81–90 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It seems to me that Z-Cash is much stronger than monero.
With ZCash, you have to trust the few men that did the "trusted setup". The point about privacy is to trust no one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with these allegations is they always seem to have this sort of issue, as well as logical problems. Some of the things in the article don't really make any sense. For instance they state that they way they decided that Guccifer was part of the GRU is that on one occasion the IP for that Twitter account was from the GRU. They then state that that must mean that the Russians must have forgotten to log onto…
Two other points worth noting 1. The FBI never had physical access to the hacked servers and were relying completely on the report from a third party company, CrowdStrike: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi... 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney, claimed that the data could not have been copied remotely because the download speed was around 22 MB/s (176 Mb/s) which he and…
It's interesting, this is the second time I've seen this talking point in two days. The first one linked to a slightly less blog-ish source, and pointed out that this "fact" had been established in _The Nation_, a reasonably well-respected and left-sympathetic newspaper.
Here's the article in The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-qu...
It now has a gigantic disclosure in front of it which takes most of the weight of the "findings" away.
I have to imagine that the first person at the FBI (or whichever agency is responsible for tracking money laundering) to come across bitcoin fell out of their chair laughing when they came across it. It's a protocol that has a public, dated, irrefutable log of every transaction made... and its users think it untraceable (or at least, they thought it untraceable back when it first came out).
How do you trace mined coins?
1. Converts to Fiat 2. Buys/Ships something online 3. Transfers to an exchange
It’s now fairly visible to entities keeping a close eye (governments).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grand juries indict people, not judges.
Grand juries follow the instructions of the judge presiding over the proceedings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with these allegations is they always seem to have this sort of issue, as well as logical problems. Some of the things in the article don't really make any sense. For instance they state that they way they decided that Guccifer was part of the GRU is that on one occasion the IP for that Twitter account was from the GRU. They then state that that must mean that the Russians must have forgotten to log onto…
Two other points worth noting 1. The FBI never had physical access to the hacked servers and were relying completely on the report from a third party company, CrowdStrike: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi... 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney, claimed that the data could not have been copied remotely because the download speed was around 22 MB/s (176 Mb/s) which he and…
Your point two is is based on an embarrassingly incorrect assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two other points worth noting 1. The FBI never had physical access to the hacked servers and were relying completely on the report from a third party company, CrowdStrike: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi... 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney, claimed that the data could not have been copied remotely because the download speed was around 22 MB/s (176 Mb/s) which he and…
> 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney etc It's interesting, this is the second time I've seen this talking point in two days. The first one linked to a slightly less blog-ish source, and pointed out that this "fact" had been established in _The Nation_, a reasonably well-respected and left-sympathetic newspaper. Here's the article in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises…
"In the end, Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, Threat Connect and other CrowdStrike competitors all confirmed Crowdstike’s results."
I have to imagine that the first person at the FBI (or whichever agency is responsible for tracking money laundering) to come across bitcoin fell out of their chair laughing when they came across it. It's a protocol that has a public, dated, irrefutable log of every transaction made... and its users think it untraceable (or at least, they thought it untraceable back when it first came out).
In my experience this is very rarely the case for any serious bitcoin user I have met. In fact, those seeking anonymity have moved on to monero etc. For many the traceability just doesn't matter that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's about as untraceable as cash. If you pick some up anonymously, then use a different address for each transaction, all while obfuscating your connection using Tor or the like, your transactions should be difficult to trace.
> If you pick some up anonymously, That's quite the premise. For the layperson, there are very few ways to come across Bitcoin anonymously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your explanation of those ledger entries? Was Mueller setting up Russia before he was named Special Counsel? Also, I read the indictment ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller... ) but I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"" . Please point me to it? I assumed they used stolen identities,…
I don't think there has been any public release of information confirming the evidence revealed in the indictment. Indictments are supposed to be somewhat hyperbolic in appearance (not literally, but figuratively). They aren't supposed to lie, but at the same time they will omit key facts explaining how or why they know or suspect person X did action Y. Those facts will be revealed to the defense or during trial. Unf…
People will never be satisfied. If/When the full emails quoted in the indictment are released, they will point out that e-mails are just UTF-8 characters in a file that anybody could have created. There simply is no evidence, nor is it even possible for there to be any evidence, that people could verify at home. Even if the official Russian "Certificate of Excellence in Hacking Democracy", printed on Russia's own polonium-laced paper, affixed with "Putin's Seal of Outrageous Heterosexuality" self-appointed sceptics will complain that all they can access is a photo, and the FBI isn't letting them stop by and inspect the original.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two other points worth noting 1. The FBI never had physical access to the hacked servers and were relying completely on the report from a third party company, CrowdStrike: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi... 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney, claimed that the data could not have been copied remotely because the download speed was around 22 MB/s (176 Mb/s) which he and…
> 2. The former tech director of the NSA, William Binney etc It's interesting, this is the second time I've seen this talking point in two days. The first one linked to a slightly less blog-ish source, and pointed out that this "fact" had been established in _The Nation_, a reasonably well-respected and left-sympathetic newspaper. Here's the article in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises…
Second, I read the disclosure, and all it does is point out that it is a possibility and not a fact. It also points out that the intelligence agencies have not provided any hard evidence that Russia was behind the leak, and they are the same groups who lied to the public about WMDs in Iraq to justify that invasion.
This article also says that the original reports were published by Consortium News, the source I linked to.