Where exactly did you read that from my post?

My point was that if you have something of value *you secure it* (otherwise why do we have companies that make safes?).

Klee decided not to secure his BTC other than through a single password to a dropbox account. This was my point about leaving gold nuggets in a glass display case (in a home with a standard lock if you couldn't infer that).

In regards to the whole fungibility and mixing issue I think we need to remember one thing first.

It was Klee who left his passwords in an unencrypted text file and who had not put any coins into "cold storage" (and he has admitted that this was his own fault).

Although I don't condone stealing for a second if you leave a pile of gold nuggets in glass box sitting in your lounge room do you think the police are going to be starting a huge manhunt when said gold goes missing?

Anonymity and privacy require people to be able to do their own security and unfortunately that is not something that most are used to (they are more used to having governments and banks look after them).

The best advice to people is "secure your bitcoins" rather then arguing about whether mixers should be shut down (if thieves can't get your coins in the first place then there is no need to be worried about them mixing them later).

And unfortunately for him he has "disturbed a hornet's nest" so I guess it is up to him to work out just how clever he thinks he is (and how much stress he wants in his life).

Agreed - a thief is not a "hacker" (according to the original meaning of hacker which we have spent many years "reclaiming").

So - I would ask the thief to return 90% of the funds (10% as a *lesson* for Klee about securing his assets seems fair to me).

I am guessing that the hacker is now watching this topic also - he should be advised to make sure he sends the rest of the funds he promised to send ASAP.

Most of us do not see any good reason for 36 days and so it would be in his best interests to make good on this as quickly as possible.

Klee is in a rather bad situation - of course he'd rather get 40% of his BTC back than none.

The mixing service needs to make their own decision about what they do and of course authorities may be interested in that.

Good try troll (well actually not even a good try - you just resort to name calling straight away?).

A more clever troll would have come up with something a bit more creative and bit less aggressive.

I am certainly not trying to defend any criminals or criminal acts.

I just think people need to think carefully about all the issues here and not start to form "lynch mobs" or the like.

(btw - best to ignore some of the more silly posts being made here and elsewhere - this is bitcointalk and the trolls love it)

How do you know that they "knowingly accepted $750,000 in stolen funds" - do you have proof of this (and if so then maybe you should be reporting them to the police)?

It isn't up to bitmixer or others to "be the police" (how can they even be sure there was any theft?).

Bitcoin has given us some amazing freedom but at a much higher cost of "personal responsibility" for looking after our private property.

Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=690353.0;topicseen

Or another country (yes - my sentiments exactly).

I didn't look into this situation in much depth at all but had noticed the mixing service itself making a statement (which I thought referred to a lot more than just some tags).

So the hacker has only mixed a small % of the coins? Is that the 4.62 BTC that had been sent?

The 36 days still seems rather fishy to me though.

Then please explain what was the post from the mixing service was referring to then?

In any case it doesn't seem reasonable to require 36 days to put the rest through mixing services.

True - but the hacker(s) gave themselves 36 days to return half of what they have promised (plenty of time for someone to "sell up and leave the country" if you were concerned with being located).

The BTC has already been through a mixer (as was noted by the mixer service in Klee's topic) and supposedly all records that could have traced the mixing have already been deleted (so there is no way that they can trace the hacker without at least losing their credibility as a mixing service).

I do think that the stuff about having 36 days to return the 462 BTC amount doesn't look very legit (i.e. the hacker gains 1 month to "disappear to another country").

You should read up on the Linode hacks that happened a couple of years ago.

There is simply no way that dropbox is going to take any responsibility.

The idea is nothing new (google "bitcoin blacklisting") and unfortunately has the problem that "how do you know it was really stolen?" (not saying that Klee's case is not legit).

You end up with some sort of "centralised blacklist" that then destroys the "fungibility" of Bitcoin (same as if you were given a $10 note that turned out to be stolen do you think it is fair that you should lose that $10?).

This is why comparisons with "gold" make quite a bit of sense when it comes to Bitcoin as people can "melt down UTXOs" through mixers such that it is practically impossible to tell who are "the thieves or the innocent victims".

Jokes are fine (but yes this is serious) - some basic rules in order to "create new accounts" would be that it would be "expensive to do so" (thus making it more "profitable at least in the short term" to just keep using the same account rather than *split it into two*).

The very initial accounts would actually come from "working on the project itself" which could be via looking at github commits or other similar things (so the decentralisation grows from a project that is not initially decentralised).

Where I am aiming this idea is a very different audience from the current "crypto-currency speculators" - I am thinking of of "blockchain apps" for things like franchise businesses (I also think it could be a great basis for a new kind of "social networking").

Yes - as stated the "account creation" would need to be controlled.

Apart from starting this blockchain as a "community project" I have several other ideas that would make it very difficult to acquire many accounts.

So - it is only the "account creation" problem that you are seeing then?