Zvi—curious why no mention of civil asset forfeiture here. It seems directly relevant to the topic, especially given that you write “There are a variety of ways to at least partially protect yourself, including self-custodial cryptocurrency and cold hard cash or other physical assets, especially ones that travel.” when large amounts of cash are regularly seized with almost zero oversight in the US.
Since I was asked a direct non-political question seems fine to answer it.
There are two reasons to mention civil asset forfeiture.
One is that it’s terrible in its own right and part of the job is fighting against it, which I’d agree with, but one can only talk about so much stuff at once.
Two is that it’s a risk that your cash or other assets could be taken from you. That’s true, but it’s a relatively uncorrelated risk—when they freeze your assets they still have to physically get to your cash or diamonds, and you can make that difficult in various ways, slash in many such situations a cash reserve is unlikely to get seized. And of course you can choose to put at least some Bitcoin in a place where it can’t be physically taken (at the risk of it being hacked easier). But yeah could have noted the danger.
Thanks for the answer. I agree you can only talk about so much stuff at once, it just seemed worth at least a mention in such a long post. If I’m going to read for 20 minutes about a the danger of a North American government limiting financial freedom, I’m pretty interested in reading for 21 minutes about how the neighboring government (albeit at a more local scale) is already doing so.
Zvi—curious why no mention of civil asset forfeiture here. It seems directly relevant to the topic, especially given that you write “There are a variety of ways to at least partially protect yourself, including self-custodial cryptocurrency and cold hard cash or other physical assets, especially ones that travel.” when large amounts of cash are regularly seized with almost zero oversight in the US.
Since I was asked a direct non-political question seems fine to answer it.
There are two reasons to mention civil asset forfeiture.
One is that it’s terrible in its own right and part of the job is fighting against it, which I’d agree with, but one can only talk about so much stuff at once.
Two is that it’s a risk that your cash or other assets could be taken from you. That’s true, but it’s a relatively uncorrelated risk—when they freeze your assets they still have to physically get to your cash or diamonds, and you can make that difficult in various ways, slash in many such situations a cash reserve is unlikely to get seized. And of course you can choose to put at least some Bitcoin in a place where it can’t be physically taken (at the risk of it being hacked easier). But yeah could have noted the danger.
Thanks for the answer. I agree you can only talk about so much stuff at once, it just seemed worth at least a mention in such a long post. If I’m going to read for 20 minutes about a the danger of a North American government limiting financial freedom, I’m pretty interested in reading for 21 minutes about how the neighboring government (albeit at a more local scale) is already doing so.