Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back • Hacker News Board

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#121

Post by cyphertruck » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 6:51 AM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #89

throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

Uh, those are the reporter's words, not the prosecutor's. If you read the indictment [1], the word "remotely" never appears, and it's pretty clear the prosecutors understand how Bitcoin works. If anyone's clueless here, it's Gary Harmon, who showed up at his brother's court hearing, learned that the government had not yet secured the Bitcoin that it legally had a right to, then almost immediately moved that Bitcoin t…

Government had bo legal right to the bitcoin. Innocent until proven guilty, means the government stole the bitcoin in a criminal attempt to deny him an adequate defense.

You can’t “steal” your own property.

The government agents involved are all felons under 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

The problem us our country is so corrupt you have forgotten we have a constitution and have probably never heard of the above two statutes.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#122

Post by cyphertruck » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 6:53 AM UTC

FormerBandmate wrote: post #86

throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins. The US government can throw your ass in prison for the rest of your life so yes, it is their coins. This is the basis of all government power and in a lot of cases, like this, it's good

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument.

The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws.

Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral!

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#123

Post by ArnoVW » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 6:54 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #105

Thorrez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically holding them was good enough, then that is an invaluable lesson they just The prosecutor didn't make that assumption. The prosecutor was unable to move the bitcoin because the prosecutor didn't know the PIN.

So they'd seized a safe that contained a note saying where the money/Bitcoin were hidden, but they didn't have the combination to the safe, and they didn't know if anybody else had a copy of the note. Calling those "seized bitcoins" is definitely stretching the truth in my opinion. And the Government,ent/prosecution knew this - from the article: "As a backup, Trezor hardware wallets can generate a “seed phrase,” a co…

Seizing is a legal construct. It's not "I'm grabbing hold" seizing. It's the "I've had a judge validate that legally I am now the owner" variant.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#124

Post by hef19898 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:06 AM UTC

cyphertruck wrote: post #122

FormerBandmate wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins. The US government can throw your ass in prison for the rest of your life so yes, it is their coins. This is the basis of all government power and in a lot of cases, like this, it's good

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.

In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#125

Post by krageon » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:12 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #124

cyphertruck wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument. The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws. Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral! Innocent until proven guilty.

In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.

> governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly

This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#126

Post by DocTomoe » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:15 AM UTC

Cederfjard wrote: post #120

once_inc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?

Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it. If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power…

Think of it this way:

A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account.

The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content - and then proceeds to arrest the bank account owner (or their associate).

No judge in their right mind would let that fly.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#127

Post by hef19898 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:15 AM UTC

krageon wrote: post #125

hef19898 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.

> governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.

There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic.

How exactly is that disingenuous?

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#128

Post by netheril96 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

closedloop129 wrote: post #87

Avshalom wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.

How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?

To be pedantic, the BTC freshly mined has clean history.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#129

Post by dale_glass » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:19 AM UTC

null0pointer wrote: post #79

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything Seizure is tied to possession, a legal concept [1]. Not control. Courts commonly authorize the seizure assets not yet under the government's physical control. (I agree the terminology is misleading.) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure

Ok, but they still didn’t actually seize anything. This is like saying they seized your bank account because they took the wallet which has your debit card in it.

No, seizure is a legal concept. There's no physical bank account the feds can somehow move into a locked room. The bank retains the technical ability to let you use your seized bank account anyway. It's just a bad idea because it's illegal, and if the bank did that, somebody would get into a lot of trouble.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#130

Post by hef19898 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 7:20 AM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #126

Cederfjard wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it. If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power…

Think of it this way: A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account. The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content -…

In your example, no, the account owner wouldn't have a right to remove the money if the account and not the computer holding the password, was legally seized by the government. The government so cannot use those funds as they please neither until a legal decision allows them to do (RICO maybe, or anti-Mafia laws in Italy allow for that after court decisions). Also in your example, the bank in a different jurisdiction will get requests from the government in question to freeze the account, which might or might not be followed through depending on bi-lateral agreements and which country is asking on which basis for the account being freezed.

I have no idea why crypto would be treated any different.