Silk Road Bitcoins worth $1B transferred after seven years
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
With $1b, I’d rather risk losing 10% than having a 10% chance of losing all of it.
Any secret protecting anything you care about should be rotated. The schedule is dictated by specifics.
Surely key rotation only makes sense if the time between each rotation is much much less than the expected time between compromise and theft.
In high value situations, an attacker is highly motivated to ensure they steal Bitcoin very quickly after compromise. Especially becaus the clock is ticking until the compromise is discovered and mitigated.
so either someone succeeded, or it got rotated by simply moving the coins to literally any other address. of course, both of these outcomes are indistinguishable which is part of the beauty of the system, especially if someone was actually trying to ride out statute of limitations or something else.
they can still obfuscate their destination either way. if the source is illicit its money laundering, if the source is not illicit its just obfuscation, if done right the illicit source is never discovered having been replaced with a licit source.
from this article and other articles I've seen:
> A file that some claimed was an encrypted bitcoin wallet containing the keys to the funds has been circulated in cryptocurrency communities for the past year, and – if it is what it was claimed to be – then a combination of brute computing power and good luck could have successfully decrypted the wallet.
Each of these transactions can be traced, but it can be difficult to track which output bitcoins relate to which input bitcoins.
Given the age of this wallet, something like that could be involved.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/40963/upgrading-...
Edit: It was more painful than that, I used this process: https://walletrecovery.info/how-to-transfer-bitcoin-from-a-m...
[EDIT1]: Looks like this one:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3f036ff88bb851b57...
[EDIT2]: and since these coins existed pre BCH fork, it's worth looking at the BCH coins ... TL;DR: they have moved as well: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/00082718d96f...
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20gold/tx/9ac265c90b7d5bb4...
There is a petition for Ross:
https://www.change.org/p/clemency-for-ross-ulbricht-condemne...
Those charges were dropped and there is no reason to believe that the state was not lying when they laid them on him.
Dropping charges doesn't mean it's not true, just that the prosecutor did not want to pursue the case, in light of other prosecution available.
If he wasn't convicted, then we shouldn't talk about the punishment he deserves to get for those charges.
And there is evidence in this scenario too, is there not?
Not all evidence is created equal and the situation here where there was a functioning fair court system is quite different from situations where there isn't one. There was definitely some irregularities in the investigation, and a possibility of entrapment.
Regardless, i don't take issue with talking about it, i just take issue with saying he deserves to be punished for it when the allegations were never proven in court. He should be punished for the things its proven he did, not the things he might have done.
Ross is no moral hero, but let's not pretend he was treated fairly or reasonably by law enforcement or the court.
He definitely thought he had ordered the death of at least one, possibly more, errant employees.
I am aware that the errant employee and the hitman he hired were all FBI cutouts.
Ross is no hero, but also, let's not pretend the court system acted reasonably here. If they had even a 50/50 chance of getting him on conspiracy to commit murder, they would have brought the charge to trial. The prosecutor didn't drop the charge to be nice. The evidence of entrapment probably would have hurt the case as a whole, so they dropped the conspiracy to commit murder charge. Yet, it appears this strong suggestion that he committed a serious crime played the majority role in his sentencing.
This should scare anyone around the world, given the long reach of US law enforcement. The prosecutor kept embarrassing entrapment details out of the trial and still got a heavy sentence for just the allegation of a crime. The prosecutor got to have their cake and eat it too.
Do you have a source for that? IANAL but as far as I know that is not the way the US legal system caries out sentencing.
Apparently there has been a long standing practice of judges finding facts to justify a longer second, but it's questionable whether the practice is Constitutional.
Regardless, court convictions correctly use a very high standard of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...
That's appropriate because a) it's important to be very careful when assigning criminal penalties, and b) they spend a lot of time and money getting at the truth.
But when discussing things casually, as here, neither is true. I'd say HN runs somewhere between "reasonable to believe" and "balance of probabilities". And that's about right. If I'm wrong about Ulbricht, no particular harm comes to him; if more information comes to light and I change my mind, there's no damage to undo.
> And that's about right. If I'm wrong about Ulbricht, no particular harm comes to him; if more information comes to light and I change my mind, there's no damage to undo.
Would you not agree that what you said is equally true for one who judges people at roughly the same high standard as courts?
But good news! The US draconian drug punishment laws are changing as we speak... for users, that is. Sellers are probably still at significant risk.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kle...
Cryptocurrency is designed specifically, by virtue of its decentralized and trustless nature, to facilitate money laundering. It was a design goal. This is what it's for. That and of course, collecting the proceeds of ransomware. Another way of describing 'money laundering' is transferring value, without the permission of a centralized government authority, with the intent to conceal the source of funds (hey it's your money right?).
