New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

Post by gpvos » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 10:13 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #44

ck2 wrote: post #25

Follow the lobbyists. Figure out who was threatened enough by a bitcoin model to want the government to step in. Because there is no way they have this kind of time on their hands to pursue this and have such in depth technical knowledge to know what to look for, without some corporate lobbyists spoon feeding it to the prosecutor. Not that I believe tidbit could ever be profitable or useful, but still.

No conspiracy necessary. From the article: "With a snippet of embedded code, Tidbit could enable websites to tap into visitors’ computers and borrow CPU cycles to mine Bitcoin." Ads that take over the screen for a few seconds are bad enouogh. A website that takes over a computer to run computationally expensive tasks? With ads, at least their is the opportunity to run adblockers. With a javascript miner, visitors are…

Post by teddyh » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 11:43 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #48

tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this like suggesting that when the image of an HDD is subpoenaed, you might first copy all the data off it, then wipe it, then image that? Because that trick doesn't work. Relevant statute: 18 U.S.C. § 401. It's pretty broad.

I am talking about providing exactly what the subpoena is asking for, complying both in letter and in spirit. And transferring your coins to different keys. The subpoena isn't "for all keys, and no using them on the blockchain". It's just for the data. There is no such thing as ownership of bitcoin.

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

bhitov wrote: post #46

gamblor956 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracy necessary. From the article: "With a snippet of embedded code, Tidbit could enable websites to tap into visitors’ computers and borrow CPU cycles to mine Bitcoin." Ads that take over the screen for a few seconds are bad enouogh. A website that takes over a computer to run computationally expensive tasks? With ads, at least their is the opportunity to run adblockers. With a javascript miner, visitors are…

The javascript miner was not deployed anywhere. At no point was anyone in New Jersey knowingly or unknowningly served Tidbit's bitcoin mining code.

Post by gpvos » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #56

gpvos wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mining was opt-in. Maybe derivatives of Tidbit could be a problem, but there's no evidence at all that Tidbit itself could be a problem.

there's no evidence at all that Tidbit itself could be a problem. We don't have all the evidence. We just have Tidbit's claims. Unfortunately, no entity in the Bitcoin industry has proven itself trustworthy, so Tidbit doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. It has to prove it. (Note: it's a civil case, not a criminal case, so it's not a matter of guilt and thus the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.)

Post by sneak » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #58

sneak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I post my private key to a bitcoin on pastebin and 100 people download it, who owns that bitcoin the moment before someone does a sweep transaction when 101 strangers all have the private key?

If I throw some money in the air towards a group of people, who owns it before one of them catches it? I would guess that I still own it. In the same way, you still own the bitcoin until someone else does.