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

Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#61

Post by chm »

anigbrowl wrote: post #57
josephagoss wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop with the privacy scaremongering. A lot of work is currently going into trustless mixing/anonymising services that will largely stop this type of tracking. (coinjoin/zerocoin) A lot of us are investing with the expectation true anonymous transactions eventually happen, because when they do Bitcoin will become even more valuable.

You're not investing. You're speculating - a perfectly valid use of your own money, but different nonetheless.

Any investment is speculation until proven otherwise. And by that I mean that "the mass" accepts it as an "investment".

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#62

Post by tracker1 »

shock-value wrote: post #20
DanBC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anonymous and private transactions Something doesn't have to be private to be anonymous. So if you're happy with anonymous and public it's possible, but hard.

In theory yes, but as the linked blog-post shows, Bitcoin---in its current state anyway---likely isn't truly anonymous either (ostensibly due to its transactional records being public).

If you create a new wallet.. coins sent to that wallet, a person may know where the coins came from (because of other transactions to their wallet), they don't know for certain that the new wallet is you..

In the case of the article, the reason it's suspected, not even confirmed, is simply because the number of wallets coins were coming from were identified as the same source.

It's definitely more anonymous than wire transfers, or credit card transactions. The way to avoid detection would be to keep many, relatively small wallets... and disperse money from different sources fairly evently.

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#63

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #53
logicallee wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some simple examples from this site, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4404362 - "Hackers Steal, Encrypt Health Records and Hold Data for Ransom". and recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6567735 - "You’re infected—if you want to see your data again, pay us $300 in Bitcoins" A top comment on that article said: It actually made my skin crawl reading about it. Never had that reaction to such a stor…

Data ransom shouldn't ever happen to valuable data. Preventing single points of failure is much more important than chasing around the bad actors that come along and exploit them. Run of the mill kidnappings are parents violating custody agreements. Infrastructure needs to be resilient in any case. I don't mind that bitcoin has a public ledger, but you haven't convinced me it is particularly important.

[deleted]

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#64

Post by johnchristopher »

pfortuny wrote: post #43
cpach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much easier to crack the box holding the key.

Probably a well-crafted phone call would be as useful... "I am the administrator of MtGox, I need you to send us a copy of your private key..."

I seriously doubt it would work for the key(s) related to that $150,000,000 transfer.

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#65

Post by sliverstorm »

mdisraeli wrote: post #25
cheez wrote: post #2

This is why I can't take Bitcoin seriously. The privacy implications are insane.

This is why I take bitcoin seriously, the privacy implications are BRILLIANT :P In all seriousness, this is going to come across as a conspiracy theory, but why else would major government organisations be thinking that bitcoin is actually a good thing? Surveillance by design neatly negates all the current NSA privacy issues! It is also a figurative goldmine for economics researchers, who get to study every transacti…

Your comment paints an amusing picture in my head, of a future in which greenbacks are the underdog preferred currency for underground dealing and political refugees, rather than the Big Brother Bitcoin...

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#66

Post by cabacon »

jasimp wrote: post #52
mdisraeli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I take bitcoin seriously, the privacy implications are BRILLIANT :P In all seriousness, this is going to come across as a conspiracy theory, but why else would major government organisations be thinking that bitcoin is actually a good thing? Surveillance by design neatly negates all the current NSA privacy issues! It is also a figurative goldmine for economics researchers, who get to study every transacti…

> It is also a figurative goldmine for economics researchers, who get to study every transaction in an economy for once, with full information on how the funds are following. If you're interested in that than you should look at the economy for Eve Online. It's definitely the closest thing ever created to a real economy which astounding amounts of information available to study. I'll provide some links that talk about…

See also the economist at Valve, who had an article about the Team Fortress 2 online economy: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/arbitrage-and-equil...

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#67

Post by VMG »

hbags wrote: post #29
VMG wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't.

A mixer's sole purpose in life is collect a fee for concealing sources of money. It's textbook money laundering.

Except with Bitcoin, there are valid reasons to conceal the source and destination of money from the public besides criminal activity. The money being "laundered" isn't necessarily "dirty" to begin with.

The same logic applies to encryption. People have a right to privacy.

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#68

Post by bushido »

yxhuvud wrote: post #54
phaer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might become the lottery of the 21th century. ;)

Or perhaps the tulip.

+10 for the tulip reference.

For those who don't recognize the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Re: Here’s who probably did that $150 million Bitcoin transaction

#69

Post by fexl »

consonants wrote: post #49
fexl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "money laundering" originally referred to the practice of concealing the movement of funds involved in a crime. Now they've redefined it so that concealing the movement of funds is itself a crime, even if the funds are entirely legitimate and no other crime is involved.

Yes, because the motivations behind money laundering are driven almost exclusively by crime. For purchases you wish to remain private, such as personally embarrassing products, there are 'anonymizing' but traceable services for you to save face with. There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS, and they well aware of the intent behind the actions.

I make sure Uncle Soprano gets his cut.
Post reply on HN