Feds take down BTC-e (Bitcoin's largest exchange)

[suicidalfranco]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

So finding the culprits behind wannacry won't be a problem then?

depends on what precautions they used before acting

EDIT: just like with any criminals who use normal paper money

[Droidbot]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

You missed my point, had he tried to do this 20 years ago it would have been duffle bags of cash and robbing an exchange wasn't quite so easy.  I think anyone would have to be pretty naive to think that the introduction of untraceable digital currency, which has allowed a whole new way of criminals to conduct business, has had little to no effect on human society.

untraceable? bruh, look up 'bitcoin blockchain' - this shit is NOT anonymous. 

you can see what goes through anybodys wallet at one time. 

[mr moose]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

depends on what precautions they used before acting

EDIT: just like with any criminals who use normal paper money

Either criminals can hide behind it or they can't.  which one?  

 

Just now, Droidbot said:

untraceable? bruh, look up 'bitcoin blockchain' - this shit is NOT anonymous. 

you can see what goes through anybodys wallet at one time. 

 

So why hasn't the wannacry criminals been uncovered?

[ionbasa]

Just now, mr moose said:

Either criminals can hide behind it or they can't.  which one?  

 

 

So why hasn't the wannacry criminals been uncovered?

Burner wallet? Maybe he never withdrew or made any outgoing transactions? Too many variables to know for sure.

[Droidbot]

Just now, mr moose said:

Either criminals can hide behind it or they can't.  which one?  

 

 

So why hasn't the wannacry criminals been uncovered?

We have their bitcoin addresses, but the coins are just sitting there. 

 

https://blockchain.info/address/13AM4VW2dhxYgXeQepoHkHSQuy6NgaEb94

https://blockchain.info/address/12t9YDPgwueZ9NyMgw519p7AA8isjr6SMw

https://blockchain.info/address/115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNXj6LrLn

 

source: https://qz.com/982993/watch-as-these-bitcoin-wallets-receive-ransomware-payments-from-the-ongoing-cyberattack/

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

Burner wallet? Maybe he never withdrew or made any outgoing transactions? Too many variables to know for sure.

 

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

We have their bitcoin addresses, but the coins are just sitting there. 

 

https://blockchain.info/address/13AM4VW2dhxYgXeQepoHkHSQuy6NgaEb94

https://blockchain.info/address/12t9YDPgwueZ9NyMgw519p7AA8isjr6SMw

https://blockchain.info/address/115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNXj6LrLn

 

source: https://qz.com/982993/watch-as-these-bitcoin-wallets-receive-ransomware-payments-from-the-ongoing-cyberattack/

 

Still doesn't answer my question. 

[ionbasa]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

Still doesn't answer my question. 

Essentially, the wallet received BTC payments, but we technically do not know whom that wallet belongs to.  A bit confusing, but remember, wallets are not tied to IP addresses, or a certain computer. A wallet is essentially only identifiable by its ID, which is just a hash. 

 

Basically, a wallet is a random number that's hashed out, no two wallets have the same ID. There's nothing physically tying the wallet id to a particular person, piece of hardware, or IP. We can only observe the transactions between two wallets. 

 

If he does end up moving money out of the wallet, or cashes out at an exchange, then it's easier to track down since there's something tying the wallet ID to a person, online account, bank account, etc. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, ionbasa said:

Essentially, the wallet received BTC payments, but we technically do not know whom that wallet belongs to.  A bit confusing, but remember, wallets are not tied to IP addresses, or a certain computer. A wallet is essentially only identifiable by its ID, which is just a hash. 

 

Basically, a wallet is a random number that's hashed out, no two wallets have the same ID. There's nothing physically tying the wallet id to a particular person, piece of hardware, or IP. We can only observe the transactions between two wallets. 

 

If he does end up moving money out of the wallet, or cashes out at an exchange, then it's easier to track down since there's something tying the wallet ID to a person, online account, bank account, etc. 

 

So of all the transactions that have been made to pay for services on silk road with bitcoin, none of the recipients have cashed in or converted their pay?

