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business. The indictment says the SW operators were “involved in the transportation and transmission of funds intended to be used to promote and support unlawful activity.” There isn’t any mention or consideration of custody of funds in this. The logic of the indictment: Some users may have used SW’s application and server for “unlawful activity” and therefore, SW was involved in the unlawful activity. Again, this is a scary precedent. Think of the applications and servers out there right now that users may be using for unlawful activity.

There are many mentions apparently from the coordinators themselves that address the knowledge and intent element (important for a criminal trial). The SW operators were obviously passionate about financial privacy and resisting compliance regulations. Their messages (especially with their style of messaging) will be easy to spin/take literally, even if the coordinators were just trying to be edgy with their marketing/brand. The SW coordinators did not help themselves in this regard.

I think the government will focus a lot on the coordinator’s knowledge and intent of the service being used for illegal activity. I believe this is how the government will “limit” the scope of the precedence and how it will try to differentiate the SW service from others.

Regarding the illicit funds/sanctions piece: The blockchain analysis showing funds from Dark Web markets that sell illegal drugs flowing into SW’s Whirlpool will be easy for the prosecution. The same goes with sanctioned entities sending to or receiving from SW’s Whirlpool. It will also be easy to show funds flowing from known hacks, exploits, and/or thefts flowing into SW’s Whirlpool. The government will need to prove the men knew this was happening and that they facilitated it by providing the SW application and server. Their mouths may be their downfall on this one, but I think it is pretty clear that the SW operators’ intent was to provide a neutral financial privacy tool that didn’t control user funds, leaving the responsibility of the use of those funds on the users themselves.

With the logic in this case, I wonder if it will be argued that blockchain analysis companies are also culpable since they surely had their own funds being mixed in SW’s Whirlpool to collect data points. Were their funds facilitating illegal activity? Or were their funds facilitating financial privacy in general? (Maybe facilitating privacy was just the byproduct of having the chance to trace through exclusions.)

Overall, the case leads to some interesting questions.

Is a wallet software and developer a money service business now? How about a full node? These both facilitate the transmission of funds too. The implications of this case are not good for privacy or code. I’m ready to donate to the defense.

The FIL can build an accessory building for a “farmhand” but then we won’t have a separately deeded lot, which is what we all want. Just thinking ahead for the future if properties are sold, they can be sold separately. It just shouldn’t be this hard to severe off a lot from your own property when it does infact meet all requirements.

Ontario Canada

My wife’s parents have a 200 acre farm in another township from us and they’ve decided to offer us a 1.5 acre lot so they can be closer to their grandchildren. The lot hasn’t been severed yet, it’s in the works, but been a massive headache dealing with the township. My Father in law has already severed 2 separately deeded lots on the back of his farm, but they really don’t want to give us one of those as those lots are worth substantially more and it’s basically part of their retirement, so they’re working on severing a lot at the front of the farm which is basically beside their existing house.

So in dealing with the township lately, they want my in-laws to forfeit 10’ of road frontage all across the front of the farm which basically equals about 2 acres worth of land. He’s not happy about that but willing to do it. They already had to forfeit 10’ across the back of the farm, which they’ve been paying taxes on for years. No reimbursement, and they still have to maintain the ditch.

Now, the township wants them to donate a park in town for kids which is likely between $100k-$200k to build in order for the lot to go through.

My wife’s friends are in the next township over from my wife’s parents, and are in a similar situation where those parents want to sever a lot for their kid, (my wife’s friend) but that township wants them to donate 12 acres of their land to the township, and that there’s no guarantee it will go through.

Quite the corruption from townships if you ask me.

Has anyone here ever dealt with something similar and know if they’re are ways around this besides throwing money at lawyers?

#asknostr

But we're destroying entire ecosystems and habitats. Take for example the Coral Reef

The only "flaw" I can find in most #Bitcoin maximalists is their overt optimism.

