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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

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

#141

Post by nullc »

yieldcrv wrote: post #99
nullc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always good to have a post with someone explaining to engage in illegal money laundering and thus indirectly explain the NFT, ICO, and 1/4 of the altcoin ecosystem.

thanks for your contributions to the space the capital will not be controlled and the government will have to find new tools to “promote a change of behavior” as they delightfully put it anyway, I’m all for walking away from the dirty funds that are stuck with the illiquid token, but even bigger fun to be had if the other 75% of the market buys into your token just because the price rallies so hard, then your tornado…

It's a thing, for sure, and something that a lot of people would like to hide. I don't understand why you sound so -- proud? about it. Even if we ignore that the laundering is only sometimes ethically neutral the people being scammed into buying the illiquid assets due to the deceptive cover are getting defrauded. This brings the whole ecosystem into ill-repute.

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

#142

Post by hef19898 »

krageon wrote: post #134
hef19898 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I cannot be the only one that sees politicians promise things and then spectacularly not deliver when they get elected. If the folks you vote for don't do what you want and you cannot vote for someone that does, there is no way for you to influence policy with a "democratic" process. For most people "just get elected" is not an option, because for that to happen you need to be rich, well connected and relatively well…

Oh dear, you really argue that every single parliamentary democracy in the world is not actually a democracy because, what, they are parliamentary? Something else?

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

#143

Post by hef19898 »

once_inc wrote: post #139
hef19898 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no third party to have agreements with. There is only the government, the account holder, and the private key.

You forgot the courts. The government seizing stuff (which can be a problem in itself) doesn't mean the government can spend / use the stuff as they see fit. Courts have a say in that.

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

#144

Post by DocTomoe »

hef19898 wrote: post #130
DocTomoe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's the point: In my example, an actual seizure of the account has not happened. Just because a state actor declares an item seized does not make it so - seizure implies having taken possession of the item at question (see, e.g. [1]). This clearly has not happened in the crypto case.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure

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

#145

Post by highwaylights »

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

I'm unsure this is as reliable of an offensive strategy as it would seem.

For a lot of people, there is no amount of money they'd be willing to spend the rest of their life in captivity for - but for a great many with dependents I imagine there's probably a number at which you'd go "yeah, OK, I'll take that deal".

That being said, rotting in prison doesn't protect any of your stuff from seizure anyway so we're back to the parent's point again.

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

#146

Post by cedilla »

cyphertruck wrote: post #121
jonas21 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

It's always funny to see someone who first talks about the presumption of innocence then going on to call huge groups of people felons without even knowing the details of the case.

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

#147

Post by drdeca »

hef19898 wrote: post #133
eecc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in Iran the government has the same monopoly and uses it to pursue its own ends alright. It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.

And how exactly is Iran a democratic society? I think I made a point about totalitarian regimes being different in the way the legitimize that monopoly and use it.

They didn't say it was? They were contradicting your claim that the state having a monopoly on violence is limited to democratic states.

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

#148

Post by iudqnolq »

cyphertruck wrote: post #121
jonas21 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

As I understand it your (incorrect) reading of 241 is that when the government securely holds your property pending the final outcome of your trial that violates the clause of 241 that forbids a conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person".

If that was true detaining a person would be a much more serious violation than detaining your property.

Now I happen to believe that pretrial detention is almost never moral. However, it's pretty obviously not a federal crime for a judge to order someone accused of murder to be held in jail until their trial.

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

#149

Post by raspberry1337 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #12

If you find yourself in the similar situation, use RenVM to get your bitcoin over to an EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine, many networks use EVMs now), then you have many more options. You can still use Tornado cash. You can still withdraw from Tornado cash to new addresses. You can use those funds in those new addresses to buy and pump the price of the the smallcap tokens you already owned with your salary money. Decent…

Does pumping really work when the whole market is crashing?

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

#150

Post by muricula »

hef19898 wrote: post #133
eecc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in Iran the government has the same monopoly and uses it to pursue its own ends alright. It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.

And how exactly is Iran a democratic society? I think I made a point about totalitarian regimes being different in the way the legitimize that monopoly and use it.

Iran gets trotted out as a strawman in these arguments, but its government is really quite democratic compared to many US allies which have the mere trappings of democracy painted on a dictatorship. Iran has an elected president, and a parliament and multiple parties. As I understand it, the biggest issue with the government as a functioning democracy is that the unelected supreme council can prevent candidates from running and and dissolve parties. I don't mean to defend its actions against protestors right now, which I believe are heinous, and the government is lacking in respect for many human rights, but as a strawman for absolute dictatorship it's a very poor choice. Democracy is a spectrum, Iran is definitely on the spectrum, and if we Americans look in the mirror and think deeply about the structure of our government, we might find out that we're a lot closer to Iran on that spectrum than we were taught in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Islamic_Repu...

Post reply on HN