The DOJ’s Crypto Dragnet Is Bigger Than You Think
DennisP 2021-08-17 17:38:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The other way is to use a centralized exchange as your "mixer," which is transparent to the government but imposes extra fees and adds counterparty risk.
Corporate use of public blockchains will almost certainly require privacy technologies, to avoid giving information to competitors.
w4llstr33t 2021-08-17 18:35:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I think defaulting to using a mixer would be inconvenient and it could get folks flagged for even using it at all.
Also, what ever happened to not re-using addresses? I know it doesn't make it totally private, but I thought it helps some, since you'd still have to tie addresses to identities somewhere in the chain.
DennisP 2021-08-17 18:48:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Seems to me that "getting folks flagged" for doing something innocent is a flaw in our government, more than a flaw in crypto.
Not reusing addresses helps against casual inspection but with blockchain analysis these days, it's long obsolete as any sort of real privacy measure. It wouldn't be something corporations could use to protect competitive information. Also it's not useful at all on account-based chains like Ethereum.
rini17 2021-08-17 11:58:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
There is no period of limitation? And what is "something bad"? For example someone 10 years ago, accepted bitcoin in exchange by paying fiat pizza delivery to an US citizen, is that classifiable as money laundering?
elliekelly 2021-08-17 13:17:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This knowledge element is why the FBI’s email to Tornado is critical to the case. The agent specifically told Tornado the funds were obtained through illegal means so the DOJ can demonstrate Tornado had actual knowledge of the purpose of the transaction: structuring rather than privacy. (In theory at least. According to the post the email was never acknowledged or responded to.)
MagicWishMonkey 2021-08-17 15:43:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]
A friend of mine is a field agent who spent years prosecuting financial crimes, and a lot of her time was spent knocking on doors and telling people to stop doing stupid stuff. Like one lady in particular was elderly and kept getting taken advantage of by money launderers (people putting cash in her account and telling her to deposit it somewhere else). My friend had to visit her on multiple occasions to explain that she needed to stop doing that.
Verdex 2021-08-17 16:50:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]
"Seriously? Oh, I'm old and confused and this nice young gentlemen on the telephone called me and said he accidentally put a bunch of money into my account that was supposed to go to his mother. Such a nice boy. Just keep up your side of the deal. If my cut isn't in the Cayman account within the week, then I can guarantee that you won't be worrying about the FBI."
EDIT: Just to be clear. I'm hoping that we don't unknowingly live in a universe where all elderly people are secret underworld mob bosses. However, I'm honestly not sure how you would tell the difference between a sufficiently proficient elderly mob boss and someone who's just old and hasn't kept up with changing trends.
MagicWishMonkey 2021-08-17 17:26:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Prior to working in financial crimes she spent a lot of time dealing with catching drug dealers/smugglers/cartels, which I think is where most agents go to cut their teeth, so she's heard pretty much every ridiculous excuse/justification you can imagine.
nostrademons 2021-08-18 03:26:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jl2718 2021-08-17 13:42:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
elliekelly 2021-08-17 15:09:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dannyw 2021-08-17 15:45:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]
FDSGSG 2021-08-17 20:17:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
elliekelly 2021-08-18 03:44:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ac29 2021-08-17 16:22:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
edit: see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6501 for the exceptions.
davidgerard 2021-08-17 13:34:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jmnicolas 2021-08-17 15:47:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dboreham 2021-08-17 15:52:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
quartz 2021-08-17 18:47:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]
rafale 2021-08-17 13:16:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
piyh 2021-08-17 14:32:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Scoundreller 2021-08-17 14:47:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dannyw 2021-08-17 15:47:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
If you ever face criminal troubles, you might have someone in power who you can call. And they might make a call to the DA or field office, and they may have a change of mind.
