Bitcoin being seized
The bitcoins on SilkRoad have been seized by gaining access to the private keys of the SilkRoad's wallets. Government agencies have seized bitcoins once before in a similar fashion from a customer of SilkRoad. $3.6m are somewhere around 30k Bitcoin out of the around 11.75m currently existing. For comparison more than 500k BTC have been ...
According to this New York Times article of October 3, 2013:
Investigators believe Mr. Ulbricht collected commissions of more than 600,000 bitcoins, the equivalent of $80 million, which they are trying to gain access to. So far, the authorities have seized 26,000 bitcoins, worth about $3.6 million, from escrow accounts into which Silk Road buyers placed ...
3.5M $ in BTC it is nothing for the Bitcoin economy.
The current price is about 130$:
3500000$ / 130$ = 26923.07 BTC
The FBI took about 27k worth of BTC.
Each day, the network produces 3.6k new BTC:
25btc * 6 * 24h = 3600 BTC per day
26923.07 BTC / ( 25 * 6 * 24 ) = 7.48 days
So the FBI took the network's total reward of a bit over a week.
This Slashdot article sums the current state up pretty well (despite being more than a week old).
Sorry for posting this short comment as an answer; I have insufficient reputation to write comments but am strangely allowed to post answers instead.
As probably most readers of this have found by now, the figure of known seized Bitcoins has ...
Yes, since the amounts match across all four networks, it seems clear that most transactions must have happened before the forks—otherwise the amounts should diverge with the differing economic activity of various coins. In fact, it looks like most of the bitcoins on 1HQ3 were sent there in April 2013.
When BCH and BTG spun off from Bitcoin, the new networks ...
How do we distinguish between BTC and BCH in an address?
By looking at the post-fork BTC and BCH blockchain transaction-journals independently.
What does this "the address also contains" really mean?
They are saying that in both the BTC and BCH blockchain transaction-journals there were unspent transaction outputs associated with an address that ...
My thinking is that (i) G20 nations are democracies, and (ii) Bitcoin is a useful service. If it's useful to people, and people want it, they'll vote for it and it won't get banned.
If your country bans something useful to the masses, it's not a democracy. It will be banned only because it lost its utility, and if that happens, there will probably be ...
As a partial answer, let me point you to the three places of which I happen to know that they had more than one detailed report on the subject, starting the count with the arrest of Ulbricht. Please note that this list is probably a better reflection of my personal browsing habits than than any objective standard about being particularly fast or complete ...