They make the risky assumption that governments will behave within the Rule of Law. They won't.

The Soviet Union or the Nazi Germany remind us that governments will trample anything and anyone they need to.

Science has become a religion. Here is something I wrote not too long ago:

Traditional religion has been supplanted by a new belief system known as Scientism, where the government acts as the new church. This shift is not about the scientific method itself but rather about the faith placed in so-called experts. This prevailing belief system has become akin to the dominant religion of our time, with people so firmly believing in "the Science" that they fail to recognise it as a form of religion, instead accepting it as the absolute truth.

This faith in Scientism mirrors traditional religious belief in several ways. Both place an ultimate authority on truth and reality—science or a divine entity—and centre around a set of beliefs: Scientism in the infallibility of scientific methods and empirical evidence, and religious faith in the teachings and existence of a god or gods. Followers of Scientism, much like adherents of traditional religions, show devotion to their beliefs, which shapes their identity and community, providing a sense of belonging and a shared worldview.

A significant element of this new belief system is the reverence afforded to doctors, who are often viewed and trusted in a manner similar to priests in traditional religions. Just as priests are seen as intermediaries between the divine and the faithful, offering guidance, interpretation, and the administration of sacred rites, doctors within the church of Scientism are regarded as the mediators between "the Science" and the public. They interpret scientific findings, administer treatments (akin to sacraments), and guide individuals in making life choices based on the latest medical and scientific understanding. This trust in doctors underscores a profound faith in their knowledge and authority, positioning them as critical figures in the societal structure of Scientism.

Both the government, as the new church of Scientism, and traditional religious institutions employ remarkably similar methods of control and influence. They operate within structured hierarchies that demand respect and obedience. Legislation and dogma, education and indoctrination, the use of fear and rewards, and control over information are tools used by both to maintain power and uphold certain beliefs.

Moreover, ceremonies, rituals, symbols, and iconography reinforce loyalty and the values of these institutions, creating a strong sense of identity and belonging. The inclusion and exclusion criteria further define community boundaries, while both claim a form of moral authority that legitimises their rules and decisions.

Adding to this parallel, peer-reviewed studies have become synonymous with holy scriptures within the realm of Scientism. They are revered and quoted as the ultimate source of truth, guiding public policy and personal health decisions with an authority akin to that of sacred texts in religious traditions. Similarly, vaccinations can be seen as the Scientism counterpart to baptism in traditional religions, representing a rite of initiation and a symbolic induction into the community. These elements underscore the moral and communal dimensions of such practices within this belief system.

Crucially, questioning or criticising "the Science" that underpins Scientism elicits reactions reminiscent of those observed in traditional religious contexts. When the core tenets of Scientism are challenged, one can expect to encounter the same emotional outbursts that are typical of traditional religious disputes. This defensive stance highlights the role of authority in shaping collective beliefs and underscores how questioning the established "truth" becomes a fraught endeavour, often met with intense and emotional pushback. This dynamic not only reveals the emotional investment in Scientism but also the mechanisms by which it maintains its authority and cohesiveness, drawing a direct line to how traditional religions react to skepticism.

Thus, the resemblance between the control mechanisms of government as the church of Scientism and traditional religious churches is stark. It underscores how both types of institutions exert influence over individuals, often using a mix of psychological, social, and material means to achieve their ends. This expanded recognition prompts a reevaluation of our unwavering faith in "the Science" and invites us to question the similarities between traditional religious adherence and our contemporary belief systems, highlighting the complex interplay between belief, authority, and control in shaping human society.

I’ve been eating seed oils my entire life and feel the exact same 😂😂😂😂

People like you kind of make me want to leave nostr entirely. The research is legit, but not everyone in every location has access to the healthiest food nor the current ability to homestead. Instead of judging people for what they eat, I choose to be grateful for the fact they were able to eat period. If they can afford to do it healthier and organically, great.

So long, Phoenix.