Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

Post by parineum » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:23 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #577

parineum wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense.

> I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense. A fair point. And it's likely you're correct. Although using the term 'prove' has specific legal meaning that many (myself included) folks would associate with the use of that term. As I said, there's what you believe and what you can prove . Believing you can prove something may be well founded, but at least in the US nothing is actua…

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

cobookman wrote: post #454

arcticbull wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like he could have done more to distance himself. Bitcoin's public ledger makes transactions into prosecution futures. This is why it's such a poor choice for revolutionaries and funding the marginalized. You leave a permanent indelible public record in posterity that will in the course of time be de-anonymized, automatically, and traced back to you.

Is it illegal to sell your artwork at an auction, and a criminal happens to be the one to buy it? I honestly don't know. is the onus on an artist or on an "auction house" to vet buyers. If post sale it turns out the money was fraudulent, does the artist need to pay it back? In crypto terms. You the artist simply put a NFT up for auction at OpenSea. You the scammer happened to purchase the artwork on OpenSea. However…

Post by digianarchist » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #558

danso wrote: post #3

The statement of facts is linked to from the press release, and describes generally how the Feds were able to trace the stolen funds (they found a file listing private keys, after gaining access to the suspect's cloud storage) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1470186/downl... > The 2017 transfers notwithstanding, the majority of the stolen funds remained in Wallet 1CGA4s from August 2016 until January 3…

Wow. Such hacking prowess. Such bad opsec. Weird. Ps not condoning the theft but I just find it strange that people with the skills to steal this much get caught using bog standard cloud storage. You'd think they could afford something better ;) Something along the lines of "you don't take notes on a criminal f** conspiracy" :)

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

tevon wrote: post #510

colinmhayes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$4 billion has got to buy an awful lot of compute time, but still, how did they decrypt the file?

Is it me or should he have literally just gotten a hardware wallet, transferred everything to that account, then burned the old key? Of course that txn would show up on-chain, but if you don't have possession of the private key for the first account, and no digital device has ever "seen" the hardware account then he would've been fine. This is assuming the key piece of evidence was his private key, and he wouldn't ha…

Post by manquer » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

kisamoto wrote: post #11

In a hypothetical, if the two did not breach Bitfinex servers (unauthorized access to others systems) but instead managed to "guess" the private key to the Bitfinex wallet and transfer the funds, would this also be a crime? Would this be treated the same way?