Bitcoin Forum

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92797476/FBI-Bitcoin-Report-April-2012

Holy smokes!  Very interesting, what do you guys think?

rofl. It's on the internet so it must be true.

This is one of the ugliest/laziest trolls I've seen in a long time.

Watching

I wouldn't be so sure it's a troll... Seems pretty realistic to me.
I'm more sure of you being a troll than that PDF being one.

Look at the horrible quality (not the image quality, the horrible design). Since when does the FBI release private information like this, much less in such a horrible design? This is a 12 year old's copypasta in Word.

I assess with a medium confidence level - that this is a genuine leak.
The overall tone,scope and language used are suggestive to me that it's the real deal.

Trolls are seldom so understated, nor do they have such attention to detail.

I'll take the FBI's published horrible design any time over an unpublished excelently designed Bitcoin Magazine ::)

It's a Word copypasta? It sure is... What do you think the FBI uses? Adobe InDesign? lol
Your reply is full of fail. Liked CBH's reply more :)

FFS Matthew, keep your non-trolling promise. You already broke it at least 2 times today.


Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The PDF file has been carefully anonymized: content has been sanitized (each page is an image, not text, hence the quality issue) and the file metadata has been stripped out. This was done extremely well, which would make sense given it seems to be leaked...

I side with julz, psy, and others: it appears to be a real leak.

Posted to HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3942479

Fun read whether its real or not.  I would side more towards it being real for the simple fact that it basically states that while Bitcoin is a potential problem for laundering/illegal activities, it's not seen as a significant problem or threat.  I'd be much more likely to call fake/troll if it was using hyperbole and an aggressive stance towards the "looming Bitcoin threat".

:) My Bitcoin Block Explorer was mentioned in an FBI report! Awesome!

I thought it was a pretty accurate and reasonable report. Not too anti-Bitcoin. Seems plausible that it's real.

In contrast to any other publication from the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications

Why does everyone assume that a troll would only be trolling if it said the FBI was against Bitcoin? It'd be twice as funny to pretend it wasn't.

I've already given my opinion on the style of the document and how I think someone in this community made it with one hand while jacking off with the other, but now I question your intentions.


Obviously you uploaded this document yourself, so you're the one who obtained it. Care to share your source?

Special agent Johnson is probably pulling your file right about now.   ;D


From the [Update: alleged] FBI Report (PDF):


Reference #14 ... Jason Mick.  Not the first inaccuracy from the media.   Won't be the last.
 - http://www.dailytech.com/Cracking+the+Bitcoin+Digging+Into+a+131M+USD+Virtual+Currency/article21878.htm

Well, it contains most factually accurate information about Bitcoin (in fact, probably the most factually accurate information in a single report - the only glaring error is the statement (on page 14) that bitcoins will cease to be generated in 2033, clearly based on a misinterpretation of the famous money-supply graph) presented sensibly from a law-enforcement perspective, so I'd say it's likely to be genuine. It strongly implies that the FBI don't see Bitcoin itself as the problem, but rather the illegal activities that involve Bitcoin and are potentially made easier by it (which is exactly the sort of reasonable approach that (all jokes aside) one would expect from the FBI).

You guys crack me up. You're already referencing it as "the FBI report". What a fail community. Excuse me while I go make another FBI report.

"Oops! it leaked! What do you guys think? Ignore the links to Bitcoin Magazine on the poster's status. I don't know how that got there"

Too bad the community didn't fail you when you came here 5 months ago asking for money in exchange for a magazine that still doesn't exist.

Why do you criticize the design?  You're coming to conclusions without even reading the entire document-- you replied 6 mins after ops post.  You're the one who's trolling.


I think the doc is a fair assessment.  It seems legitimate.  The Third-Party Bitcoin Services section on page 8 is especially interesting.  Exchange services (in the US) must register with FinCEN.  Is Bitinstant the only one registered?

I believe it's legit, unironically. It's done diligently enough, and would be too much work for a troll. Also no hidden hints of "other origin" detected.

For what it's worth - this wouldn't be the first FBI intelligence report to be leaked:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI:_White_Supremacist_Recruitment_of_Military_Personnel_2008
http://documents.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/FBI_WHITE_SUPREMACY-2008-ocr.pdf     (note the similar design)

I still classify this document as extremely plausible.

The PDF of the report is available from this thread on another forum -- a straight download (click the link: Download in pdf format).
 - http://www.bitcointrading.com/forum/index.php?topic=525.0

I find it funny how he even confused reports that the FBI publishes to the general public with Unclassified/For Official Use Only reports...

Anyone with a level head would read this and notice the glaring lack of research and round-about way it talks about bitcoin using explanations only bitcoiners use. It screams fake. Everything down to the style it's made in. The very fact that a document in 2008 looked similiar should be proof enough considering the FBI doesn't keep the same style of letterheads for 4 years.

