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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 901 posts

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

#691

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

yupper32 wrote: post #468
mardifoufs wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of…

I could literally watch someone pick up a gun and shoot someone. Technically they're still innocent until a court of law says they're guilty. But as an individual I don't need to wait to think they're guilty. The question is where do you draw the line as an individual.

Non-lawyers often seem to misunderstand this phrase. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement defining the fact that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the government. They have to present evidence proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; you don't have to present any evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's all it means. Obviously judges are not supposed to come into a case assuming you are guilty, but you can say that about any type of case. The phrase certainly doesn't mean we have to pretend that you are perfectly innocent up until the point of verdict.

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

#692

Post by anon776 »

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…

With a hardware wallet there is still a paper trail that you bought the device. So the feds will be looking for them.

Printing the paper wallets, putting them in a $1 glass jar with a silica packet and burying in your back yard would have been 100 times smarter.

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

#693

Post by vmchale »

digianarchist wrote: post #585
GekkePrutser wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" :)

Honestly don’t know why people don’t AES/GPG encrypt the keys and send a message to alt.anonymous.messages. That’s 30+ years of storage for free.

maybe he backed up to icloud by accident

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

#694

Post by kelseyfrog »

notch656a wrote: post #690
kelseyfrog wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of crypto-as-property constructivism, I'm neither an absolute institutional nor a communal conferralist. Presently, it appears like there is much more communal conferralism constructing crypto as property, I'd like to avoid institutionalization. In practice, this would not look like prohibition, rather the avoidance of extending existing property laws to encompass crypto assets. ie: courts and lawmaker…

Literally none of your examples of prohibition are those against an inanimate object. Crypto prohibition is completely incomparable to selling children (which by the way, they may not call it 'selling' but adoptions typically require tens of thousands of 'buying' in, so there is sort of a buying and selling of children at least in the US.)

Would evidence of a prohibition against an inanimate object change your mind?

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

#695

Post by young_unixer »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #312

> One overlooked detail in the Razzlekahn arrest. Almost all the money went through AlphaBay, using it as a mixer. The feds were able to see through this because they seized AlphaBay. Its amazing how, even years after, darknet market seizures pay dividends to the feds. Another fascinating detail. Source: https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/1491118233973571585

Another reason why Monero is better. With Monero, it wouldn't have mattered that AlphaBay was hacked.

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

#696

Post by fleddr »

cft wrote: post #365
SantalBlush wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circumventing property law has absolutely been a selling point of crypto, front and center, since its inception. The real no-true-Scotsman is saying, "Those who want an extra-governmental system of property aren't the real crypto fans." Yes, they are. In reality, crypto's true purpose is a moving target, so it can never be criticized because that's not what crypto is really about.

Crypto is also a white supremacy tool: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/02/05/the-charm...

Yeah, that's why Bitcoin grows fastest in Africa.

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

#697

Post by notch656a »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #694
notch656a wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally none of your examples of prohibition are those against an inanimate object. Crypto prohibition is completely incomparable to selling children (which by the way, they may not call it 'selling' but adoptions typically require tens of thousands of 'buying' in, so there is sort of a buying and selling of children at least in the US.)

Would evidence of a prohibition against an inanimate object change your mind?

I would be convinced if you could cite prohibition against inanimate data that maintains the 4th amendment protections in US while simultaneously thwarting those determined to share and manipulate that data. It might, might, work somewhere in someplace like Singapore where the population has widespread support for execution of those found with contraband and few constitutional protections.

Prohibition has doubtful effect in US on even universally hated and criminally suppressed content like CP.

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

#698

Post by ryan_lane »

ahallock wrote: post #563
ryan_lane wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's…

You just proved the parent's point.

I don't see how. I've seen the evidence. Is it murder? No. Should it be manslaughter? Absolutely. Is he a piece of shit? Also, absolutely.

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

#699

Post by vmchale »

Mizza wrote: post #593
bostonsre wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why he wouldn't move to somewhere that doesn't have an extradition policy with the US. If you go down that path, it seems like you should probably be willing to abandon your life. It's the same with Ross Ulbricht, seems like it would be terrifying living with that sword of damocles hanging over your head absolutely constantly.

I wish people would stop saying 'non extradition country' like that's a real thing. Brokep moved to Cambodia for that reason. They still got him anyway. If the powers want you, they can find away to get you. The only options I can imagine are publicly embarrassing the US government to the delight of Vladimir Putin or making a very large donation to the Cuban government.

You can still be extradited, it's just not automatic.

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

#700

Post by bastawhiz »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #384
bastawhiz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's assuming the feds don't have unfinished business with Bitfinex. They're not exactly on great terms.

That's just nitpicking. If Bitfinex is acting as a custodian, the property will be returned to the owners. Whether that return happens via Bitfinex or via the feds looking at Bitfinex's books doesn't really change much. The point is that the feds can't destroy property just because they don't like who it was stolen from.

The feds have no problem seizing and liquidating property. They do it all the time. They even recruit local law enforcement to do it for them. See "equitable sharing"
Post reply on HN