Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 281 posts

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#271

Post by creepto »

arcticbull wrote: post #120
qeternity wrote: post #116

“Stolen” This is Bitfinex we’re talking about. It’s a company run by criminals.

Fun little reminder that when Bitfinex was "hacked" they took a 36% haircut, if memory serves, from all account holders, in all assets -- not just Bitcoin. [1] Except for one account. Coinbase . [2] They then issued tokens to all the accounts they skimmed, valued at $1 each redeemable for shares in Bitfinex. They effectively converted a $72 million dollar theft (at the time) into a $72 million dollar valuation for Bi…

I love Tether.

3 Billion printed this week, back then they should've just printed 72 mil USDT.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#272

Post by miohtama »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #128
miohtama wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you receive BTC from one of these addresses as payment for something, do you refuse it? It's a crime to spend money you do not own. Like if you would find 500k in paper bills in your car. There is no source of funds it would be your legal asset. You hand it over to police.

Finding money and using miney that your know is stolen are totally different situations. 'finding' is ofcourse situational, but abandoned property can be 'found' and claimed

It is not. If you find something that does bot belong to you it does not become your property. Only in special circumstances you can claim it as your own.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#273

Post by leke »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #20
SilasX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with 1-prefixed addresses?

From https://bitcoinbriefly.com/practical-guide-bitcoin-addresses... : "Legacy addresses start with the digit “1”. These Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) addresses were once the standard address type up until August 2017. Many now advise against using them. Why? Legacy addresses incur the most expensive transaction fees when sending payments. They also limit the Bitcoin network's ability to scale. And their case-sensit…

Cool, thanks for the tip.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#274

Post by Taniwha »

pier25 wrote: post #230
Taniwha wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to find some clean bitcoins to tumble them with .... why would someone with clean coins tumble theirs with dirty ones?

Do online casinos check whether some coins are dirty?

Pretty sure I'd be mad if I gave a casino $100k in clean money, then checked back out with $100k that included $50k worth of marked bills from a bank heist ....

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#275

Post by arcticbull »

creepto wrote: post #271
arcticbull wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun little reminder that when Bitfinex was "hacked" they took a 36% haircut, if memory serves, from all account holders, in all assets -- not just Bitcoin. [1] Except for one account. Coinbase . [2] They then issued tokens to all the accounts they skimmed, valued at $1 each redeemable for shares in Bitfinex. They effectively converted a $72 million dollar theft (at the time) into a $72 million dollar valuation for Bi…

I love Tether. 3 Billion printed this week, back then they should've just printed 72 mil USDT.

Should just print a trillion or two, you know, in reserve. "Authorized but not issued" is what they call it right?

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#276

Post by geoduck14 »

t0mas88 wrote: post #268
geoduck14 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Walmart gift card will only get you so far. You can't: buy a fancy boat, car, or house. You can't pay for your kids school supplies (or school tuition), or treat your wife to a fancy hair do. The money laundering laws try to stop people dealing in tens of thousands of dollars, who LIVE off of the money.

I think you could buy a prepaid Visa? Or is that not a thing anymore?

Hmm.... That IS a thing, and I think they have limits up to $5k. Mind you, if you try to buy anything too big, you'll get put on a list somewhere.

Also, something to keep in mind, most financial companies have a "Know Your Customer" stage where they verify you employment and income. If you are trying to buy a $20k thing, and your only income is "a stack of Visa Gift Cards", you're going to have a bad day.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#277

Post by dkersten »

Emendo wrote: post #37
dkersten wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And keep a list of all serial numbers of stolen money to check against.

This sounds like an use case for blockchain.

Or... just keep a database with an API you can look up.

There is no need for it to be trustless and distributed.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#278

Post by ric2b »

cgb223 wrote: post #58
glimshe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could use also do that to embarrass/blackmail politicians or other prominent people. Imagine the threat "You either do what I want or I'll send you 1 million dollars" :)

What politicians accept Bitcoin as donations?

Just tell them you're willing to donate them more than $5K and they'll figure it out.

Politicians are surprisingly cheap, as I've learned over the years from various reports.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#279

Post by vageli »

kelnos wrote: post #199
retrac wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowingly receiving then spending stolen money or property is a crime in many jurisdictions. In many cases it may be phrased like "or ought to have known" so wilful ignorance isn't a defence. Even unknowingly receiving stolen money or property leaves you on the hook, potentially. If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them. The loss you incur here…

> If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them. I don't believe that's true, though this is based on just stuff I've heard, not on any data I can present. In general I hear that if someone steals something, and then sells it to you, and you don't know (and have no reason to believe) it was stolen, not only are you not legally liable, but you cannot…

At least in the United States, I don't believe this is true. Years ago I bought a laptop for a too-good-to-be-true price on Craigslist. As it turns out, the laptop I purchased had some kind of hardware lojack and I had a uniformed police officer and detective show up at my door, and later found myself responding to their questions at the station. When all was said and done, I was without the laptop and receiving $50/week until the full amount of $700 was received from the thief.

Re: $7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

#280

Post by dragonwriter »

kelnos wrote: post #199
retrac wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowingly receiving then spending stolen money or property is a crime in many jurisdictions. In many cases it may be phrased like "or ought to have known" so wilful ignorance isn't a defence. Even unknowingly receiving stolen money or property leaves you on the hook, potentially. If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them. The loss you incur here…

> If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them. I don't believe that's true, though this is based on just stuff I've heard, not on any data I can present. In general I hear that if someone steals something, and then sells it to you, and you don't know (and have no reason to believe) it was stolen, not only are you not legally liable, but you cannot…

> The new owner built on what was technically someone else's land, but later the "true" owner lost in court, and the owner who built on it was given ownership rights, and I don't believe was required to compensate the "true" owner.

Sounds like a case of adverse possession, which is a special feature of real property law not shared with personal property.

So, while that story is plausible, its not something you should generalize to non-real-estate law.

Post reply on HN