Look at how they talk about Silk Road research. Look at how it sounds like a fanboy masturbating to himself while he pretends to be a cop. FBI doesn't talk like this. FBI doesn't care. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's an elaborate troll to present some kind of legitimacy of Bitcoin so that the price changes.

There are no sources for this document, no trail, etc. It is not recognized by anyone other than a dude on a forum someplace? Give me a break. Have the person who actually retrieved this file swear an affidavit and we'll protect them through freedom of the press laws in the UK. Anything else is just a bunch of nonsense and I'm disappointed to see such a large group of people falling for it. I thought you guys were smarter than this.

Sure they do.
From 2004:  http://wlstorage.net/file/fbi-ecoterrorism-tactics-2004.pdf
(http://wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI:_Tactics_Used_by_Eco-Terrorists_to_Detect_and_Thwart_Law_Enforcement_Operations,_15_Apr_2004 )


Healthy skepticism is warranted - you're right that the April 2012 document is currently lacking any other source to back it up.
Your skepticism is a little too strident however.

+1 He sounds very afraid, I wonder why?

I'd be surprised if this type of document did not exist.

I do however find the 'bitcoinadvertisers.com' in the metadata of the scribd posting suspicious.

Matthew is right to point this out.

OP - care to clarify?  

edit: It's not clear to me whether this indicates anything to do with who posted the doc to scribd - or if it's just scribd software matching keywords to post the bitcoinadvertisers.com ad in the sidebar.
edit2: oh.. though it seems 'tradebitcoin' uploaded the doc.  Well that is pretty sus.

The bitcoin logo on the front is strange as well.  With all the time put into research why would they take the time to include some unnecessary picture on the front.

Maybe they need to do something to keep their job interesting?  I'm sure all the white covers get boring after time, so a cool picture might impress their boss?

I'm still on the fence on whether it's fake or not (haven't read it yet)...

Lol +1

Because he wanted a signed affidavit from the leaker to make himself feel important because he would protect him under the freedom of the press laws for unpublished magazines on the UK... ::)

Or he's just mad because being a magazine(?) editor he should be the one to score the scoops, yet he has none to show on his magazine(?) even after 5 months of publishing delay

Nice find and I agree although not 100% certain it probably is legit.   The language, tone, and structure is consistent with govt bureaucratic reports.  I read enough of those working for the DOD.  So either it a very comprehensive and yet at the same time pointless troll (what is the point? there is no alarmist rhetoric or call to action) or it is a legit leak.  As for a leak being impossible?   Um has nobody heard of wikileaks?  None of those docs were intended for public release.  Maybe it was an act of civil disobediance by a FBI analyst who also sees the value in Bitcoin?  Also don't count out a counter-insurgency type move.  The leak could be intentional by the FBI.  A way to point out to potential investors and businesses that Bitcoin is on the FBI radar to keep it marginalized.

One thing that sucks is that it is an image scrape.   Anyone really good with OCR?  I would be willing to put some coins towards a bounty to convert the doc into machine readable format (txt or otherwise).    It would be a tricky conversion (the low res blurred image doesn't help) so it may not be possible but maybe we got some OCR wizards.

I have read enough (U//FOUO) documents in my time, and this one fits right in.  The tone, the balance, and the constant declaration of "confidence" in a given statement is consistent with legitimate reports.  The crappy resolution is completely irrelevant, as the document was probably scanned or modified in some way to hide any information that could trace it back to the person who leaked it.

I'm impressed with the balance of the report.  I'm disappointed it doesn't mention any more about the legitimate uses of Bitcoin, but it is an organization devoted to fighting crime.  I can forgive them for that...

By the way, do you really think a troll would spend the time creating 4 pages of endnotes?    Plus, there's nothing really groundbreaking or sensational in the report that would justify spending weeks putting this together as a sham.  It's too boring to be a troll...

This (or the boring-est troll in the history of the intertubes)

I like the survey at the end. It seems to be scraped from a webpage accessible by run-of-the-mill LEO.

That troll pwned you with the fake survey at the end.  The extra hour that took was SOOOO worth it. 

I was already working on this when I saw you post this, because I started to try to read it and my eyeballs started bleeding.