That it has yet to achieve the same scale is not relevant.
All sorts of illegal activities aren't done at scale, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be policed. Otherwise you'll be pointing to the small scale right up until the moment it's not small anymore, and then it's too late.
1. Houses are meant for you to live in. Not super contentious I wager.
2. Trustless and decentralized means you can transfer value without the permission of a centralized authority. I believe that's frequently touted.
3. Money laundering is transferring money without the permission of a centralized authority with the intent to conceal the original source of funds.
That's the wrong part, even if it was just hyperbole for literary effect then you are conflating legal terms you don't really understand then. Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin, not merely circumventing the permission of a centralized authority. You were correct that it is designed to ignore the concept of centralized authorities, the rest was either a completely incorrect extrapolation of that, or hyperbole that did not give the effect you thought it did as it just undermines your point and the strength of your argument.
> Money laundering is a legal term that requires an illicit origin.
I'm not 100% sure if it requires both an illicit source and intent to conceal or not. It might, but it sounds like we both have half the definition.
For instance, structuring -- breaking apart large transactions into smaller ones to avoid a currency transaction report -- is illegal regardless of whether the source of funds is criminal or not.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
Okay. And that's partially why I'm open to the idea of the government ceasing to use public resources on whitelisting all transactions, instead of debating you over whether something is or isn't money laundering.
Structuring is a different crime than money laundering, which is actually another exhibit on why I want the government to cease using bothering using public money and resources on whitelisting all transactions. I read enough court cases on Google Scholar about paranoid people doing legal things convicted for only structuring on Google Scholar to make this opinion, and this was before HSBC got a slap on the wrist for literally accepting cash deposits from the literal cartel and getting caught, undermining the whole point of whitelisting transactions to begin with.
I assume you mean according to USC (ie USA law), could you cite which section please?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
and pretty much trying to avoid any monetary reporting threshold is a criminal charge whether you intended to or not.
so this one is funny because almost every fairly poor person I know, the kind of people that would rarely have over $10,000 at once ever, are the exact people that would harbor some belief about doing X, Y and Z to "avoid transferring over $10,000"
believe it or not, jail, right away.
Thinking about workarounds, of course carrying money over the border is limited to $10k too, but this was amusing (in a 'I can't believe they were that petty' sort of way):
>"There was also a case in Canada in 2013 where fluctuating exchange rates caused a man to have his funds seized. In this situation, the man carefully calculated and was carrying just under $10,000 CAD. However, by the time he reached the airport two days later, the exchange rate tipped his combination of USD and CAD dollars to over $10,000 CAD. Sniffer dogs detected the undeclared cash and the CBSA seized the total amount from him." (from https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/)
and carrying a cheque that's signed counts as carrying >$10k. So, I wonder about carrying a Bitcoin wallet?
Or maybe that's intentional.
In reality, like with cryptocurrency, trying to attribute intention where you only see an effect is just manipulative.
If it was its designed goal, it would've also included provisions to provide proofs anonymously, and reduce physical traceability.
I very much see some cryptocurrencies tried, and some are moderately successful with it, but none have progressed much on the former other than by using crypto signing by some centralised, or semi-decentralised entity which processes the ledger, or does proof of work. So, none of the popular cryptocurrencies have achieved a true "non-chain" way of working, which does not rely on a continuous record of the global state of the ledger.
The cryptographic trust in such mechanism would be much less than in a non-anonymous ledger, where the state of all wallets is recorded for everybody to see, and check for signs of something weird.
That is simply false. Virtually every cryptocurrency is 100% traceable.
Yes, there are a few cryptocurrencies for whom untraceability is a design goal. Obviously this does not include Bitcoin (which is the subject of this thread), and in general it doesn't include the vast majority of cryptocurrencies.
One single counter-example of someone who failed to take necessary precautions when committing a crime doesn't mean the tens of thousands of people you never heard of haven't been very successful.
Maintaining proper opsec for any significant length of time is extremely difficult, nigh impossible. Almost everyone will fail at some point. With pseudonymity, a single failure ever means everything is lost. With anonymity, only that single failure is lost.
.init: generate a new wallet and return its public key, the public key of another wallet (probably one per service for obvious reasons) with at least a DIME to mix and a opaque token identifying (only to you) the pair.
.fini: given a token from .init and a transaction that adds up multiple source UTXOs and sends 1 DIME to each of a (sorted) list of wallets that includes the .init-generated wallet, sign that transaction with your source wallet.