 

I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you are making out.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-bitcoin-helped-fuel-an-explosion-in-ransomware-attacks/

 

 

[Droidbot]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

So of all the transactions that have been made to pay for services on silk road with bitcoin, none of the recipients have cashed in or converted their pay?

 

I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you are making out.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-bitcoin-helped-fuel-an-explosion-in-ransomware-attacks/

 

 

With other cryptomalware it's different, usually one address is given per recipient - this way one address cannot be tracked, many must be tracked, making it harder. 

 

Silk Road worked by connecting buyers with sellers. 

They would usually go to other encrypted channels to make the deal, therefore keeping their transactions anonymous. 

It would be stupid to show your BTC address, then you could be tracked and you would need to mix your coins (using a tool like BitMixer for example) to regain anonymity. 

[suicidalfranco]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Either criminals can hide behind it or they can't.  which one?  

i could say the same with current fiat currencies or are you going to tell me mobsters and gang leaders get instant caught the moment they spend paper money?

Bitcoin is not untraceable, every transaction happening in the chain is recorded and that record is public, you can follow every single coin for as long as they exist the same way you can follow a wallet for as long as it exists.

If you are a smart you can do whatever without ever been caught by the long arm of the justice, if you play it dumb even trying to do everything behind the Tor network won't help/save you (it's not like the silk road as fallen twice or anything).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

With other cryptomalware it's different, usually one address is given per recipient - this way one address cannot be tracked, many must be tracked, making it harder. 

 

Silk Road worked by connecting buyers with sellers. 

They would usually go to other encrypted channels to make the deal, therefore keeping their transactions anonymous. 

It would be stupid to show your BTC address, then you could be tracked and you would need to mix your coins (using a tool like BitMixer for example) to regain anonymity. 

 

So in context my original statement stands true.  

 

 

[ionbasa]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

So of all the transactions that have been made to pay for services on silk road with bitcoin, none of the recipients have cashed in or converted their pay?

 

I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you are making out.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-bitcoin-helped-fuel-an-explosion-in-ransomware-attacks/

 

 

Two things at play here:

 

Not cashing out or outbound transfers is a possibility. There also exists the possibility that the coins were cashed out via a person, or multiple people. People plan one on one meetings where person 1 transfers BTC to Person 2, then Person 2 hands cold hard cash to Person 1. Think Craigslist, but for cryptocurrency. In cases like this, it's harder to track down since we still don't know anything about either party we just know a transfer happened. Some exchanges happen purely in BTC for property that isn't fiat currency. Which is also hard to track down. How do you track down a complete stranger who traded BTC for property? without knowing beforehand that they would meet up?

 

It's kind of like holding up a bank and robbing cash. Let's assume it the perfect heist, no fingerprints, mask, and you're unidentifiable (for this thought experiment). The bank has records of the serial numbers of all the cash you stole. But that's the only way they will ever track you down. If you don't spend it, you'll never be identifiable. Other option is you spend it on black market or do cash deals with joe strangers who are not going to take the time to investigate if your $100 bill is stolen. 

 

Similarly, with BTC, a lot of it 'flies under the radar". You need to actively have someone looking out, otherwise, whos going to notice? 

[mr moose]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

i could say the same with current fiat currencies or are you going to tell me mobsters and gang leaders get instant caught the moment they spend paper money?

Bitcoin is not untraceable, every transaction happening in the chain is recorded and that record is public, you can follow every single coin for as long as they exist the same way you can follow a wallet for as long as it exists.

If you are a smart you can do whatever without ever been caught by the long arm of the justice, if you play it dumb even trying to do everything behind the Tor network won't help/save you (it's not like the silk road as fallen twice or anything).

did you read the article I posted?

 

As I said above, either they can use it to transfer money and remain anonymous or they can't. 

 

2 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

Two things at play here:

 

Not cashing out or outbound transfers is a possibility. There also exists the possibility that the coins were cashed out via a person, or multiple people. People plan one on one meetings where person 1 transfers BTC to Person 2, then Person 2 hands cold hard cash to Person 1. Think Craigslist, but for cryptocurrency. In cases like this, it's harder to track down since we still don't know anything about either party we just know a transfer happened. Some exchanges happen purely in BTC for property that isn't fiat currency. Which is also hard to track down. How do you track down a complete stranger who traded BTC for property? without knowing beforehand that they would meet up?

