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

181–190 of 243 posts

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

#181

Post by jacquesm »

Xorakios wrote: post #180
celticninja wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is crime adjacent that isn't criminal activity?

Most famous right now? Breonna Taylor (2020) - Louisville, Kentucky: Police officers entered the wrong apartment using a no-knock warrant, which led to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor, an emergency medical technician. Eurie Stamps Sr. (2011) - Framingham, Massachusetts: Police raided the wrong apartment, and during the operation, an officer's gun "accidentally discharged," killing Eurie Stamps Sr., a 68-year-old…

That's not what was meant with 'crime adjacent'.

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

#182

Post by lurkshark »

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?

I get the point you’re trying to convey but - at least in the US - you’re legally required to make donations to political candidates publicly anyway, so this isn’t really a regression over the status quo.

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

#183

Post by Xorakios »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #50
ucha wrote: post #32

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? Did they charge him for converting BCH into BTC in 2017? I tried to look up the case but couldn't find anything that shed a light on that.

> 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…

"Tolling" is a controversial theory from 17th century English common law when rebels fled to France or the colonies.

It will be very much tested this year when Trump is prosecuted under the theory that being in Washington DC counts as "out of the country" or "outside the jurisdiction of the city of New York" and therefore the statute of limitations has not run out.

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

#184

Post by nobody9999 »

Gigachad wrote: post #159
jen729w wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

A friend of mine is addressing a similar situation right now. After her mother passed away (nearly 20 years ago) and left no will, her primary bank account was still active and the Social Security Administration[0] kept sending her checks every month.

She was notified a few weeks ago of the existence of this account (which now has several hundred thousand dollars in it). Since Social Security benefits (except in specific circumstances[1]) are not collectible by surviving relatives, the moneys paid into that account since her mother's death are not hers (she and her siblings are the only surviving next-of-kin). Rather those funds are the property of the US Government.

In such a circumstance, the funds deposited, as well as any interest on those funds belong to the government.

Transferring those funds or spending any of the interest is a crime.

As such, if you find yourself in a similar situation, I'd think twice before doing something like that.

[0] https://www.ssa.gov/

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/heres-what-happens-to-social...

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

#185

Post by midasuni »

cgriswald wrote: post #160
acdha wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

The chance of somebody storing my WireGuard traffic from a local public hotspot to be able to hopefully decode it at some point in the future is far less than someone sniffing dns and http traffic I send from the same hotspot today.

The value of breaking my communication now compared with in 10 years time is far higher too. My bank will have destroyed the records of my dealings in a decades time for example.

Bitcoin’s ledger is specifically designed to be kept forever though. You don’t need to target me today in the how if future payoff

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

#186

Post by drsnow »

rippercushions wrote: post #74
msantama wrote: post #64

What is the crime he committed, exactly? Wasn't he simply using a "feature" of Silk Road, ie. if you double-click "withdraw" it prints you money?

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.

Then why isn't it illegal for a bank to make an error and keep _your_ money if the reverse is never going to be allowed to happen?

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

#187

Post by drsnow »

iudqnolq wrote: post #9
paulpauper wrote: post #4

Zhong was caught because he made basic operational security errors, like address reuse (which is how he was caught by linking fraud wallet to exchange wallet) , static IP, using a KYC exchange in 2017 to convert BCH into BTC, etc. Not because Bitcoin was cracked. After being caught, Zhong voluntarily relinquished his passwords to encrypted wallets and other bitcoin, not that the crypto was cracked. I wonder how the f…

Very broadly speaking if you're hiding and law enforcement is actively looking for you the statute of limitations pauses, because the delay is morally your fault. (And actively looking has a generous definition) That could be what happened here.

How are you/authorities defining hiding? Is it hiding if he wasn't trying to evade anything and LE were just too slow in identifying him?

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

#188

Post by dragonwriter »

drsnow wrote: post #186
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.

Then why isn't it illegal for a bank to make an error and keep _your_ money if the reverse is never going to be allowed to happen?

> Then why isn’t it illegal for a bank to make an error and keep _your_ money if the reverse is never going to be allowed to happen?

It… is.

The difference is that the bank (1) is often in a better position to automatically recover funds from you when they discover an error than vice-versa, (2) has better resources for collection via civil process if they aren’t in a position to automatically recover funds, and (3) has better connections with law enforcement to use if there is any indication of a criminal exploit.

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

#189

Post by nibbleshifter »

noduerme wrote: post #141
funstuff007 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

in reality, no, they don't know who I am. Back when LocalBitcoins.com facilitated face to face trades for cash around the world, you just had to have a high rating from previous transactions. Now... how safe do you feel showing up to meet an anonymous guy in a bar with thousands of dollars in Benjamins? That's the downside of being anonymous. /edit: The downside of operating completely outside the system. /edit 2: I…

I bought and sold bitcoin in exactly that way (in person, in public) back in the day.

Never has anything even remotely untoward happen.

Just sit, have a beer, wait for confirmations to happen, and be on your way.

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

#190

Post by 8organicbits »

lazide wrote: post #125
CoastalCoder wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst part IMO? That the suitcase of cash didn’t work. As a parent of young men, I'm glad it didn't work. IMHO it would have been bad for the character development of both parties.

At the point he's heisted several billion dollars of bitcoin (or anything really), I think it's a bit late to be worrying about that.

The other person didn't.
Post reply on HN