.link: given a DIME size in BTC and a (.onion) URL implementing this interface at that size, add it to a internal list.
.list: given a DIME size, return (possibly a random subset of) the list from .link for that size.
For best results you'd need to formalize this interface a bit more and popularize it for better entropy and better plausibility of "well, I guess someone else thought this was a good idea to imitate". Speccing a client to interact with such services (feeding data from .list back into .link and collecting keys from .init to build transactions for .fini) is left as a excersize for the reader.
The key point is that you have disposable pseudonyms that will mix their coins with anyone who offers a valid mixing transaction. Assuming there is demand for mixing from anyone other than you (if there's not, you can't really do anything anyway), this captures that demand in order to satisfy your own mixing needs, while also allowing others to bootstrap the exact same trick by adding their own backends via .link.
There's QOS and anti-DOS issues to be solved, but it's definitely something that in principle can work.
And suddenly, it becomes a SPOF for those people.
You probably have some good points to make, but saying something like this is just willfully not engaging in communication with the other side of the argument. That is an egregious strawman which obscures whatever valid points you actually have.
No it's designed to eliminate debasement and inflation
Someone money launders with crypto and it’s on the front page. A bank launders hundreds of times more and it’s just another day. Perhaps you could say it’s because of the novelty of crypto, but I suspect the motives run deeper - crypto is a threat to modern financial institutions and turning public interest against crypto is in the best interests of the establishment.
I don't think it's inexplicable that we hate an ongoing environmental disaster.
You can still hold that bitcoin is bad, but that particular argument is not viable and comes from ignoring what the other side is saying.
The point is that a huge fraction of the crypto economy is outright extortion or fraud, not that it's the source of all evil in the world.
I'm not sure that's true. Do you have a citation?
What is clear is that a huge portion of the crypto economy is based around cryptocurrencies (particularly bitcoin) being financial assets.
While it's good to check sources, keep in mind that original research is also valid.
After all, you made a similarly uncited assertion.
Indeed, the criticism is not of the facts but of the logic. My critique is primarily of your rhetoric. You requested a citation without offering a rebuttal. Yet, you you made a claim that appears to be equally well-founded, or as you're implying, un-founded.
Saying "citation needed" is a somewhat bland, passive-aggressive statement that itself lacks content. I'd have (and still would) appreciate reading the rationale for your skepticism.
Your criticism of me amounts to the fact that I asked for a citation of a statement I was skeptical about. I think that's pretty plainly not a legitimate criticism.
I think that you are the one who is being passive aggressive here.
If you thought my comment was passive aggressive, you could have just said so. (It generally is not passive aggressive to ask for a citation, but I can see how someone could think that.)
If you wanted me to explain the rationale for my statement, you could have just directly asked, instead of criticizing me in the way you did, which seems indirect and unfair.
> ... pretty plainly not a legitimate criticism
What's plain to you isn't plain to me, and vice versa. I think you missed the main thrust of my argument, which is getting at the hypocrisy of asking for a citation and then making an uncited claim. Perhaps more importantly, it's asking for logical argument to accompany requests for a source.
There's a related issue in the current scientific paradigm, fetishizing statistical p-values. People are so distracted by the veneer of a p-value (or a citation) that they forget to look for a plausible causal mechanism.
By the way, you still haven't explained your skepticism of the original statement you replied to.
A person asking for a citation is not disallowed from making a claim. Someone else is free to ask for a citation from me, in return.
You are not only incorrect, which is fine, but you're unjustly calling me a hypocrite, which, personally, I consider to be a rather non-nice thing to say.
Furthermore, my request for a "citation" was supposed to be equivalent to asking for "any sort of rationale." You are interpreting that overly legalistically. I'm was just trying to have a conversation, OK? And I did it in a polite way. I would have been happy to hear a rationale that was not a citation per se. It would even have been OK for the person I was responding to to say, "I don't know, I just suspect it," or "I heard it anecdotally," or whatever.
> There's a related issue in the current scientific paradigm, fetishizing statistical p-values. People are so distracted by the veneer of a p-value (or a citation) that they forget to look for a plausible causal mechanism.
I agree, although that's not related to my behavior here.
I'm annoyed by the same thing you are, which is when people use "citation?" as though it's a counter-argument. But I wasn't doing that. I wish I had just said, "What's your rationale for saying that." But you know what? I can't predict when someone is going to misinterpret a perfectly reasonable and polite thing I've said.