 

It's kind of like holding up a bank and robbing cash. Let's assume it the perfect heist, no fingerprints, mask, and you're unidentifiable (for this thought experiment). The bank has records of the serial numbers of all the cash you stole. But that's the only way they will ever track you down. If you don't spend it, you'll never be identifiable. Other option is you spend it on black market, cash deals with joe strangers who are not gonna take the time to investigate if your $100 bill is stolen. 

 

Similarly, with BTC, a lot of it 'flies under the radar". You need to actively have someone looking out, otherwise, whos going to notice? 

We are not talking about flying under the radar, we are talking about known ransomware payments, and lots of them.   Either they have no intention of cashing out, or as David Emm said, it is effectively anonymous.

 

 

 

 

 

[ionbasa]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

did you read the article I posted?

 

As I said above, either they can use it to transfer money and remain anonymous or they can't. 

 

We are not talking about flying under the radar, we are talking about known ransomware payments, and lots of them.   Either they have no intention of cashing out, or as David Emm said, it is effectively anonymous.

Yes, I read the article, and there is an important detail in it, more of a silver lining in the language:

Quote

Ransom demands are typically made in Bitcoin, the cryptographic digital currency based on Blockchain distributed ledger technology, which offers a secure, often untraceable, method of making and receiving payments

See the keyword "often". It's not saying it's completely untraceable and anonymous, but often is. 

 

From that same article:

Quote

Horowitz said, noting how in the rare instances that cybercriminals convert Bitcoin into another currency law enforcement is able to link criminal wallets to real bank accounts and occasionally determine who the perpetrators are.

So, rarely do these cybercriminals cash out. So, my previous comment still stands. 

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As I said above, either they can use it to transfer money and remain anonymous or they can't. 

Well they can't then since attempting to trade btc for money would mean using some online service that will require you to register an account with to use it or give out some bank info to the transfer the money to and since you can follow someone wallet and every single coin in it it's simply become a matter of getting a warrant to extract the data from that exchange point, see to what account is that wallet tied to, and carry on with the investigation. Unless like mentioned above you take the extra of simply meeting some random dude in an alley and give your wallet in a USB drive to some other guy for cash money

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

Yes, I read the article, and there is an important detail in it, more of a silver lining in the language:

See the keyword "often". It's not saying it's completely untraceable and anonymous, but often is. 

 

From that same article:

So, rarely do these cybercriminals cash out. So, my previous comment still stands. 

so you agree then:

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

You missed my point, had he tried to do this 20 years ago it would have been duffle bags of cash and robbing an exchange wasn't quite so easy.  I think anyone would have to be pretty naive to think that the introduction of untraceable digital currency, which has allowed a whole new way of criminals to conduct business, has had little to no effect on human society.

Given we have confirmed it can be anonymous, David Emm has said exactly as much.  Which in the context of my above post (which everyone is replying to) anonymous and being an untraceable recipient is the same thing.  

[ionbasa]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

so you agree then:

Given we have confirmed it can be anonymous, David Emm has said exactly as much.  Which in the context of my above post (which everyone is replying to) anonymous and being an untraceable recipient is the same thing.  

Anonymous and Untraceable are different in this context:

A thief might be anonymous, but is not untraceable. You can still trace the BTC trail.

[mr moose]

Just now, ionbasa said:

Anonymous and Untraceable are different in this context:

A thief might be anonymous, but is not untraceable. You can still trace the BTC trail.

the context is mine,  it is not different. IF you can't trace the payment to the criminal then the criminal is anonymous and vice versa.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

. You can still trace the BTC trail.

Just not always all the way to the criminal though,  right?

[ionbasa]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

the context is mine,  it is not different. IF you can't trace the payment to the criminal then the criminal is anonymous and vice versa.

I disagree. But I don't think continuing this back and forth bater is getting us anywhere. 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Just not always all the way to the criminal though,  right?

