Live data from Hacker News

Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

washingtonpost.com

261–270 of 901 posts

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#261
post #55
post #14

I ask this every so often during threads regarding stolen cryptocurrency: Is there any solution yet to preventing stolen cryptocurrency funds from being spent? Isn't the only solution to have a central database and require laws to require every transaction to be pre-checked to see if it's stolen funds or not? And not only that, the centralized system will have to be constantly keeping track of wallet mixing to see wh…

What does "stolen cryptocurrency" actually mean? For example, if one person says it was stolen from them, and the holder says they legitimately acquired it, then how is any solution supposed to decide who is correct? For fiat currency, there's usually a court system that can be used to determine ownership. Though often they explicitly exclude cash from that - if somebody legitimately acquires bank notes that were pre…

> For cryptocurrency, which jursidiction's justice system is going to determine whether something has a "stolen" marker or not?

It's the same decision process as the normal justice system. Broadly speaking, you can analyze it as follows (for civil complaints):

1. Is there a clause in the contract that says "disputes follow XYZ jurisdiction"? Then that's the jurisdiction. (And adding such a clause is Contracts 101 material).

2. If not, then you can usually get jurisdiction based on where the offense actually happened, or where the defendant lives. The analysis can get complicated, but it's not going to meaningfully change for cryptocurrency.

3. There's also a potential for extraterritorial jurisdiction in some cases.

> What if that's not recognised by a different jurisdiction, or someone else comes to the opposite conclusion?

Well, jurisdiction really comes down to a) can you get a court to agree that it has jurisdiction, and b) can you get other people to agree to the court's orders for relief.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#262

Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news? It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

Bitcoin never claimed it was going to put a magical fence around your house stopping armed agents.

properly it claimed to put a fence around you after armed agents have stolen from you to make sure you have no recourse

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#263
The hack occurred 5.5 years ago. The Federal statute of limitations on Grand Theft/Larceny is 5 years. Is this why they are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundring and not charged with the actual theft?

Lichtenstein and Morgan are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering

If so, this means that (outside tax obligations) they may have gotten away with it essentially by sitting on the money doing nothing for 5 years and then openly transferred it to themselves. Since they took actions that were meant to launder the money, they opened themselves up to the money laundering charges on their own.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3282

This is similar to many financial regulations where you can have completely legally obtained money but if you deposit $9,000 followed by depositing $1,000 thereby avoiding a CTR notification to the government required for a $10,000 deposit, you're guilty of "structuring" your deposits.

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphle...

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#264
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you don't want to lose those keys ... there is a bit of a conundrum there (granted you don't have to do it the way they did either). As far as how exactly they got caught, there was a reward offered by the company it was stolen from. It may have been someone tipped the feds off for the reward.

Crypto 101: never store private keys online.

Crypto 102: weep for the coins you lost when your cousin spilled soda on the hard drive containing the offline-only copy of your private keys

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#265
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be fair to these individuals and not presume guilt. In the US, it's "innocent until proven guilty". Media is so quick to assume the person is guilty just because of an allegation.

That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them.

There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them." You'd hope that before someone is arrested, the prosecutor has ample evidence to prove guilt. I don't understand your point. These individuals have not been proven guilty yet. Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter. Note: I have no affiliation with these individuals nor case.

He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial. But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can d…

Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#268

So, hypothetically, if these guys were to completely cash out these coins somehow, and then pay tax to the IRS, would they be immune from tax fraud and IRS involvement? I know similar things happen with stolen property and illegal drugs (Sullivan v. United States).

Yes if they successfully laundered it and paid taxes they would have no liability.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#269
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fancy (or even basic) dictionary attack has a very high chance of working.

$4B should buy a very, very fancy dictionary.

Should be able to get rainbow table with fucking octarine for that money…

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#270

Sometimes I wonder what the chances are that certain (highly privileged) staff at Google (or other similar data storage or e-mail companies) could run a query across Google Drive looking for a specific public key. Much like a malware scanner, just looking for "a key", just to see if there is an account matching. Unofficially, of course. A rogue employee perhaps. And, what if, in such a case, the employee (in the best…

this would be trivial to code and could search for one of the bip 39 dictionary words. github key thieves do this already.

Happened to many on dropbox too

You would never know if it was somebody employed there or at the data center or at the government agency tapping the servers

Post reply on HN