I think the thing I was responding to is exactly the (rare) kind of thing where an actual citation probably is the kind of answer someone with a rationale would want to give, as opposed to a causal explanation or some other sort of evidence. So you're preaching to the choir, here. I get what you're saying, i.e., that many people ask for citations in a context where a citation doesn't really make sense (for example, a controversial medical claim where there are probably numerous studies that seem to disagree with one another). This just isn't that sort of context. I could see myself making the same point you are making in a different context. It annoys me to be lumped in with those people that you and I are both justifiably annoyed by.
> By the way, you still haven't explained your skepticism of the original statement you replied to.
I just don't think it's true. I know that cryptocurrency is being treated as a financial asset. I haven't seen evidence that extortion or fraud are a major fraction of what's going on with cryptocurrency. I have enough familiarity and experience with the field to think that my sense of this is probably correct.
Bitcoin is 66% of the market cap of cryptocurrency. It's clear that bitcoin is being used widely as a financial asset (it's available in multiple funds you can get in brokerage accounts, there are many high-volume OTC desks, there are derivatives, there is now lending). There is a lot of journalism showing that large sums of money are flowing into bitcoin as a financial asset; for example, the company MicroStrategy purchasing $425M of bitcoin, or Robinhood facilitating bitcoin trading, or GBTC accepting inflows of hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase bitcoin.
In contrast, I'm aware of ransomware, but I suspect it's probably a very small fraction of the bitcoin/cryptocurrency economy (but, as I said originally, I would be interested to see evidence contrary to that). My sense is that it's pretty hard to effectively launder money with cryptocurrency, unless you stay out of the US and Europe and parts of Asia, i.e., unless you stay in the places where it's already probably easier to launder money. But again, that's just my sense, so if someone has an explanation contrary to that, I'd be interested to see it, which is why I asked.
I view many of the smaller crypto coins as scams, so there is actually an interpretation of OP's statement that I agree with - I guess it depends on how you define "fraud" and "a huge fraction." Again, bitcoin is 66% and is clearly not a scam (though it would be fair to ask why that's clear if someone doesn't already know - but my answer right now would be, go research it yourself, I can't take the time to explain all that). Bitcoiners may be misguided or wrong, but it's not a scam.
Anyway, back to the topic of Bitcoin. I think your assessment is right in that the bulk of Bitcoin transactions are speculative investments. However, given that the value of Bitcoin as an asset lies in its assumed eventual use as a currency, the original comment might also be correct in that non-speculative transactions are predominantly related to illicit activities. I'm unaware of any common legitimate purpose beyond financial speculation.
When one thinks of world trade, there's (these numbers are from a faded memory of an international trade class about 2 decades ago, so they're horribly wrong) something like $50 billion in goods exported daily. That's the world economy. Then there's $500 billion in currency derivatives traded daily to ostensibly enable exports across currencies, but it's really just speculation. It's not real trade. So when someone talks about the Bitcoin economy, it's hard to know whether we should be talking about just the actual economic activity conducted using Bitcoin as a currency, or whether we should include the speculative trades as well.
If you call my comment hypocritical, I think you're calling me hypocritical. Apparently you don't think so. That's fine. It could be a cultural difference. Let's not litigate it.
> There's no need to defend a turn of phrase so vigorously. If you'd just led off with, "No, I didn't mean it like that," as you've done here, then I'd have shut up.
I don't think this is a charitable thing to say. If there was no need for me to defend it, there was no need for you to "attack" (criticize) my comment in the first place. If you don't agree, that's fine. Again, let's not litigate it.
> I mean, come on, surely you recognize how "Do you have a citation?" falls into the camp that both of us apparently dislike.
I don't agree. As I already explained, I think it's OK to ask for a citation, in a certain context. I don't think I was doing the thing you're complaining about and which annoys me. If you disagree, that's fine. Let's not litigate it.
I would have liked for you to find a way to continue communicating without continuing to criticize, but it didn't happen. Oh well. Let's call this conversation finished. Take care. On the bitcoin stuff you are bringing up, that looks fine to me. I don't have anything more to say about that.
Think about how difficult it was to enforce copyright law in 1970 versus 2010. In the former, copyright enforcement was a matter of having enough lawyers to sue enough enterprises. In 2010, everyone has a commercial-scale copyright infringement device in their pocket. You practically can't enforce the law to the same level purely because the targets are too small and numerous and going after them is a PR nightmare. This is why the music industry fought against consumer-grade recording technology for so long (and lost). Regulating large businesses is a fundamentally more tractable form of law enforcement than individuals.
I would replace 'money laundering' with privacy and anonymity.
