31–40 of 203 posts
I didn't get passed the pay wall but my question is how do we know this? What's the trail of evidence that leads to this conclusion.
Seems like most of this theft is happening when people port currency between exchanges and the bridge is vulnerable.
I have a quibble with articles about cryptocurrency fraud. They always get around to mixers and then they define it as if it were some relatively legitimate thing, like an odd bank. "large digital pools", "deposit funds". You have to get to the last phrase ("obscure their origins") to understand what mixers really are.
A proposed alternate definition: "mixers - international money laundering services where illegally obtained cryptocurrency can be mixed with other fraud proceeds making it harder for the legal system to trace".
(The definition I really would like: "mixers - services that look to hide your funds but are actually operated by intelligence agencies to track illegal activity". I imagine at least one mixer is a honeypot of sorts.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you see an economist.com submission on HN, typically the top comment is a morally dubious but ever so helpful archive link to get around the paywall. In this case: https://archive.ph/SUYp1
Having javascript disabled by default in your browser works fine on most HN-linked sites. Without waiting for someone to post an archive link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not bad for a supposedly backwards repressed regime What do you mean by supposedly? > It also exposes a wider problem the crypto community are not addressing. What wider problem? That money (in any form) can be stolen by a malevolent state?
I think crypto has made it easier for them to steal money. I would be curious to see how much money oppressive regimes were able to steal and use before crypto to after
At last. Someone has found a real world use case for crypto.
"mixers—large digital pools where crypto owners can deposit funds to obscure their origins." I have a quibble with articles about cryptocurrency fraud. They always get around to mixers and then they define it as if it were some relatively legitimate thing, like an odd bank. "large digital pools", "deposit funds". You have to get to the last phrase ("obscure their origins") to understand what mixers really are. A prop…
"mixers—large digital pools where crypto owners can deposit funds to obscure their origins." I have a quibble with articles about cryptocurrency fraud. They always get around to mixers and then they define it as if it were some relatively legitimate thing, like an odd bank. "large digital pools", "deposit funds". You have to get to the last phrase ("obscure their origins") to understand what mixers really are. A prop…
At last. Someone has found a real world use case for crypto.
It's actually the third real world use case, behind getting better drugs than from your local dealer and the entirety of the ransomware industry.