Unfortunately, I think any OCR program is going to struggle hard with this blurry low-res text.  Here's the best my meager offering could come up with.  Is this any better?   ::)  Here's a sample of the first page:

-------------------------

(U) ExecutlveSununary

{U/IFOUO) Bitooin-a det:enJra/ized, 1 peer-to-peer {P2P) network-􀄎d t•irfllill currencypro\'
ides a venue for indi \'idual􀁤 to generate, transfer, launder, and steal illicit funds with some
anony1nity. Bitooin offers rnany of the sarne challenges associated with other \'irtual currencies,
such as Wehr\•loney, and adds unique complexit ies for investigators because of iL� decemrali7..ed
nature.
{U/IFOUO) The FBI a􀁥sesses with nlt!diUin confidence1 that, in the near tenn, cyber cri•ninals
will treat Bitooin a􀁥 another p.ay1nem option alongside 1nore traditional and established \'irtual
currencies which they have little reason to abandon. This a􀁥sessmem i.�; ba..􀄏ed on Ouctuations in
the bitcoin exchange rate in 2011 and li.n.ited reponing indicating bitcoi1lS are being accepted a􀁕
p.ay1nem by so1nt cyber criminal􀄒.
{U/IFOUO) The FBI assesses with low confidence, based on current user and vendor acceptance,
thatrnalicious actors will exploi1 Bitcoi n to launder money. This assessment is based on
observed cri1ninal acti vi1ies, investi􀄐tions, and prosecutions of individual􀁤 exploiting other
vir!Ual currencies, such a􀁕 e....Qold and Webf\·loney. A lack of current .eponingspecific to Bi1coin
restricts the confidence level.
(U/IFOUO) Even though there is no oentral Bitooi n server to compro1ni.􀂎e, the FBI a􀁕sesses wi1h
high confi dence, ba..􀄑ed on reliable industry and FBI reponing, that cri.n.inals intending to steal
bi1coins can target and e:<ploil third-p.any bi1ooin services and an individual's Bittbin wallet.
f\•lalicious actors can comprom.ise personal co1nputers and accounts using ma/waw and hacking
techniques to steal useJS' bitooins and use b<Jtnets to generate bi1coins.
{U/IFOUO) Bi1ooin will li kely continue to attract cybercri1ninal􀁤 who view i1 as a means to
.nove or steal funds a􀁕 well a� a 1neans of making donations to illici1 groups. If Bi1coin stabili?"..es
and grows in popularily, it will beco m e an increasingly useful tool for various i !legal acti vi lies
beyond the cyber .eal1n. Since Bitooin does not have a oentrali7..td authority, law enforoe.nent
facesdifficuhies detectingsuspicious activily, identifying users, and obtaining transaction
recon:ls-proble.n.� that m.ight attract •n.alicious actors to Bitooi n. Bi1coin m.ight also log ically
attractrnoney launderers and other criminals who avoid traditional financial systems b y using the
Internet to conduct global 1nonetary transfers.
{U/IFOUO) Although Bitooin does not have aoentrali7..td authority, the FBI as..�esses with
medium confidence that law enforce1nem can identify, or di.􀂎cover more information about
1n.alicious actors i f the actors conven their bilcoins into a fiat currency. Third-p.any bi1coin
services 1nay require customers to subm.it valid identification or bank infonn.ation to co.nplete
transactions. Furlhennore, any third-p.any service that qualifies as a mbney transm.iuer 1n.ust
register a� a mbney services busine.u with the Financial C1i1tleS Enforoe1nem Netwo•·k {FinCEf\1')
and i•nple�tll!'nt an anti-nlOney laundering program.

Yeah that is what I figured.  It is going to take a lot of work to get it into a usable format. 

Yup, when the scan is that bad, usually the fastest/easiest thing to do is get someone in a low-wage country to just re-type it for you.  It's like trying to OCR 20 pages of CAPTCHAs.

Why do you guys care so much?

Dunno if it's real or not, but I'd assume it is, since a troll would be wasting his time producing a paper of medium quality that doesn't really make any statement. Apart from the obvious, anyway.

Basing forecasts on the 2011 price fluctuations alone suggests economic cluelessness. But one way or the other, this text thingy makes no difference. Government is gonna govern its own paperwork as always, lots of blabla will be had, bad events will be given fancy names with an evil ring to them, business as usual. If there weren't a multi-page-thread on the topic, I'd not feel any urge to comment.

If they'd go rampage and attack us screaming "OMG THOUSANDS OF ANARCHIST MONEY LAUNDERING CYBERCRIMINALS," admittedly there'd be reason to think of something. Not the case though.

Breaking news! Guy on forum claims unmarked PDF comes from FBI with no proof whatsoever!

I'll leave that kind of garbage to the tabloids.

You might try doing a round or two of deblurring/deconvolution on the image, first.  Richardson-Lucy is a great algorithm if you can give a reasonable estimate of the blur function (which may not be too bad just assuming very simple blurring).  Do 2-4 passes of Richardson-Lucy, it might sharpen it just the right amount.  (I speak as if you would be manually processing the image with custom algorithms... I'm sure photoshop/gimp has some canned algorithms for this).

Well, there's also "sharpening", but I've never been very impressed with the sharpening algorithms out there...

Yes.........but do they know what they don't know?

