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

The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 243 posts

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#151

Post by paulpauper »

skizm wrote: post #114
aaronmdjones wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? This is a very simplistic view and this mistake is made a lot. There are several reasons why the statute of limitations could either be longer than 5 years or not yet expired even though it is 5 years: - Tolling. This is when the suspect exits your jurisdiction, preventing you f…

Dang, so if this person just left the BTC in a cold wallet for 5 years, did no more crimes, and stayed put, he could have gotten away free and clear? Or does #3 essentially mean they can just extend the limit forever if they can come up with a plausible sounding enough reason?

They could issue an indictment anyway under John Doe. This was done with the DB Cooper case. The government is good at breaking its rules.

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#152

Post by paulpauper »

pmarreck wrote: post #52
aaronmdjones wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? This is a very simplistic view and this mistake is made a lot. There are several reasons why the statute of limitations could either be longer than 5 years or not yet expired even though it is 5 years: - Tolling. This is when the suspect exits your jurisdiction, preventing you f…

So basically if he had simply sat on the wallet keys for 5 years and 1 day, he’d be home free? If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<

Impossible to know. Unless the feds deny there is an investigation, it's always possible that an investigation is ongoing. It's possible to extend the statute of limitations with sealed indictment under what is called a John Doe defendant. This loophole was employed in the DB Cooper case.

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#153

Post by notch898b »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #78
from wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going back to Bitcoin is unnecessary but possible. You go from Monero to cash, wire transfer, or gift cards through a variety of unlicensed conversion services that advertise themselves all over the Internet.

> but possible. You go from Monero to cash, wire transfer, or gift cards through a variety of unlicensed conversion services that advertise themselves all over the Internet. Those are probably run by the FBI. It seems like a no brained for the government to try to run such services given the wealth of information they would provide.

[dead]

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#154

Post by squeaky-clean »

funstuff007 wrote: post #66
noduerme wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you trade in and out for cash, in person with a counterparty, from a self-hosted wallet that you never use to send or receive from any other wallet that's connected to an exchange... then yes. The use case for this is mainly moving money over borders.

except that person(s) you gave and received the cash from know who you are.

Are Bitcoin ATM's still a thing? There used to be one in a coffee shop near where I lived. If I deposited cash and wore a facemask and sunglasses, how would anyone ever know who did the transaction?

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#155

Post by paulpauper »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #104
paulpauper wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by simply using a third wallet that does not link the two? HIs mistake was a rookie move that could have been avoided but he got lazy. Lazy criminals make law enforcement's job easier. https://twitter.com/Rarest2012/status/1646211056782524442

I don’t understand what the third wallet does. If the first wallet is tainted, anybody can just look to see what destination wallets it sends to and follow the trail. Adding an extra wallet doesn’t help.

It is not about obscuring the trail. It makes it harder to establish probable cause he orchestrated the fraud.

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#157

Post by notch898b »

jen729w wrote: post #142
rippercushions wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have $5000 in a bank account, and a bug in the bank UI lets you withdraw $10000, the bank can and will come after you to get their money back. And if you intentionally exploit this bug to create 100 accounts with $5000 and withdraw a million, you've definitely committed a crime.

I once had money deposited in to my account, repeatedly, that wasn't mine. It was a pain in the ass. I didn't want it. I asked my gf's dad, a lawyer, if I could spend it. He said no: it's like someone parking their car on your driveway. It's annoying, sure. But it doesn't make it your car.

[dead]

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#158

Post by Gigachad »

twelve40 wrote: post #122
hailwren wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are projecting your beliefs onto them. Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes have all been implemented because everyone in crypto acknowledges the lack of privacy. The WSJ on the other hand…

> Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes Does any of this stuff actually help bypass KYC requirements for legal offramps in developed countries?

Probably not. I believe exchanges are meant to block transactions of tainted coins. And using a mixer immediately marks the coins as tainted.

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#159

Post by Gigachad »

jen729w wrote: post #142
rippercushions wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have $5000 in a bank account, and a bug in the bank UI lets you withdraw $10000, the bank can and will come after you to get their money back. And if you intentionally exploit this bug to create 100 accounts with $5000 and withdraw a million, you've definitely committed a crime.

I once had money deposited in to my account, repeatedly, that wasn't mine. It was a pain in the ass. I didn't want it. I asked my gf's dad, a lawyer, if I could spend it. He said no: it's like someone parking their car on your driveway. It's annoying, sure. But it doesn't make it your car.

Just keep stacking it in a savings account and collect the interest. If you wanted to take some risk you could also invest some of it in index funds.

Re: The U.S. cracked a $3.4B crypto heist and Bitcoin’s anonymity

#160

Post by cgriswald »

acdha wrote: post #130
pfisherman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future proof security. I think that people discount that aspect of it. If your identity is cracked at any point in the future, perhaps using methods yet to be invented, all your transactions will still be there on the blockchain. I once heard someone refer to the blockchain as prosecution futures, and that is about right.

Exactly - and that’s especially true if laws or other things change. For example, suppose that you made a donation to the political party which lost a key election to an authoritarian – are you sleeping easy at night wondering whether they have a data mining team?

In your hypothetical scenario, I think I would sleep easier having tried to stop it, then to be in the same world but having done nothing to stop it.

There's no real alternative. You rely on the secrets technology we currently have, knowing it might not be future-proof for your entire lifetime, or you don't use secrets technology at all (and I guess live in fear of all possible futures?)

Post reply on HN