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

61–70 of 243 posts

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

#61

Post by from »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #37
SahAssar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But used as intended (not via a KYC exchange) it is pseudonymous, right?

How is that helpful? Get Bitcoin from crime Wash into monero? Pray the tumbler is legit? Wash back into Bitcoin Now what? Bitcoins from tumblers are suspect everywhere with kyc requirements. Sell off books to a Russian oligarch or North Korea I guess?

Going back to Bitcoin is unnecessary but possible. You go from Monero to cash, wire transfer, or gift cards through a variety of unlicensed conversion services that advertise themselves all over the Internet.

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

#62

Post by caminante »

dragonwriter wrote: post #53
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was caught by linking fraud wallet to exchange wallet How are you supposed to turn fraudulently obtained btc into dollars without doing that?

> How are you supposed to turn fraudulently obtained btc into dollars without doing that? That’s the neat thing… You don’t.

But AFAIK, you can launder cryptos, right? [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler#

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

#63

Post by renewiltord »

pmarreck wrote: post #52
aaronmdjones wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So basically if he had simply sat on the wallet keys for 5 years and 1 day, he’d be home free? If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<

Presumably if he had then moved the keys, he's just committed a crime again, so we're back in business. If he'd sat on the keys forever, he would never be prosecuted.

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

#65

Post by aaronmdjones »

pmarreck wrote: post #52
aaronmdjones wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So basically if he had simply sat on the wallet keys for 5 years and 1 day, he’d be home free? If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<

If option #3 doesn't apply, then yeah, if he'd stayed still and not touched it for 5 years, he'd (probably) be fine. IANAL.

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

#66

Post by funstuff007 »

noduerme wrote: post #36
SahAssar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But used as intended (not via a KYC exchange) it is pseudonymous, right?

If you trade in and out for cash, in person with a counterparty, from a self-hosted wallet that you never use to send or receive from any other wallet that's connected to an exchange... then yes. The use case for this is mainly moving money over borders.

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

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

#67

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #37
SahAssar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But used as intended (not via a KYC exchange) it is pseudonymous, right?

How is that helpful? Get Bitcoin from crime Wash into monero? Pray the tumbler is legit? Wash back into Bitcoin Now what? Bitcoins from tumblers are suspect everywhere with kyc requirements. Sell off books to a Russian oligarch or North Korea I guess?

Spend Monero on physical goods via particl.io?

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

#68

Post by aaronmdjones »

ucha wrote: post #60
aaronmdjones wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thanks for explaining this! It seemed to me that option #1 only applied if you were a fugitive and your whereabouts were unknown, not when you simply leave the state or country. As to furtherance, I wonder how precise the definition of it is; is using proceeds of a crime, furtherance of a crime? Is obfuscating a crime, furtherance of a crime? Edit: This answers most of my questions and the answer seems to be "it's co…

In regards to whether simply leaving the jurisdiction is grounds for tolling the statute of limitations, see 18 USC 3290, which is a one-sentence law reading:

    No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice
It can be reasonably argued that leaving the country after having committed the offense is fleeing from justice. I'm not aware of any supreme court ruling on the matter though, and I am not a lawyer.

Edit: Thanks for the link!

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

#69

Post by overthrow »

msm_ wrote: post #42
berkle4455 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they didn’t listen then and they don’t listen now. waste of effort.

Satoshi (and many other OG members of bitcointalk) knew, and tried to improve the protocol. BTC was not set in stone at the beginning. It's just at some point Satoshi disappeared, and moonfags[1] who controlled the capital (miners and exchanges) weren't interested in any technical improvements that may make regulators more angry, causing the end of most innovation in the cryptocurrency space. [1]Sorry for the very co…

Bitcoin chose a certain set of tradeoffs, and other coins choose differently. It has its advantages. There's no need to project such negativity onto other projects for making different design choices.

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

#70

Post by senectus1 »

phyzome wrote: post #19

Say it with me: "Bitcoin is not, and never was, anonymous."

I know right?!?

The WHOLE PREMISE of it was that it is an OPEN LEDGER...!

I'm not sure how this persistent myth of it being a way to secretly make payments got around and stuck so well... maybe the "crypto" in the name?

Post reply on HN