FYI, here's an actual FBI leaked document on 'Legal Aspects of Online Gaming Financial Transactions' (20 June 2011) that also cites the 'Cyber Criminals Exploitation of Real-Money Trading' (8 June 2011) mentioned in page 3 of OP's Scribd document.
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/10/10400_FBI%20Cleveland%20.pdf

Hey Matthew, maybe you should learn with Matonis ^^ how the real press works...

I'll help him a bit and start with:
1st lesson: Don't just talk out of your ass, investigate.

What, if anything, does this say about the legitimacy of this Bitcoin document?  It's hard to imagine someone would go to such great effort to produce a fake that doesn't even have anything terribly controversial in it.  We certainly know the government agencies are well aware of Bitcoin and it's hard for me to imagine the FBI hasn't produced reports such as this.

Firstly, that's not my role at the magazine. That'd be like telling you to make the beds where you work.

Secondly, Matonis is the bomb. If he wants to investigate into the true source of this PDF file, I encourage him to.

Thirdly, has anyone caught that full moon? It's been full and huge for over 3 days now.

What a waste of 3 pages of forum threads.

We should be dissecting this report and going over it, not debating its legitimacy.

In fact, its extreme accuracy speaks for itself, I think its real.

I'll do that in the Legal subforum. 

That begs to ask the question-- why would one dissect it if it's not legitimate?

Because it is? :P

Or are you about to admit that you created it, in a spergy fit of madness due to the full moon?

Honestly Matt, have you really read through it?

The report does not introduce any new laws, just clarifies old ones in more detail.

In fact, it is 100% on par with the clarifications I spent thousands of dollars on from lawyers.

Wether or not its legit or not, the material is accurate.

Not very exciting, nothing new.

The material also matches my own legal research in large part.

+ 1

Really? a well written 20 page document is the laziest troll?

Where's your "another FBI report"? I'd like to take a look.

+1 We need to be linking to a readable .pdf that does not require to "log in with Facebook". To qoute the report I would say with "High Confidence" that this report is a genuine leak not a fake.

I'll retype it.... how much would the bounty be for?

It will be available in 5-6 months but only if 1000 people pre-order it now.  It's gonna be awesome.  20,000 pages, full color, so glossy it will fall right out of your hands, and in 1080P 3D.  Contact Matt is you want to purchase some ad space.

I personally don't think it is real, but it might be. I'll tell you why?

The very first page graphic, but that might have been added later by OP.

The information contained in the report would only be an awareness of Bitcoin to cc: parties and not provide any really useful information that anyone that uses a computer doesn't know. But then again, they are usually behind the 8-Ball.

And if real, they have missed swathing sections on how really hard it is to track. They also point out a bottle neck when converting to fiat currencies which is true if using an exchange but if not it would be really hard to tell even IF a conversion to fiat currency took place.

They didn't even mention that beyond a network P2P, that there could be exchange of Wallet.dat files that the network wouldn't even see.

But in the end, this is a 40 Million Dollar economy. Yes it is large but no where near what the 'BigBoys' would move.

Of course, the 'BigBoys' don't worry about the FBI because they have the power to sway government agencies or at least control senior executives in them. We're talking Billions not 40 Million. I've seen how big companies work and how the 'government' ignores it. I am for capitalism but for FAIR capitalism.

BTW: Any time the FBI using the term Money Laundering they should be saying: "We are to stupid to catch the people doing the crimes, so we will try to follow the money AFTER they have committed the crimes."  Basically they are Lazy and a foot on the ground is more expensive than a computer in a bank.


End Of Rant.

Witnessed!


That's unlikely... I very much doubt that if it was the OPs work, as you suggest, he would've put the
in there. ;) Also the fact that the link shows in blue suggests that it was original linked text on the pdf

That is non-viable method beyond immediate and well trusted peers and only for tiny amounts of money.

I would tend to believe that the people that would do that in a serious Organized Crime way, would be trusted or dead.

Just saying...

Trust, money and criminality don't get along very well...

Just saying...

Sure.  You understand stand that at any point in the future anyone who had access to the wallet.dat could spend it and that spend would be untraceable.

So I buy $1M in drugs from you and give you a $1M wallet.dat.  You don't spend/transfer it to a secure address.  You pass that wallet.dat up to your boss, up to his boss up to his boss.

Suddenly one day the wallet is empty.  Who stole it?  You, me, your boss, your boss to frame me, your boss to frame you, you to frame your boss and take his job?

Orly? Ok, nvm then.

Would want me to explain how that process would work, in public?

You see only A and Z could spend. All the A(...)Z between only passed it along.

but meh...


Sorry went off Topic here. Back to Topic.

Simple it is called a copy. 

It would be trivial for any entity B through Y to make a copy.  Hell it beomes trivial for Z to steal the funds and then blame it on A.  Even "IF" (and that is a big if) everyone is honest it becomes impossible to prove that B through Y only passed it along without making a copy.  Even if when Z gets it the funds are still there it is now unprovable if the funds are secure.  They could "disappear" in the next second or the next year.  When they do nobody can prove who took it.  

