|
I noticed that the Europol statement specifically referred to investigating the technology. I don't think it's safe to assume that human error alone is responsible for every bust. Yes, good old fashion police work has played a huge part in the very public busts to date, but it would be extremely unwise to assume that access to awesome technological resources hasn't also given investigators far more information than has been made public.
I'd be inclined to take Europol at their word about going after users - not because they care about people buying small amounts of drugs but because they want to create the impression that involvement in the dark markets is unsafe whether you're an operator, a vendor or a buyer. For the most part, non-vendor buyers have felt relatively safe up until now - so safe that they're posting on clearnet trying to track down contact details for known SR vendors. Prosecution of buyers will disrupt that feeling of safety.
|
|
|
|
It is too bad that the scam/ponzi collapsed ~2 years ago and the money that was stolen has long been spent, making it unlikely that investors will ever recover. Plus the fact that since his ponzi collapsed many others have followed in his footsteps who will likely not be prosecuted because their scam was not large enough to get the attention of law enforcement
This case is a criminal one, so it's about retribution more than anything else. A lot more people are deterred by the prospect of a jail term than by a civil judgement or a fine. No, it doesn't make victims whole in any way but if he were to receive a substantial sentence then it sets a precedent for the future and sends the message that fraud using Bitcoin is still fraud. It wouldn't deter every would-be fraudster, of course, but knowing that there's already someone serving a long jail sentence for Bitcoin fraud will deter some people from a similar path. Right now, we can't point to much in the way of meaningful consequences which have been suffered by those who've perpetrated Bitcoin frauds - the sooner that changes, the better. |
|
|
|
Well both attacks by the government on both SR's were user/admin error (although SR2 made much worse errors then SR1).
Ahhh.. Well, there you go. SR3, don't host it in the United States. Morons. hehehe. As for physical security, ... there are lots of methods, and although expensive you can host it yourself. Have any of the SR1 and SR2 operators seen "See More Buds" ? That talks a bit about physical security of grow houses. I've never used SR1 or SR2 or any of the others that died, so I don't know if the user interface would be affected if I had done things differently or took care of things on my end, or set up shop in some remote mountain with walls like UBL (but UBL did not have internet, bummer.) From what I was reading earlier today, multiple sites which were taken down were using the same Bulgarian host. If you're using the same host as another illicit service, there's always the chance that you'll get caught in a dragnet intended for someone else. Operator stupidity is also rampant. The operator of C9 actually posted on reddit that one of her servers had been seized and that she was looking for a new host - not smart. |
|
|
|
I think the reason why "defcon" was adopting the role of a "leader" was to inspire trust in his marketplace, especially after it has been hacked as many times as it was hacked. If you are not active in the community then people will not trust you as much
The cult of personality which has existed around SR "leaders" may have inspired trust, but it's been misplaced trust. Hackings and law enforcement take-downs have happened under the watch of these trusted leaders. Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly. That advice is very quickly forgotten as people once again get wrapped up in the idea that they're part of some heroic movement for change and that the leadership is going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to protect them. The reality never matches the rhetoric, though. Power and money are heady intoxicants, but there's a danger in believing your own publicity. When you start believing your own PR, you put others at risk. Users need to stop buying into the idea of SR as a movement or community. They need to view it as a commercial enterprise and stop believing that the people at the top are martyrs who'll protect those beneath them. They need to stop wanting to like and be close to whoever is at the top. Buying into the mythology creates vulnerability on both the part of the leadership and the users and leads to stupid mistakes. |
|
|
|
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox In fact the most useful piece of advice which would be marketplace operators should follow is to check their ego and be as invisible and behind the scenes as possible. Actively participating in "the community", and especially adopting the role of "visionary leader" is just plain stupid. It's an illegal business first and foremost. Leave the ideological bullshit to the users instead of courting their adoration. |
|
|
|
It suggests part of his motivation that spurs him to expend so much effort into these investigations is driven by the thrill of the hunt and feeling of power when he can blackmail others with it.
A certain amount of this positive feedback from attention and power is unavoidable and may be good for the community but one must also step back and reflect at times on the consequences of what one does and also how will it reflect upon themselves.
If I was privy to this information I would first start a dialogue with the individual to hear their side of the story or either hire and investigator to verify the claims or share the information with authorities. If he has already done all these steps months ago he should have mentioned as much for his own credibility. At no point is it just to blackmail someone with unrelated issues (Or are you suggesting did KNC miner paid the membership fee with pre-pubescent girls for the purposes of rape?)
