Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24990233 (This is not a dupe since the Bloomberg story has new information.)
Has anyone found any official information from the DOJ about this?
Has anyone found any official information from the DOJ about this?
(via https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18607888/united-states-... )
I wonder if claims like this ever go anywhere.
At least a couple blokes sent token amounts, as they state:
> Individuals will often send minimal amounts of Bitcoin to these addresses for unknown reasons. For example, on November 3, 2020, 1HQ3 received 0.00010999 bitcoin (approximately $1.51) from an unknown individual.
I think some people who lost money when Payza/Alertpay got seized were given a very nicely worded letter saying who to contact for their seized funds, but those calls/emails/etc never went anywhere. Almost made it sound like you could get your money back.
Here's that claim notice page: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/victim-witness-assistance/ob...
and one case of a guy trying to get his money back for years: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7p6v3w/funds_s...
> I have called, & emailed everyone multiple times, and get a response back once every 4 months from people who don't understand whats going on.
I was wondering what they wanted the courts to do.
I’m not sure after reading the article. Are they just planning on destroying the wallet key, kind of like if they just burned a billion in seized cash?
It’s interesting to think about how to do this. It must be hard to keep an agent from recording the key, and using it 50 years later or something.
Theoretically as long as Bitcoin is around anyone who knows the private key can use those coins right? Is there a way to delete coins like a /dev/null address or something?
"According to an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Individual X was the individual who moved the cryptocurrency from Silk Road. According to the investigation, Individual X was able to hack into Silk Road and gain unauthorized and illegal access to Silk Road and thereby steal the illicit cryptocurrency from Silk Road and move it into wallets that Individual X controlled. According to the investigation, Ulbricht became aware of Individual X’s online identity and threatened Individual X for return of the cryptocurrency to Ulbricht. Individual X did not return the cryptocurrency but kept it and did not spend it. On November 3, 2020, Individual X signed a Consent and Agreement to Forfeiture with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California. In that agreement, Individual X, consented to the forfeiture of the Defendant Property to the United States government. On November 3, 2020, the United States took custody of the Defendant Property from 1HQ3."
More about Force & Bridges: https://freeross.org/corruption/
I wonder if any of the forfeiture got rebated back to them.
Why on earth would they do that? Under US law, law enforcement agencies can keep a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any goods they legally seize. This is a massive windfall for them.
> In most cases, the Department [of Justice] does not liquidate seized or forfeited AECs, as doing so allows them to re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use.
So note: if the DoJ auctions these off, it's "good for Bitcoin", as it provides further confirmation they consider them a normal form of property whose legal uses outweight any illegal uses.
On the other hand, if they refuse to auction them off, it's also "good for Bitcoin", as it permanently reduces the circulating supply, making all other units incrementally more dear.
Though it's unclear still what Bitcoin's principle role is. If it's more an asset, then yes, destroying coins is a benefit to current holders.
> re-enter the stream of commerce for potential future criminal use.
Because of course if CASH re-enters the steam of commerce is somehow different?
For example, what if we assume for a moment that this makes sense from a crime-fighting perspective. That is, the marginal value of future-crime prevented by withholding the cryptocurrency is greater than the value of the crime-fighting that could be financed if it were auctioned off.
If true, it would also follow that the DoJ should be buying cryptocurrency on the open market to keep it idle, at least until its price rises such that an equilibrium is reached, where "withhold-from-stream-of-commerce-value" and "spend-on-crime-fighting-value" become roughly equal.
You can send a transaction with a value and an output script of OP_RETURN (a bitcoin script instruction). These outputs are unspendable. [2]
[1] https://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2020/febbitcoinauction/ [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN
If you wanted to burn the coins you would send them to the zero address as coins in the zero address are guaranteed to never be spendable.
I guess you could send to a random address, but there’s an infinitesimal chance that someone in the future generates a key with that address, right?
Sure someone could randomly guess it but not likely. You don't need to have or know a private key to generate a valid checksum bitcoin address that can be sent to.
- Generate private keys at a rate in which you will be able to produce it in a reasonable time
or
- Outright reverse engineer the private key from the public key or other metadata
Then Bitcoin is broken and that 1bn is worth next to nothing.
They could also short Bitcoin before intentionally crashing it.
(This comment was merged from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24999794.)