Also if I am "A" I really don't want to be doing business with an entity so stupid as to essentially leave 7 figures lying around in big piles without any protection or accountability.  When it goes missing I don't want them coming to look for me ... especially if I didn't even have anything to do with it.

Also maybe "A" gets jammmed up and is going to be dead if he doesn't come up with some money.  Better to steal from Z that risk guaranteed death from this new threat.  So Z needs to trust that not only is A honest right NOW but he will continue to be honest forever.  If "Z" needs to send funds to someone else that simply extends this chain of trust and unaccountability.

There is a reason we hash tx into blocks.

Ok, Ok, It can't be done. It's not possible. You're right.

I think Matthews 'troll' shrieks with dubious reasoning were a bit of a red herring.. however, he may be onto something as far as who the uploader is.
Matthew may be right for mostly the wrong reasons.

I didn't notice at first that it was 'tradebitcoin' who uploaded it (though it's in plain view).  Clearly the OP Andrew Bitcoiner knows something about the source.

If this is fake, it makes far more sense as an attempt to gain hits/eyeballs to a commercial operation (Andrew Bitcoiner's tradebitcoin.us or bitcoinadvertisers.com) than as a mere 'troll'.
This is another case of the word 'troll' being bandied about in a timewasting fashion.

Andrew Bitcoiner - please either come clean about this as a fake, or make some statement about how it is you came to upload it to scribd.


...and (if applicable) by coming clean sooner rather than later - avoid my requests to forum mods to have you labelled as a scammer.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I just don't see this as being a fake, especially after spending so much time reading through each and every word typing it up.  The endnotes are too carefully constructed and accurate.  The theme of the paper is about criminal uses of Bitcoin, not about Bitcoin being criminal itself.  The wording chosen is consistent with other high-level government writings.

Anyone looking to gain financially from such a move (as julz suggests) would be much better served spending those hundreds of hours elsewhere.  Anyone looking to distribute FUD about bitcoin would likely spend much less time on such a project, or their motives would be called into question.  Why would you be so adamantly against Bitcoin as to spend hundreds of hours crafting a fake FBI document?  Especially a document that focuses solely on the potential criminal uses of Bitcoin, and not Bitcoin itself?

I just don't see it.  Certainly, people are welcome to have their own opinions, and I certainly have no proof that this is a legitimate FBI document.  I am just throwing my opinion out there, and in my opinion, this is definitely not a fake.

I've met Andrew, and he joined us outside the Future of Money Summit for a Bitcoin chat, super nice guy.

When this paper was leaked by him last night, he emailed it to a number of undisclosed recipients.

He also privately emailed me and said "the fbi report was forwarded to me by a trusted source  8)"

That, and based on the thorough analyses by SgtSpike and myself I strongly agree this is authentic.

My legal team is making inquiries and going over it as well, will update as I get more info

-Charlie

I would also like to point out the three phone numbers listed at the bottom of page 10.  If anyone REALLY wants to confirm legitimacy of the paper, they could simply call those phone numbers, verify the identity of the individuals or departments on the other end of the line, and ask them if they really did publish this paper.

Thanks Charlie...  It struck me as a little odd that the 1st release should appear to be from a bitcoiner - but as I mentioned in earlier posts, I totally agree that the content itself is extremely plausible.

Current top link on cryptome.org: http://cryptome.org/2012/05/fbi-bitcoin.pdf

BTC_Bear is right.  If done properly, any copies that any intermediaries made would simply be of encrypted gibberish.  Only A and Z could spend from the wallet.  The B-Y handlers would only have an encrypted form of the wallet…make all the copies you want, they would be useless without the private key that Z possesses and which is needed to decrypt the wallet.

watching

LOLZ.  That is the solution?

Um how does "B" make sure the wallet is valid if it is encrypted?  Trust the criminal counterpart with $1M in product? So "B" (or any number of intermediaries) hand "Z" a wallet and ... oops turns out it is encrypted garbage.  Guess "A" just stole $1M.

Now lets say it is valid.  That does nothing to address the fact that "A" could simply steal from "Z" at will any time in the future until the funds are moved.

Now lets pretend A is honest.

What does "Z" do w/ this encrypted wallet when he needs to spend it?  Sell it to a new party?  Then Mr. "New Party" has to trust not just Z but also A (and maybe A did the same thing so he is trusting people he doesn't even know).

Once again there is a reason why we hash tx into blocks.  People are afraid to sell a 1 BTC steam game on a 0-confirm tx but somehow think criminals will trust counterparts they know are criminals with multi-million dollar drug tx and keep them 0-confirm not for 10 minutes but to hours, weeks, or even years?  LOLZ.  If you can trust your counterparty to never cheat you then you don't need a blockchain to begin with.  Without the blockchain to enforce irreversibility it is simply an IOU.