Yeah, I don't think Phin has totally thought this through. If Patrick did step down in response to the allegations, Phin would forever be tainted as someone who knows damaging information about Patrick and is keeping it quiet - something which would reflect very poorly on Phin's own reputation. Do you really want to be viewed as a person who is knowingly covering up for a paedophile, Phin? And yeah, we've seen this before when people have come across damaging information about prominent members of the community. You're not a crusader for truth if you're willing to suppress that information if your conditions are met - you're part of the problem. You're not going to be remembered by anyone else as the person who forced the bad guy of the moment to pack up his ball and go home. I've seen you get disappointed in the past, Phin, when you have felt the community hasn't valued the effort you've put into trying to connect dots, so try to keep your own ego out of this. Be very careful here, Phin. You might not have as much leverage as you think and this could bite you in the ass very badly. Make sure you have all your ducks in a row before you escalate this any further. Don't let your ego cloud your judgement here. |
|
|
|
lol 3 newbies with questionable English all posting the same complaint within minutes of each other. Nothing questionable about that at all.  |
|
|
|
I don't honestly know what the OP is on about anymore. The KnC thing was one thing, but if he has evidence of serious crimes against minors (if that is indeed what we are talking about) then why has he waited until now to (sort of) come out with it?
Phin, you need to "publish and be damned" here if you have evidence to back up your allegations. You can't claim any moral high ground if you're willing to keep the information to yourself if Patrick steps down - that just makes you a willing part of whatever cover up you claim has been going on. It's just putting a price on your own integrity, which I'm sure isn't your intention. |
|
|
|
|
They're pretty standard financial institution KYC requirements.
It doesn't matter if you've already supplied information. Organisations have an obligation to apply KYC requirements on an ongoing basis and it's very common for them to ask for additional information (enhanced customer due diligence) at a later time based on how you use your account.
You didn't mention the amount of the wire transfer you've requested, but under Hong Hong's AML/CTF framework enhanced customer due diligence must be applied to wire transfers of HKD 8,000 (USD 1030) or more (or a series of seemingly linked wire transfers adding up to that amount).
Realistically, if you want to be able to use these services you'll have to find ways to adequately verify your identity. It's something you need to think about before you place substantial funds with any service because their own financial institutions can refuse to process transactions to inadequately verified or otherwise high risk customers.
This is such a standard requirement that instead of whining about not having sufficient ID, you need to be focusing on how you can go about obtaining sufficient ID - because I promise you that you're going to encounter this problem again and again in the future if you don't sort it out now. Your option, if you're not willing to comply with AML/CTF/KYC requirements of specific countries, is not using services based in those countries. No-one's holding a gun to your head forcing you to deal with those services and it's not reasonable to expect those services to ignore the law - and risk their own survival - to accommodate you.
Stop being a whiny baby and send them what they've asked for.
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the Legal forum.
Which actions you may be able to get involved in depends on where you're located. Make sure that you fully understand the nature of any agreements you're asked to sign as the funding arrangements for class/multi-plaintiff actions can vary dramatically by jurisdiction and may or may not be fully contingency-based.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it also make entrapment much more expensive if criminals request bitcions to be put into escrow transactions before they make the exchange or even bring out the goods. If the suspects are somehow forced to hand over the private keys they will be incriminating themselves.
How could this be solved by U.S. law?
Silk Road operated an escrow system (they're now looking at multi-sig transactions to replace escrow because they keep losing escrow funds). It didn't hinder the prosecution of SR dealers in any way. Escrow just adds another step and another layer of evidence. For the most part "is this a possible loophole" type discussions tend to focus on things which either aren't loopholes at all or things which are already in the process of being shut down. If you find an actual loophole and it gets discussed publicly, it's going to get closed relatively quickly because the authorities can read too. |
|
|
|
Uhh, yes it does protect you. If you trade using localbitcoin and cash, it is anonymous and therefore you are protected 100%. "unenforceable law", just like copyright law. They're already targeting high volume sellers on localbitcoins (just as high volume e-Bay sellers and high volume PayPal users have been targeted in the past). It's not "anonymous" if you're meeting someone to sell them BTC for cash and that person has the authority to charge you with being an unlicensed money transmitter on the basis of a single transaction (and localbitcoins sales at a distance have been fraught with scams and fraud). Everyone needs to stop thinking that there's some perfect solution which will last forever. Regardless of what methods you try to use to stay under the radar, the authorities will eventually catch on to them and target them (just as they do with people trying to hide conventional financial transactions or game the system). localbitcoins ads themselves are a trail (just like SR ads are a trail). |
|
|
|
Would there be a better solution? A centralized entity that checks the id of a person, and then vouch for that person? So instead of giving your info up to many exchanges, you give it up to just one entity?