These properties are desirable. These properties give the individual undertaking the transaction a semblance of control. These properties prevent authorities from taking that control away except by using the law, which i think is a fairly good way to enforce control.
So if the individual feel that the law is unfair, they have the option to _not_ obey. If enough people choose to _not_ obey, it forces the court's hand and legislator's hand - this serves society.
Under centralized control, the individual does not have the option to not obey, because their transactions require approval from authorities. This approval becomes a chilling effect for change, and it makes it easy to target them before the general society is able to transition or understand. Civil disobedience is thus impossible under centralized control.
And I notice you once called me GPT-3.
What a Blade Runner future we live in.
there are trustless mixer networks[1]. The bigger problem is that you're going to run out of liquidity. You preferably want to exchange 1B of "dirty" bitcoin for 1B of "clean" bitcoin, not tumble the 1B of bitcoin and get back the same dirty coins.
I also like how they say "no trust", but in reality, you have to trust them (and their entire supply chain).
Edit: from their FAQ: "Can I re-seal after breaking the seal? No. A permanent change is made inside the flash memory of the processor." Oof. Big oof.
coindesk is a blog, not an exchange.
There is a limit here, because there are not that many cryptocurrency transactions. So each transaction chain must be small, or the number of chains must be small. Anyway, the restrictions on international investigations are probably a much larger issue than any splitting and washing that one can effectively do.
But a large chunk of Bitcoin’s 2020 wealth comes from it being a speculative instrument - as your comment indicates! I hope this dies down eventually but obviously Bitcoin is objectively high-risk. We are still in the first year of a serious recession, and significant political turbulence, and a pandemic. It’s not irrational to put that money into dollars / euros / etc.
Investors who understand Bitcoin's potential do it an indispensable service. They inform the public (through price information) of that which most of the public is unable or unwilling to figure out on their own: that Bitcoin has tremendous potential to change the world and warrants serious attention, both currently for certain people as a hideable, unconfiscateable, transportable, no-third-party-risk store of wealth and in the future for everyone as a transactional currency (and as the cornerstone of the financial internet).
I personally accept is as payment, and therefore consider it a currency. Why would I want to buy things with it today when I can use ever inflating dollars for that?
Bitcoin is a fine technology and a fine thing to put part of your wealth into, especially if you support the tech and want to use it to buy things or invest. It’s also brand new, it’s price / USD or euro is obviously unstable, and there’s a global pandemic-depression! It’s just short-sighted (and intellectually dishonest) to say Bitcoin is low-risk and “hard currency” because it’s protected against inflation.
Agree to disagree. I would say you're the one twisting the definition of "hard currency" (Wikipedia is not the source of all truth).
"Hard money" originally reffered to gold. When paper currency took over the term "hard currency" was used to distinguish between good and bad paper currencies.
I maintain that the "hard" part (which derives from gold) refers to the inability to be inflated easily. But I'm happy to concede that Bitcoin is not a currency yet in most peoples' eyes. I'm happy to switch to calling it a hard money.
BTC is inarguably NOT "widely accepted around the world as a form of payment for goods and services". I'm very sorry to break it to you.
Low volume ways would be to use the bitcoin to purchase drugs or other illegal goods by the kilo and sell the drugs the usual way.
It's unlikely that the person needs to full billion immediately. Five or ten million a year could be enough for many people and at that kind of level exchanging for monero could work.
There is also the option of sending small amounts to thousands of real people's bitcoin wallets (and lots more to wallets you control) and letting those people deal with the FBI first.
[1]: relatively famous for aiding and abetting money laundering on a large scale.
ref: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
- slowly buy bitcoins on exchanges over several years
- destroy the wallet with 1B publicly ( I assume here it is possible. I heard of possibility to transfer to reserved/impossible wallets )
- wait a bit for the exchange rate to go up
- sell your previously bought bitcoins
- pay back the loan
Edit: OK, maybe $1B is too small for this scheme to work. But if the wallet would contain say 50% of all bitcoins this would be a possibility.
even if they have trillions, they cant cash it out because its so large. to many eyes. and bitcoin is not anonymous
More information on the wallet found here: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRy...
Well, a private key is only as good as your (P)RNG.
[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction#Pay-to-PubkeyHash
The first few buyers might be paying the asking price, but presumably the order book has offers to buy at considerably less than today’s $/BTC?
Are there any markets out there that quote the price of stocks in terms of the total (average? median?) value of currently placed orders?
That sounds a lot like freedom to me.
Nooooo, they were Biden their time! Good choice of day though. Who would have expected this level of chaos.
Anyone who has been breathing for the past four years..
Busy news day... which means... today?