I'm sure criminals would love to do business this way with BTC_Bear and Steve...
We already know who would end up with no money and no product ;)

@Death&Taxes,

Ok, so sending private keys around is a horrible method. But the point is: you can have BTC transactions which leave no trace in the blockchain. Actually, which leave no trace anywhere. Two examples are the use of physical medium like bitbills or casacius coins, or the use of an Open Transactions server in cash-only mode, with bitcoin-backed tokens.
There's always some level of trust needed, but the transfers are fully anonymous. Much more anonymous than blockchain transfers.
BTC_Bear initial comment that started this parallel discussion of yours remains valid, from this point of view.

whats the bounty for a good text version?  i can make this happen.

It's already happened...

PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nc35rpevjcu9p4/Bitcoin%20FBI.pdf
DOCX: https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9m3hd7yfq2ee16/Bitcoin%20FBI.docx

Does he mean an ASCII text version suitable for pastebin? That would be a plus.

There you go: http://pastebin.com/D2VVvQ36

B to Y could verify the amount the whole way with out spending. I'll let you figure out how. It is quite simple actually.

Casacius Coins and Bitbills are out of business then. And they are 'legitimate' businesses without the threat of 'if you screw me over, it's the fishes for you'.

But it is OK, It can't be done. You're right.


psy: Do you know something I don't? :P  Please share.



Sometimes the treasure you find is just what was left for you to keep you from digging deeper. :)

cool.  i'll just let myself out...

Sweet lol

Eh, don't use that.  I just realized that it didn't copy any of the text box text over.

Shouldn't be hard to copy/paste those pieces in though, if you want to take the time to do it.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/Bitcoin-FBI.pdf

Theirs must have been a different source since it's not an image and can be copied/pasted.

LOL, so it's not a fake anymore? ::)

also lulz on how it was reported to be leaked yesterday... wired...  also they were more anti bitcoin than the fbi.. the fbi had a decent informative overview.

The seems legit enough for me. I think this means good things for bitcoin. Even if it's publicity from LEO.

The FBI is intentionally leaking documents the same way Hip-Hop Artists leak their latest tracks.

Yeah wonder where they could have found an non-image version?  Hmm
(Hint: look up thread)

Wowww and they didn't even give him credit for it?

I hope he put some sort of watermark in it

Look at both documents properties... GPL Ghostscript 8.63, PDFCreator 0.9.6, same creation and alteration date.
You speculate very badly, let me tell you that. ;)

No it is a bit for bit copy.  It even has the same (minor) formatting errors in the exact same spots.
On edit: oops psy beat me to it.

Hey SgtSpike your famous.  How does it feel to be published by Wired. :)

How can they use a recreation of a document (that equally has no published sources) and base an entire article off of it? It's twice-removed from the original source and unconfirmed. Wow, just wow. (Not to mention they didn't thank SgtSpikety)

Well maybe they did confirm it (i.e. call the FBI office).  Then again journalistic standards aren't that high anymore.   Could be either one.

The trained response to inquiries on a classified or confidential document is "we can neither confirm, nor deny".

True unless the leak is intentional. :)

But this is an Unclassified document, made to be distributed to agencies around the world also. I suppose they would have no problem confirming it as real. Maybe they would be interested how it leaked, but it's not a secret per se.

LOL... mind has been fucked.

I demand to be shown said minor formatting errors!

That said, I do not want credit for it.  It is the FBI's document, not mine.  They hold the copyright to it (if there is one?), even if I was the one who recreated it.  I got my bounty, I am happy.

I do think it is odd that they used mine instead of the original.  What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it?  Maybe they just checked it over very well.

Exactly. You could have inserted "PENIS" very faintly in the background too. (You should have).

The ultimate trollfactor...

I don't want to ruin my reputation doing something like that though.  I like to stand by the quality of my work.  ;)

I like to stand by "PENIS". In my book, that is quality work.  :D

Just playing. You should hit up Wired and make them give you credit. If you don't, we will you know...

Lol, do what you must... I am not contacting them though.

I wonder what editor at Wired read the Transcribed Document for errors and put it up as an Original. LOL

I guess people need to do more transcribing.

Poor guy is going to get into trouble.


Oh to add some fodder: Is it:  Organized or Organised?  and how and when do you spell each? hmm...

The funniest part is they kept my awful name for the document itself... "Bitcoin-FBI.pdf".  They just added the dash in place of the space to make it web safe.  I would have at least expected them to rename it to something more official sounding.

EDIT:  Now softpedia is linking to the wired-hosted PDF.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/FBI-Concerned-About-the-Use-of-Bitcoins-for-Illicit-Activities-268664.shtml

I'm sure they did ;)

Hey, Sgt

You're published. :)

Charge more next time.

Wired could have at least chipped in a couple coins towards the bounty if they needed a transcribed copy that bad.  Leeches I tell you.