These already exist and are often used by large organisations for basic identity verification. They're not cheap, though, and most Bitcoin start-ups are strapped for cash. There are also legitimate concerns about a central entity collecting such information and how it may be used in the future. AML/KYC often needs to go beyond basic identity verification. Once a "high risk" or suspicious transaction occurs on an account, another set of obligations are imposed on the institution concerned (enhanced KYC, suspicious activity reports) and those can't really be farmed out to a third party service. An exchange - for instance - which can't provide adequate information about its customers when requested to do so by its bank will very often find limitations placed on its account or the account closed altogether. The bank is risking fines ranging from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars if it ignores suspicious or high risk activity. Few customers make them enough profit to justify taking that risk. Also it is my understanding that KYC is to prevent known terroists/criminals/blacklisted entities from using said services. Afaik, there are lists maintained by Us Govt agencies and various other lists around the world I would imagine. And there are hundreds of ways to funnel funds to such organisations using intermediaries, which is why the algorithms are designed to look for certain patterns of activity in addition to known relationships. All the messageboard discussions in the world aren't going to change the AML/CTF/KYC framework. It exists at both regional and an international level, so even lobbying your local regulators will have little impact on the agreed international standards. More and more financial transactions will be brought under the AML/CTF/KYC umbrella. This document was produced by FATF last year and gives you some idea of the direction in which regulation is heading. It relates to pre-paid cards, mobile payments and internet-based payment services. http://www.fatf-gafi.org/topics/fatfrecommendations/documents/rba-npps-2013.html |
|
|
|
|
Why the strange choice of phrasing?
"If you are in any way not connected, you need to tell me now" is a confusing way to phrase that statement and I doubt it was unintentional. Apart from anything else, it's an aggressive statement. He "needs" to tell her now or what? Why leave the implied threat unexpressed unless you're intentionally being vague and hoping to confuse someone?
She was hoping to bully him into a "confession" and it didn't work so she needed to grasp at straws and get him to say something - anything - she could vaguely interpret as acknowledgement.
|
|
|
|
Double space after period, the two bit idiot must be Satoshi! Lulz. |
|
|
|
I agree completely. His approach does raise questions about his motivations. If he really just wants the resignations, why not just publish it and expect the resignations to come, as they should, after the information is released and if it is true.
I think his original motives were probably fine. I just think that he's come to believe in the "persona" of TBI too much now and that it's clouding his judgement. A couple of weeks ago, he was just another blogger with opinions on Bitcoin stuff. He got handed some pretty explosive information and now he thinks he's Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein. He's making himself the story by adopting this "fearless crusader for Bitcoin truth" persona and I guess he's kind of intoxicated by all the kudos he got for the MtGox Crisis Draft story. All of a sudden he feels very important in the Bitcoin space and it's clouding his judgement. |
|
|
|
Not even close to enough. The problem is that it's too convenient to store them online. Silly as all get out to do that but convenient. We can't expect the vast majority of the population to adopt bitcoin and not understand the concept of don't store your money in a "bank".
Ironically, in the early days of MtGox Mark used to openly tell people not to use MtGox as a bank/online wallet (he used to discourage people from using it as a currency exchange, too). I suspect it was more because people doing so weren't generating profit for MtGox so it was a pain in the ass for them to have to keep records for thousands of unprofitable accounts (not to mention the money laundering thing of people walking funds through an account being "suspicious" anyway). |
|
|
|
nless he's willing to publish and be damned regardless of whether or not Vessenes and Matonis step down, then he's not a crusader for truth at all - he's just another egomaniac seeking validation.
Completely agree, the blog post is massively attention seeking. He could have simply mailed the two guys in question with the facts he has and told them he would reveal unless they stepped down. Nope, that would just make him a blackmailer. He has no integrity as a "whistle-blower" if there's any scenario under which he won't publish the information of wrong-doing he claims to have. By not publishing, he's with-holding the very information he's accusing them of being wrong for with-holding. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