Clubber 2021-08-17 16:35:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jmnicolas 2021-08-17 15:46:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It can be automated and fined. This is why I'm totally against central band digital currencies, the potential for abuse is tremendous.
encryptluks2 2021-08-17 16:27:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ashtonkem 2021-08-17 14:43:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tromp 2021-08-17 15:14:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
legrande 2021-08-17 16:29:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
throw10002671 2021-08-17 16:54:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lisper 2021-08-17 16:52:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]
colinmhayes 2021-08-17 16:38:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]
capnorange 2021-08-17 16:52:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
matheusmoreira 2021-08-17 15:45:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ajkdhcb2 2021-08-17 16:07:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Seems like a propaganda piece since it speaks entirely as mixing=bad. Would ask the author how he would feel about publishing all his bank statements publicly online, and if he would feel safe having address leaked and large crypto holdings that were public
hluska 2021-08-17 17:12:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
They warned you in advance. Why shit on them?
ajkdhcb2 2021-08-17 17:14:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hluska 2021-08-17 17:33:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ajkdhcb2 2021-08-17 19:51:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]
matheusmoreira 2021-08-19 01:54:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The author's insulting clickbaiting headline does them no favors. If the author knows so little, maybe they shouldn't be telling people they're thinking wrong.
blantonl 2021-08-17 15:57:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
shapefrog 2021-08-17 17:11:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I 'think' their dragnet is bigger than this article thinks it is.
chelmzy 2021-08-17 16:01:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
bananapub 2021-08-17 16:04:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]
robot_no_419 2021-08-17 17:13:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]
quantumBerry 2021-08-17 17:29:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
robot_no_419 2021-08-17 18:11:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Proven 2021-08-17 16:23:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> If users spend funds immediately following the lock time in the first 2 blocks allowable by consensus rules (~20 minutes after receiving funds), then there is a good probability that the output can be identified as the true spend.
https://www.newsbtc.com/news/monero/monero-bug-could-impact-...
joelbondurant 2021-08-17 14:11:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Sargos 2021-08-17 17:01:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tessierashpool 2021-08-17 17:25:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I share your concern with this, but I don't think that crypto is likely to change anything in this area. Blockchains are fundamentally permanent, which makes enforcement easier, not harder. The wild west factor with crypto can't last forever; the nature of the technology works in the exact opposite direction.
quantumBerry 2021-08-17 17:11:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Once currency leaves the US it is absurd to claim anything that happens with it is US jurisdiction. If that is the case all Americans who paid taxes should be put on war trials for money sent as foreign aid to despotic regimes.
giantrobot 2021-08-17 17:40:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
That's not how the law actually works though. The store in Mexico can't be accessed by someone in the jurisdiction of the US at the time of the transaction. There's no legal avenue for the US to pursue the Mexican store except negotiate with the Mexican government to extradite them.
Additionally most US laws have "knowingly" clauses. While you can be charged for committing a crime it's up to the state your actions met every clause of the laws. So even if on the off chance the US was able to extradite your Mexican shop owner they would need to prove the shop owner knowingly committed the act.
quantumBerry 2021-08-17 18:01:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Furthermore Tornado never responded to the e-mail so it's not clear they were aware the undercover claimed they had criminal intent. It's quite possible the e-mail was never read. Desiring privacy isn't a crime, and that's a very legitimate use of mixers. Not to mention if you have cash in your wallet you're mixing and trading them all of the time, and most certainly you are at some time unwittingly laundering formerly dirty cash.
So your statement really just emboldens the insanity of the claims of the DOJ.
booleanbetrayal 2021-08-17 17:22:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
quantumBerry 2021-08-17 17:39:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
That's also quite the assertion that anything that happens with dollars is in the "purview of US officials." from a practical perspective you are correct but its conclusion is rather odious. If this were actually true and US dollars are the reason for jurisdiction then we both know launderers would all just use Euro or something else instead 100% of the time. Yet they don't, because pragmatically it makes little differenc as US would pursue their enemies all the same whether they transact in Euro or Dollar -- the dollar in this case is simply an excuse.
wisemanwillhear 2021-08-17 18:22:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]
That's not a modern thing. Countries with power use that power to get what they want, whether through military force or though other forms of influence and/or coercion. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, etc.--pretty much every country with military or economic power over other countries.