????今天的這則新聞肯定讓比特幣聽起來更像是一種犯罪分子使用的貨幣，而不是一種加密貨幣。

????司法部1月底以涉嫌洗錢之名逮捕了查理?史瑞姆。史瑞姆在布魯克林經(jīng)營一家名為BitInstant、提供美元兌換比特幣服務(wù)的公司。公司的業(yè)務(wù)流程如下：你把你的美元交給他，他把這筆錢轉(zhuǎn)移至一家交易所，這樣你就可以用比特幣買東西了，盡管從技術(shù)上講，你并不擁有比特幣，它們的持有人依然是史瑞姆。至少幾個月前接受我采訪時，他是這樣描述的（我當時正在撰寫一篇關(guān)于比特幣的報道）。不完全是一種交易，而是隔了一層。另一個人，被稱為BTCKing的羅伯特?法耶拉，也受到指控。

????史瑞姆是個說起話來挺有條理的人。他肯定是一位比特幣支持者，但并不是一位夸大其詞的推銷員。他也沒有躲在見不得人的角落。他是比特幣王國最知名、人脈最廣的玩家之一。他開設(shè)了第一個接受比特幣的酒吧?，F(xiàn)在回想起來，這聽起來或許有點像黑手黨風(fēng)格，但他開設(shè)的可不是一家比特幣版本的艷舞酒吧(Bada Bit)！這件事很可能會引發(fā)一些懷疑，以及一種虛擬貨幣面臨的某些后勤問題。

????為了撰寫一篇探討如何購買比特幣的稿件，《紐約雜志》( New York Magazine )的凱文?盧斯特意使用過史瑞姆的BitInstant服務(wù)。他甚至還致電史瑞姆，問了一些問題。盧斯好像沒發(fā)現(xiàn)什么不對勁的地方。其中有一個問題是，為什么BitInstant公司沒有更迅速地執(zhí)行客戶的交易。但盧斯從來沒有問過史瑞姆，他是如何把毒品交易資金洗得這么干凈。

????控訴書絲毫沒有提到史瑞姆與某樁毒品交易有直接聯(lián)系，或者史瑞姆知道他處理的資金正被用來購買毒品?？卦V書只是說，其中一些比特幣正在充斥著毒品交易的在線黑市絲綢之路(Silk Road)流通。我猜想，應(yīng)該是這種現(xiàn)象引起了監(jiān)管當局的關(guān)注。然而，鑒于絲綢之路被取締前在比特幣王國占據(jù)的江湖地位，我猜想，幾乎每一位比特幣玩家在一段時間內(nèi)都跟絲綢之路有著千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系。

????史瑞姆的公司是合法注冊的，而且制定了一些防范洗錢的規(guī)則。史瑞姆開始懷疑法耶拉的交易可能非法時，他甚至威脅要停止處理此人的交易，而且聲稱，如果他不守規(guī)則，他就會向當局舉報。當然，史瑞姆其實并沒有這樣做，他甚至為法耶拉提供了一些建議，教他如何隱藏自己的交易，這正是史瑞姆現(xiàn)在陷入麻煩的原因所在。

????那么，對于比特幣來說，這件事意味著什么？在全球最大的比特幣交易中心Mt. Gox上，比特幣的價格今天早上上漲至近1,000美元，但有一家網(wǎng)站聲稱，史瑞姆被捕的消息曝光后，價格頓時下跌至800美元略高一點。

????當然，所有的貨幣都可用于犯罪活動。犯罪分子需要一種方式來獲得報酬。如果你提供比特幣、美元、克郎或其他貨幣的支付服務(wù)，臟錢將在某個時點通過你的系統(tǒng)。但相較于美元，如果這筆臟錢是比特幣，那就是更大的事件。去年12月，蘇格蘭皇家銀行(Royal Bank of Scotland )被控處理了5.23億美元可能為非法交易的資金。一些交易對象是財政部黑名單記錄在冊的人物，其中包括恐怖分子和國際毒販（基本上都是聯(lián)邦政府的惡人榜成員）。監(jiān)管當局介紹說，根據(jù)這家銀行建立的一套制度化程序，它應(yīng)該挖掘可疑信息，同時還要及時告知監(jiān)管機構(gòu)某筆資金正在流向它不應(yīng)該歸屬的地方和個人。

????然而，蘇格蘭皇家銀行并沒有受到刑事指控，它的員工也沒有。支付了一大筆罰款后，這家銀行照常營業(yè)。形成鮮明對比的是，史瑞姆處理的最大一筆交易資金僅為1.3萬美元，但他的公司BitInstant 已經(jīng)被取締。

