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

101–110 of 118 posts

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

#101

Post by fexl »

PeterisP wrote: post #95
mindcrime wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few legitimate reasons to be concealing where you money came from or is going from the IRS That's irrelevant. I don't need a reason for concealing where my money comes from. Oh sure, the IRS may disagree, but I have a really hard time giving a shit about what the IRS thinks.

Well, you may ignore IRS but it doesn't mean that IRS will ignore you; and it is perfectly able to take your stuff and liberty even if you don't give a shit about what they think.

Point taken, but in spite of their aspirations, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Thank goodness.

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

#103

Post by mikeash »

maaku wrote: post #90
mikeash wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that asymmetric crypto behaves somewhat differently. RSA is a particularly notable example of this: a 160-bit RSA key is almost trivial to break, 512-bit keys are possible, and there are good reasons to think that large organizations with lots of cash and motivation are able to break individual 1024-bit keys when they want to. The ECDSA keys used in Bitcoin are much stronger than RSA keys at th…

No. What the GP is quoting is "security bits" a measure explicitly designed to mitigate that difference. Bitcoin addresses have 160 bits of security, 128 bits if the public key is known. This is directly comparable to symmetric key sizes.

Thanks for clarifying that. The mismatch between the key size quoted and what's used in Bitcoin should have tipped me off.

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

#105

Post by consonants »

fexl wrote: post #69
consonants wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then I see no problems in your future! Here's to prudence.

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

#106

Post by consonants »

bobwaycott wrote: post #91
consonants wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. If the IRS found out Western Union was trying to cover it's tracks of who sent/received money they would be investigated immediately. Laundering implies you have something to hide, most likely tax dollars or ill-received profits.

Money laundering is the process of concealing illegal sources of money.

Money laundering is the process of concealing sources of money. Period. The act of purposefully laundering legitimate income is criminal.

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

#107

Post by bobwaycott »

hbags wrote: post #100
bobwaycott wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if that money is the proceeds of a crime and you're attempting to conceal the source of the illegal funds . The flippant and universalizing way several of the commenters here are referring to money laundering as "concealing where the money came from" cast far too wide a net. The definition you're using here would include concealing where $500 came from that was donated by anonymous friends to give to another fri…

Put your money where your mouth is. Openly run a mixer. Openly advertise that you are the person who operates it. If you're right and I'm wrong, it'll be a lucrative business and you'll probably quickly dominate the mixer industry, as it'd be very easy for you to get press and build name recognition. You could do it as a very part-time job. If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll be in prison.

You're not responding to the point I wrote, or the parent comment to which I replied.

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

#108

Post by bobwaycott »

PeterisP wrote: post #98
bobwaycott wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if that money is the proceeds of a crime and you're attempting to conceal the source of the illegal funds . The flippant and universalizing way several of the commenters here are referring to money laundering as "concealing where the money came from" cast far too wide a net. The definition you're using here would include concealing where $500 came from that was donated by anonymous friends to give to another fri…

If you're running a coin mixing service that makes the coins anonymous to others then as soon as a single transaction is true money laundering (from criminal activity), then you're liable for that. If a single Fed sting operation on silkroad buys drugs for some bitcoin that afterwards gets to your service - you're going down. Pretty much the only way to do so 'properly' would require you to make the coins anonymous t…

Like the other commenter, you're speaking to a different angle. I was commenting strictly on the repeated blanket statements made throughout these comments that any concealing of the source of money == money laundering. I was not speaking to liability ramifications of running a coin mixing service at all. I wasn't even contending that there might not be legitimate claims made against bitcoin activity that could be money laundering. The act of concealing where money came from as a general principle is not itself money laundering. Yes, running a service that facilitates concealing the source of money can quickly become a target and risk liability for laundering activities. That is still, however, an entirely different point.

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

#109

Post by superuser2 »

exo762 wrote: post #99
superuser2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRS doesn't care what the money is from or for, only that Uncle Sam gets what he's owed. Income from criminal enterprises is not special: you have to pay taxes on it like everything else. The source of the income is kind of don't-ask-don't-tell. Spending on sex toys is not special, unless the national security apparatus (or more likely your competitor in the private sector) already has a reason to try to discredit yo…

> Spending on sex toys is not special, unless the national security apparatus (or more likely your competitor in the private sector) already has a reason to try to discredit you. Which is a valid concern for activists, but not most people. Amazing. Translation: "Rights are essential for small group of people, because everyone else is not exercising them anyway. So lets just take the rights away".

From where do you derive a right to hide your finances from a government whose power to levy an income tax is explicitly codified in the Constitution?

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

#110

Post by anigbrowl »

chm wrote: post #61
anigbrowl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I'm distinguishing it from investments that pay a dividend or interest coupon at time of purchase, or which have a commodity value independent of price (eg gold and oil are commodities that you can speculate in or take delivery of for actual consumption).

You might well get rich from speculating in bitcoin, but if if doesn't pan out then your assets could end up having no value whatsoever - you won't even be able to burn them to keep warm during the zombie apocalypse ;)

I'm not trying to comment on the viability of BTC here, just pointing out that it not the same as many other asset classes.

Post reply on HN