They did better: free publicity! It's not like any of us computer nerds see their ads anyways.

Basically confirms what we already know:

-not really on LEO radar because "cyber criminals" are cashing huge money through webmoney and LR as usual
-some massive ebay scam in 2010 was laundered through online gold companies not bitcoin
-some other massive scam was laundered through virtual game gold not bitcoin
-any exchanger doing biz with Americans has to have a registered MSB so can get at private keys to match up xfers if they really wanted

tl;dr FBI doesn't care about bitcoin... yet

Ok, that is funny

See the problem is, unfortunately, the U.S. has lost its way and a lot of its power to tell others what to do. The Laws that they are trying to enforce are for the most part ignored everywhere else. Hence, a vacuum is being created which is sucking all the business out of the United States. Big businesses have enough 'pull' to ignore the rules and set up shops overseas. Small Businesses and Personal accounts are left to the vultures.

So, I would suggest that 'we' get with the program and bend like a reed in the wind rather than be a brick wall trying to hold back a tidal wave.

Under that law, if you take money from someone to give to someone else, you are guilty. Think about that. It is a badly written law. There should at least be a qualifying clause before it can go into effect: Such as once the annual revenue reaches a preset amount adjusted to the CPI.

The ABA thinks there may be nearly ten thousand laws, the Congressional Research Center has lost track. So, narrate what you did today and a lawyer can tell you how many laws you broke. It is no longer about the 'law' because we know that the only reason the 'law' is there now is to punish people they want to punish. It has stopped being there to 'serve' the people.

Any 'law' that is unenforceable is by definition: A moot point.  Illegal or legal matters not when one can't enforce the 'law.'

With the above noted, I don't mean to be complicit in money laundering or the use of 'blood' money. However, it is a world economy now and not sets of local ones. Why doesn't the Law Enforcement Agencies try to stop the crimes that require the use of money laundering rather than trying to stop money laundering?

So when you come in and state the 'LAW', please consider what it is there to do now. It is there to keep the 'small' guys from taking business from the 'big' guys and NOT to create a fair and equal playing field for the people. Yes, the criminal element will take advantage of monetary systems. Did you think that would ever stop? So, Mr. FBI agent get up off your seat in front of your computer and get in the game. Seriously, your not going to catch the big fish that really do harm to people because they pay more and hire the best and brightest away from you. You know, like BoA, WF, UBS, HBSC, EXXON, BP, etc...  They are in the majors while you are still playing in the minors. They have developed methods of communicating with out really communicating using innuendo, hunting trips, fishing trips, sailing trips, golf, etc... The places with out, you got it, computer and cell phone usage.

However, 'I have a Dream' that one day every individual on the planet could easily and effectively transfer currencies among themselves without fear of repercussions from governments. I have a Dream to empower the people and put the money back into their control. I have a Dream that governments will be forced to serve the people rather than the people serve the governments. I have a Dream that rather than people fearing the Governments that the Governments will fear the people. I have a Dream that a person's sweat and labor goes towards themselves and not towards overburdensome taxes.


End Rant.

How true.  Everyone is a criminal, even the little old lady from Pasadena.


Bravo!

Sorry to quote this from earlier, but I think this pretty much sums it up. The style of writing is the biggest give-away here! It is completely off. Plus the insider-bitcoiner references. I wonder if someone here is pretending to subjectively comment on this when in fact they made it themselves.  :-X

Yeah, I think SgtSpike made this all up so that he could earn 10 BTC by "retyping" it.  ;)

No, but that would have been a clever idea!

I still stand by the sheer amount of time spent on this.  Again, if it was a troll/fake, whoever made it still did spend 100's of hours compiling it all together.  I certainly wouldn't do that for only 10 BTC!

...much less for the lulz...

In light of new evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the document is real and the source who wants to remain anonymous is unwilling to explain publicly. It is however still possible that the source is lying and just made it himself and doesn't want to be persecuted publicly. Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

Exactly - that's Matthew's job.  ;)

Agreed.  Unless they actually did verify it, but I doubt that...

Don't assume rational behavior. Economists do, and that's why they can never explain anything.

ALso, the language of this document simply doesn't strike me as being bureaucratic and self-important enough.

And as a counterpoint to the "too much time to fake it" argument, I attest that over the course of my life, there have been many occasions I've spent more time and energy on school projects, work projects, pranks, and other endeavors that yielded far less profit and lulz relative to the effort necessary to accomplish them than the author of this document has possibly gained.

Fair enough.  ;)

I disagree on the language thing.  My guess is they had to make sure the language wasn't too fancy, and the overview on Bitcoin wasn't too complex, because the intention of this document was to inform the law enforcement of the rest of the world about the current and potential criminal uses of Bitcoins.  Even though it appears as though all of the agencies on the distribution list speak English (I didn't look up what the acronym'd ones are though), they might still be concerned about minor language differences between the different cultures causing confusion, misunderstandings, etc.  Better to be safe by using simple and consistent language.

