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

201–210 of 229 posts

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

#201

Post by cortic »

rjmunro wrote: post #184
cortic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when i read that a suspect was seized by police; They might have just recovered a picture of the person..? But then the real person can't change addresses as they would be charged with escaping from police custody.. Doesn't seem right.

I think that when you read that a suspect was "seized" by police, the person writing it doesn't know what "seized" legally means, and they should have said "arrested" or "taken into custody" or something.

I think at best you could argue the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means, which is more worrying.

But i would say that taking public keys doesn't fulfill the "removes property from an individual's possession" in the law.cornell.edu link. There is no way to 'remove property from an individual's possession" while "leaving property in an individual's possession" at the same time. And if you are have done the second one of those things then you have failed to do the first.

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

#202

Post by batch12 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #104
closedloop129 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Government doesn't even have to physically seize anything. They just have to say "transacting with these particular coins is illegal". The blacklisted bitcoin is now worth zero USD, as many individuals receiving money from sanctioned people discovered. I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist.

Once blacklisted it'd be fun to transfer the BTC to as many random public wallets as possible.

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

#204

Post by dale_glass »

988747 wrote: post #200
dale_glass wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the sys…

> In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. I can quote tax laws as counterexample. A rule like "you pay 2% of your revenue as a tax" is simple and pretty hard to abuse. A rule like "Take your revenue, subtract expenses (see this 250-page document for list of allowed expenses and the rules when then apply), and pay 20% of your remaining income as tax" gives a lot of room t…

> I can quote tax laws as counterexample. A rule like "you pay 2% of your revenue as a tax" is simple and pretty hard to abuse.

Well, for one such a policy would bankrupt many people and companies and be bad long term. Eg, anybody living month to month with effectively nothing to spare would end up slowly losing everything.

And of course companies would work around that by making things not be revenue. Eg, instead a company just paying you $X, now you get a whole bunch of "free benefits". You live in company-provided housing and eat company-provided food, which doesn't count as revenue.

So rather than earning $1000 and paying $200 rent, you now earn $800 and pay no rent. Government now can't tax that $200 because it's not revenue. You just live in a house provided as a free perk by your job.

Next step is that the government notices and doesn't like it, so now there's an extra tax if you live in company-provided housing until you end up paying roughly the same amount of tax as before.

It doesn't matter how you cut it, anything "simple" will be worked around, the government will try to counteract it, and we've come full circle again.

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

#205

Post by irusensei »

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.

My passport has the wrong color. Banks often ask me for bullshit documents.

People are guilty by default on AML world and the burden of proof ALWAYS fall to the accused. This type of perversion of democratic values is loved and applauded by "well mannered and civilized" tech types whom are totes ok with de-risking strategies that are pretty much based on xenophobia. I'm yet to debate one of those oh-so-enlightened persons that didn't resorted to the "its your fault to have been born in the wrong place!" argument.

You know those people who love and pray to the altar of the almighty GDPR? They don't bat an eye to the fact that it doesn't apply to financial records.

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

#206

Post by pc86 »

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 -…

> The government agents involved are all felons

Pretty ironic this appears just a couple words after "innocent until proven guilty."

This is borderline sovereign citizen nonsense. The prosecutors and government agents did nothing wrong here.

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

#207

Post by slavik81 »

throw101010 wrote: post #158
ArnoVW wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like this legal construct is very inefficient at "seizing" bitcoins. Bitcoin is a bearer asset like no other. A house, cash, your gold stash, etc., when "seized", can be used by the state without consulting you once you are put in a hole (rightfully or not). The state has to adapt to this kind of new asset. The closest that existed before was burying your tangible assets somewhere without anybody knowing about…

The state will eventually just require that exchanges check the history of any bitcoins they touch against a list of seized coins. There's not much you can do with a big pile of illicit cash if everyone you'd want to transact with is checking the serial numbers.

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

#208

Post by pc86 »

988747 wrote: post #200
dale_glass wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the sys…

> In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. I can quote tax laws as counterexample. A rule like "you pay 2% of your revenue as a tax" is simple and pretty hard to abuse. A rule like "Take your revenue, subtract expenses (see this 250-page document for list of allowed expenses and the rules when then apply), and pay 20% of your remaining income as tax" gives a lot of room t…

What's the definition of revenue? Is capital gains revenue? This other law says capital gains are taxes at 1%. Do I pay 1% on the capital gains then 2% when I move it into my account? We allow deductions in order to incentivize investment - if you're getting taxed no matter what, you're incentivized to just keep the money.

I agree with you that everyone breaks at least some law on a daily basis, but I disagree that tax laws are based on governments wanting more power. They're based on a very complicated and chaotic mix of the incentives we want in society and lobbying by those who already have money and influence.

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

#209

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cortic wrote: post #201
rjmunro wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that when you read that a suspect was "seized" by police, the person writing it doesn't know what "seized" legally means, and they should have said "arrested" or "taken into custody" or something.

I think at best you could argue the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means, which is more worrying. But i would say that taking public keys doesn't fulfill the "removes property from an individual's possession" in the law.cornell.edu link. There is no way to 'remove property from an individual's possession" while "leaving property in an individual's possession" at the same time. And if you ar…

> the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means

Rooms full of lawyers getting a legal definition wrong for centuries across multiple jurisdictions is more likely than you misunderstanding a technical term?

> no way to 'remove property from an individual's possession" while "leaving property in an individual's possession" at the same time

Yes, there is. Possession involves control or ownership [1]. One can own something without controlling it and vice versa.

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

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

#210

Post by bloqs »

once_inc wrote: post #114
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

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?

Isn't this just textbook rubber hose decryption? Nerds with families are easy to manipulate or intimidate.
Post reply on HN