thatguy987

I'm trying to figure this out and failing: How was the DOJ able to recover these funds?

The article just says

> a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California had granted a warrant to seize funds from the wallet earlier in the day.

But my understanding is that a judge can't just seize the wallet -- you'd need their private key. Anyone know what happened from a technical standpoint?

Looks like it may have moved here? Not sure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/us/politics/justice-depar...

Especially weird because this link is under "politics"

That's not what insider trading is. Insider trading is specifically using non-public information about a company to make investment decisions.

Technical analysis generally uses only publicly available information; it's finding patterns in those publicly available data that can help you make investment decisions.

I'm not saying it's socially useful; just that it is distinct from insider trading.

I really hope the republicans can clean up their act and become a reasonable choice again.

That being said, I think they will need to prove their commitment to reasonable governance as the minority for the better part of a decade before I am willing to seriously consider them again.

Personally, I don't think that these bannings will lead to something as extreme as what you're describing. Specifically, I don't see this leading to a ban of reasonable people.

If I'm reading your thoughts correctly, your main concern seems to stem from the fact that you're assuming the goal is to stop these people from communicating with each other.

However, I don't think that's the point of these bannings. I think the goal is to stop them from reaching a new audience and expanding (however, as I am not a CEO of a major social media company, I can only guess what the motivations are).

In that sense, if everyone switches to using code words, or to using non-broadcast media (eg, Signal), it's significantly less concerning, and there will not be a strong push to ban people from those sites. By only de-platforming clear violators, I bet they can still have a big impact.

I agree with you. It's a word that means different things to so many people.

It frustrates me when the media tries to make a big distinction between protests and riots. Those words have become emotionally charged.

Rather, if we're going to have discussions about this, we should be sure to be extra clear about what we're trying to say.

I think it's fairly pointless to debate what the precise definition of a riot is. Rather, I was trying express why people see this as different from the "sit-ins" (another wishy washy word) the the poster above you talked about.

The reason that I find Wednesday's acts worse is because of the violence. And I think that there could be a much more productive conversation off of that pretense, than over what is a riot vs a sit-in.

I think that a big difference to people is whether or not the event was violent.

Many protests involve civil disobedience; I think very few people here would condemn all illegal protests.

However, violence is where I (and I think many others) draw the line.

As another data point I heard: Wednesday was the first time since 9/11/2001 that the Capitol was evacuated. Clearly, this demonstration was exceptional in a way that disturbe