I also wouldn't expect an FBI paper to be as bureaucratic as, say, a propose bill from congress.  I was a bit surprised at how "unbureaucractic" it sounded myself, but it makes sense given that the FBI doesn't need to use lawyerly talk in documents like this.

Guys, the Big Lion Watermark doesn't do anything for you guys? Looks more like a community college mascot then the real mccoy, since the head is floating in space.

I still don't believe in its authenticity as presented in the original document simply because of the artifacts on the 1st page in the originally presented document. The transcribed document used by Wired and the other news sources that reference Wired shouldn't be presented as an original (props to Sgt). The originally released document might have been altered for presentation effect but the basis of the report correct.

A distribution list has been published at the end of the document. The RCMP and New Zealand Police would probably tell a News Agency if they have received a similar document and could confirm the authenticity as presented before a FOIA Request would respond.

I must admit the 'report' did a better job sourcing than many news reports do today. I really would wish that this reputable agency would put a basic sourcing claimer at the bottom of their stories. Something simple: A source from <Insert Agency> here has confirmed.

Because of the way the story is being presented in the press: The FBI Fears Bitcoin, it will do more good than harm to Bitcoin and draw a lot of people to BTC. So, I would expect the FBI to make some statement about the report if it is false.

btw: A method of detecting leak sources is to slightly alter the distributed documents to each agency. So if a leak occurs, it is immediately determined within a reasonable suspicion which agency has the leak.

I assumed people have checked, the original document, for government approved font type.

I am curious, what artifacts on the first page of the original document are you speaking of?  Not trying to challenge that it is fake or real, but just want to know what you saw.

The original document was completely Times New Roman, and I did mine to match.  Font was size 12 or 10 throughout the entire document, with the exception of the superscripts (duh) and the front page.

The one thing that I noticed that did seem curious was the (U) in the largest font on the front page didn't seem to quite match the (U) on my front page.  Mine seemed a bit wider.  Couldn't figure out why that was, even though I played with the font for a while...

EDIT:  It's almost as though the kerning was changed on that largest font to move all the letters closer to each other.  Though, it could just be something about the way the original was rendered to a PDF...

EDIT2:  Lol, just found two rather major mistakes as I was looking back through my document again... the footnotes on pages 4 and 5 are completely the wrong font!  It was defaulting to Calibri, and I thought I had changes all of it to times, but I must've missed those two pages... oops.  I guess anyone who wants to prove to wired that they don't have the original can now do so.   :D

Sgt,

Referencing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92797476/FBI-Bitcoin-Report-April-2012 as the original. The logo ridged edges around the boarders. This could easily be solved but was not. Anyone printing and/or seeing it would immediately see the Cut/Paste of the logo which would seem very, Unofficial, Unprofessional, and very Unclassified. But it might have just been an 'intern' creating the document, since there really wasn't any useful information in the report for the agencies in which it was distributed. I can imagine people at those agencies after reading it saying: "Geesh Thanks, next time just send a link to bitcointalk.org and save some tax payer dollars." OR "Hey fellas, we have 'another' FBI report; lunch time."

But as said, the contents might be correct and things added later.

Aren't the ridged edges of the Bitcoin logo simply due to the low quality of the entire document though?

Oh, you mean the edges were even more clear?

I suppose it could be tested.

Meh... Not really that concerned as to the report.

I am more impressed with your work and speed in transcribing then the original authors efforts put into the report.

::Props::

Yeah, it'd be difficult to test without having the better-quality original to test with.

Haha, thanks.  I really wanted that bounty, and had some competition, so I had to do it quick!

Well it now looks like it was authentic.
Adrianne Jeffries of BetaBeat reports that she has confirmed it with the FBI.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81787.0

So much for the naysayers...

How stupid do you all look now? ::)

The only sense in which economics "assume" rational behavior is, in fact, a tautological axiom. The axiom states that given a choice between two or more goods, an actor will choose the good which is highest on his or her internal scale of preferences. The scale itself, however, is an unknown and unknowable element outside of the individual's own psyche; they are probably not even consciously aware of all their preferences at any given moment. Preferences can also change over time. All one can know of another person's preferences are the snapshots revealed through their choices. Therefore, there is no way that any set of observed choices could possibly contradict the axiom. Given the choice, it is simply more productive to think of action in terms of objectively rational choices between subjectively-valued goods than vise-versa.

The well-founded economic models take the subjective theory of value as a given, being careful not to exclude non-material goods, and consequently are able make perfectly good predictions. The less-well-founded (e.g. utilitarian) models assume objective relations between the values of various goods, based on unreliable indicators such as historical prices, surveys, and "common sense", and are left trying to explain why people seem to behave "irrationally".