I'm going to refer you to the case of DB Cooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

 

Quote

no definitive conclusions have been reached regarding Cooper's true identity or whereabouts.

but:

Quote

In February 1980, eight-year-old Brian Ingram, vacationing with his family on the Columbia River at a beach front known as Tina (or Tena) Bar, about 9 miles (14 km) downstream from Vancouver, Washington and 20 miles (32 km) southwest of Ariel, uncovered three packets of the ransom cash as he raked the sandy riverbank to build a campfire. The bills were significantly disintegrated, but still bundled in rubber bands.[78] FBI technicians confirmed that the money was indeed a portion of the ransom—two packets of 100 twenty-dollar bills each, and a third packet of 90, all arranged in the same order as when given to Cooper.

 

 

So, the conclusion i'm going to make is this:

1. The criminal can remain anonymous, even if the money can be tracked or tranced.
2. Anonymous does not mean that the paper trail is untrackable.
3. Someone performing illegal activities with BTC can be caught and tracked down, but it's not a guarantee.

If you need proof that it isn't anonymous, read my OP in this thread:

Quote

The counts range from operating an unlicensed money transmittal business to a variety of money laundering charges, including laundering associated with ransomware payouts and a theft from the now-defunct Mt Gox exchange.

So, they were able to track down the theft of BTC from Mt. Gox in 2014, to the operator of BTC-e. That invalidates your assumption that it is anonymous.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

 That invalidates your assumption that it is anonymous.

Hang on,  Are you under the impression that I was saying the guy in your article was anonymous? 

Because I never said that, in fact my first post had nothing to do with the original article other than the fact it involved digital currency which (in the context of my rant) is untraceable because it allows criminals to transfer money in ways they could not before and is easier to stay anonymous in doing so. I also offered (belatedly of course) an article which supports my reasoning in detail and has some high profile professionals also saying the same thing.

 

I am in no way saying these things are absolute (nothing is) but at the same time the intrinsic nature of wallet to wallet transfer isn't the issue I raised. 

 

 

[Fetzie]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

So finding the culprits behind wannacry won't be a problem then?

 

EDIT: and all the sellers on silkroad?

Its the reason why the wannacry culprits never touched the bit coins that they received, because every law enforcement agency was watching the wallets like hawks. Any attempt to retrieve the money would have led to their swift arrest.

[mr moose]

Just now, Fetzie said:

Its the reason why the wannacry culprits never touched the bit coins that they received, because every law enforcement agency was watching the wallets like hawks. Any attempt to retrieve the money would have led to their swift arrest.

which begs the question, Why do it? That's like asking them to drop a bag of cash in the middle of the train station and then not going and getting it for fear of getting caught.

 

But like the article I linked says, there are other ways to cipher the money out of those wallets to make it harder to trace back to an entity.

[ionbasa]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Hang on,  Are you under the impression that I was saying the guy in your article was anonymous? 

Because I never said that, in fact my first post had nothing to do with the original article other than the fact it involved digital currency which (in the context of my rant) is untraceable because it allows criminals to transfer money in ways they could not before and is easier to stay anonymous in doing so. I also offered (belatedly of course) an article which supports my reasoning in detail and has some high profile professionals also saying the same thing.

 

I am in no way saying these things are absolute (nothing is) but at the same time the intrinsic nature of wallet to wallet transfer isn't the issue I raised. 

 

 

Right, just that the OP I pointed about is the "exception that breaks the rule" 

It cannot be anonymous if the guy got caught. The same applies to all the other cyber criminals.

 

I guess what i'm trying to say: Anonymity is not a guarantee (even for silk trade, etc.), but rather there's a probability involved.

[mr moose]

Just now, ionbasa said:

Right, just that the OP I pointed about is the "exception that breaks the rule" 

It cannot be anonymous if the guy got caught. The same applies to all the other cyber criminals.

 

I guess what i'm trying to say: Anonymity is not a guarantee (even for silk trade, etc.), but rather there's a probability involved in.

O.K I can wear that.  I'll rephrase to:  Bitcoin has given criminals a better probability of remaining anonymous when receiving funds from their activities.  This I believe has caused a rise in certain types of criminal activity.