????馬克?安德森和其他風(fēng)險資本家正在加入這股比特幣風(fēng)潮，聲稱比特幣建立在堅實的技術(shù)基礎(chǔ)之上，使用人的足夠多，可以被視為一種有意義的貨幣。我的立場是，硬通貨在某種程度上總要被其他交易系統(tǒng)所取代，無論取代它的是比特幣還是其他什么東西。

????但像今天這樣的新聞讓我變得不太確定。比特幣并不比美元更腐敗。但這兩起逮捕事件顯示，創(chuàng)建一種新貨幣，特別是基于信任的加密貨幣，是一件多么困難的事情。當犯罪活動是用美元完成時，人們只是聳聳肩，擺出一副無可奈何的樣子。銀行只會遭受無關(guān)痛癢的懲戒。但如果犯罪分子使用比特幣，這種貨幣似乎就成了罪惡社會不可或缺的一環(huán)。像今天的逮捕行動會讓人們不太可能把手中的現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)換成比特幣，盡管它并不應(yīng)該受到這樣的待遇。

????譯者：葉寒

????The news out today sure makes bitcoin sound a lot more like a criminal-currency than a crypto one.

????The Department of Justice on Monday arrested Charlie Shrem on charges of money laundering. Shrem ran a Brooklyn-based company called BitInstant, which made it easier to swap dollars for bitcoins. The process went like this: You gave him your dollars. He transferred the money to an exchange so you could buy something in bitcoins, even if you didn't technically own the bitcoins. Those stayed with Shrem. At least that's how he described it to me a few months ago, when I talked to him for a bitcoin story I was working on at the time. Not quite an exchange, but one step removed. Another individual, Robert Faiella, who went by the name BTCKing was also charged.

????Shrem was a reasonable sounding guy -- a bitcoin backer for sure, but not an over-the-top salesman. And he wasn't hiding, either. He is one of the most prominent, well-connected people within the bitcoin universe. He opened the first bar to ever accept bitcoins. That may sound a little Goodfella-ish in retrospect, but it's not like he opened Bada Bit! That probably would have raised some suspicions, and some logistical issues for a virtual currency.

????Kevin Roose of New York Magazine used Shrem's BitInstant service for a story on how to buy a bitcoin. He even did a follow up Q&A with Shrem. Roose didn't seem to see anything amiss. There was a question about why clients weren't get their transactions executed faster. But Roose never asked Shrem how he was able to keep drug money so clean.

????And there is nothing in the complaint that says Shrem was directly connected to a drug deal, or that he knew that the money he was processing was being used to buy drugs. Just that some of the bitcoins were being used on Silk Road, which was rife with drug sales. I guess that should have raised concerns, but given how big Silk Road was in the bitcoin universe before it was shut down, I would guess that for a while nearly everyone who was doing business in bitcoins was a few steps removed from Silk Road.

????Shrem had registered his company with the authorities and had stated rules to stop money laundering. He even threatened to stop processing transactions for Faiella when he started to get suspicious that something illegal was going on, and he told him that he would report him to authorities if he didn't follow the rules. Of course, Shrem didn't actually follow through with that, and he even offered Faiella some advice on how to hide his transactions, which is why Shrem is in trouble today.

????What does this mean for bitcoin? The price of bitcoins on Mt. Gox was up this morning to nearly $1,000, but according to this site, they dropped to a little over $800 after the news of Shrem's arrest.

????Of course, all currencies are used for criminal activity. Criminals need a way to get paid. And if you are a payment processor in bitcoins or dollars or kroners or whatever, at some point dirty money is going to pass through your system. But it's a bigger deal when it happens with bitcoins than when it happens with dollars. In December, Royal Bank of Scotland was charged with processing $523 million in likely illegal transactions. Some of the transactions were for people on the Treasury Department's blacklist, which includes terrorists and international drug dealers. (Basically, the federal government's worst-person list.) According to regulators, the bank had institutionalized procedures for stripping out information that would tip off regulators that the money was going to places and individuals it shouldn't go to.

????And yet, no criminal charges were brought against RBS or any of its employees. The bank paid a large fine and moved on. The largest single transaction Shrem processed was $13,000. Shrem's company BitInstant has been shut down.

????Marc Andreessen and other venture capitalists are jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon, saying it is built on solid technology and is used by enough people to be considered a meaningful currency. My stance has been that whether it's bitcoin or something else, hard currency is going away in part to be replaced by some other transaction system.

????But news like today makes me less sure. Bitcoins are no more corrupt than dollars. But the arrests show just how hard it is to start a new currency, especially crypto ones, built on trust. When crimes are done with dollars, people shrug. Banks get slapped on the wrist. But when it happens in bitcoin, the currency appears to be part and parcel with the criminal underbelly of society. Arrests like today's will make people less likely to convert their cash to bitcoins, even if it shouldn't be that way.