[2020-08-15] US Prosecutors Seize Bitcoin Allegedly Tied to AlQaeda, ISIS, Hamas

[bbc.reporter]

How good are blockchain analytics companies in analyzing coinjoins and mixing presently? Can they follow outputs after a mix or a coinjoin? This might be a concern for regular users, I reckon.

I am quite certain blockchain analytics companies do not have 99% batting average hehe. There are services and institutions in this world that should not have a 1% or .01% error. Airline pilots, the police and the judicial system are examples.


Image from risetopeace.org

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the “largest ever seizure of terrorist organizations’ cryptocurrency accounts” on Thursday, including “millions of dollars” and 300 crypto accounts.

In a press release Thursday, the DOJ announced it had investigated and dismantled “three terrorist financing cyber-enabled campaigns” involving al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

Legal documents filed Thursday show the DOJ is trying to seize bitcoin from 155 addresses it alleges were used by Al Qaeda to fund terrorism and arrest two individuals allegedly involved with facilitating crypto transfers for Hamas.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/us-prosecutors-attempt-to-seize-bitcoin-allegedly-tied-to-al-qaeda

[1715117271]

1715117271

[1715117271]

1715117271

[buwaytress]

So unless ISIS et all have been using Coinbase or exchanges regulated by the US, how exactly does the DOJ attempt to seize private keys from these organisations? Waterboard their Ledgers? Find it hard to believe most of the addresses were stored on exchanges. I saw the Hamas site asking for donations and they were NOT using exchange wallets. I think these Telegram channels aren't actually associated with the orgs, and just scammers. Then again, maybe people aren't as smart as they're supposed to be.

[Bitstarzisascam]

How good are blockchain analytics companies in analyzing coinjoins and mixing presently? Can they follow outputs after a mix or a coinjoin? This might be a concern for regular users, I reckon.

I am quite certain blockchain analytics companies do not have 99% batting average hehe. There are services and institutions in this world that should not have a 1% or .01% error. Airline pilots, the police and the judicial system are examples.


Image from risetopeace.org

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the “largest ever seizure of terrorist organizations’ cryptocurrency accounts” on Thursday, including “millions of dollars” and 300 crypto accounts.

In a press release Thursday, the DOJ announced it had investigated and dismantled “three terrorist financing cyber-enabled campaigns” involving al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

Legal documents filed Thursday show the DOJ is trying to seize bitcoin from 155 addresses it alleges were used by Al Qaeda to fund terrorism and arrest two individuals allegedly involved with facilitating crypto transfers for Hamas.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/us-prosecutors-attempt-to-seize-bitcoin-allegedly-tied-to-al-qaeda

ISIS aka CIA, heck we don't even know who created bitcoin, maybe it's the CIA..

[o_e_l_e_o]

So unless ISIS et all have been using Coinbase or exchanges regulated by the US, how exactly does the DOJ attempt to seize private keys from these organisations?

You can read the relevant court document here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7035314-Complaint.html. Paragraph 70 states that:

The Defendant Properties are subject to forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(G)(i), as assets of a foreign terrorist organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)(5)) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and as assets affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization.

Basically what they are saying is that anyone who is in possession of the private keys to the 155 addresses listed must forfeit them to the US government. If the people in possession of the private keys are the terrorists themselves, then obviously they aren't going to hand over anything. If, on the other hand, the people in possession of the private keys are exchanges or other third party services, then they will hand over the relevant assets.

[bbc.reporter]

So unless ISIS et all have been using Coinbase or exchanges regulated by the US, how exactly does the DOJ attempt to seize private keys from these organisations? Waterboard their Ledgers? Find it hard to believe most of the addresses were stored on exchanges. I saw the Hamas site asking for donations and they were NOT using exchange wallets. I think these Telegram channels aren't actually associated with the orgs, and just scammers. Then again, maybe people aren't as smart as they're supposed to be.

They cannot enforce it on the blockchain, however, my question is how good are the blockchain analytics companies today in producing an analysis on coins after mixing or coinjoins?

I reckon that this might become disadvantageous to innocent users. The government has a history of accusing innocent people only to report a result and close the case.

[buwaytress]

Basically what they are saying is that anyone who is in possession of the private keys to the 155 addresses listed must forfeit them to the US government. If the people in possession of the private keys are the terrorists themselves, then obviously they aren't going to hand over anything. If, on the other hand, the people in possession of the private keys are exchanges or other third party services, then they will hand over the relevant assets.

So basically they haven't seized the Bitcoin then, as the title wrongly states. Even if they are 3rd party services and exchanges as Chanalysis claims, it's not certain they'll even have the jurisdiction over them. Anyone remember how the US sanctioned BTC addresses last year? That worked out well, didn't it?

They cannot enforce it on the blockchain, however, my question is how good are the blockchain analytics companies today in producing an analysis on coins after mixing or coinjoins?

Probably not very, very good, it still needs individuals to really make good assessments. This Chainalysis whistleblower claims the software isn't anywhere as good as it claims to be.

[Lucius]

They cannot enforce it on the blockchain, however, my question is how good are the blockchain analytics companies today in producing an analysis on coins after mixing or coinjoins?

If we take into account what Snowden published about Bitcoin, then we know that some three letters agencies worked very seriously on identifying and tracking Bitcoin users. If they already had very sophisticated tools in 2013, it is not at all a question of what they have today - something much better than what all these analysis companies have at the moment.

Also, analysis of some mixers has shown that they are far from perfect tools for hiding traces, and everything a man designs is subject to reverse engineering, so I think most still live under the misconception that they can be completely anonymous on the internet.

As for terrorists, I thought Al-Qaeda and ISIS were a thing of the past - they served their purpose and now we are waiting for some new super terrorist organization because the fight against terror must not stop - maybe terrorists are waiting for the price of BTC to rise - terrorists Hodlers

[o_e_l_e_o]

They cannot enforce it on the blockchain, however, my question is how good are the blockchain analytics companies today in producing an analysis on coins after mixing or coinjoins?

Having read the court documents I linked above, there is no mention anywhere about the terrorists attempting to mix, coinjoin, or otherwise obfuscate their coins in this case. A number of addresses were identified as they were openly soliciting donations to these addresses, these addresses tended to consolidate the donations to one central address, and then that central address sent directly to exchanges and gift card sellers.

Even if they are 3rd party services and exchanges as Chanalysis claims, it's not certain they'll even have the jurisdiction over them.

True, but most centralized exchanges, even foreign ones, will give in immediately to pressure from the US government lest they get slapped with sanctions or regulations.

[Slow death]

what a great novelty, so they are eliminating these terrorists, this is very good and it can also be good for governments to see that bitcoin is not so different from FIAT and that they can manage to catch terrorists who use bitcoin and altcoins. I just wonder if this is really true because honestly governments when it comes to terrorists are able to lie a lot (adulterate the data) to make it look as if they are succeeding in combating terrorism

does this Chainalysis now work for the US government?

[o_e_l_e_o]

does this Chainalysis now work for the US government?

Chainalysis, like all blockchain analysis companies, sell their privacy invasion to the highest bidder. They have worked with various governments and government agencies for years now.

Take a look at these records: https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.5.1&s=FPDS.GOV&q=VENDOR_FULL_NAME%3A%22CHAINALYSIS+INC.%22
According to them, the FBI and IRS have been paying for services from Chainalysis since at least 2015, and the DEA and Immigration and Customs Enforcement since 2016. There are 97 contracts from various different government agencies for Chainalysis services, the largest being for $1.7 million.

And here they are working with Europol in 2016: https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol-and-chainalysis-reinforce-their-cooperation-in-fight-against-cybercrime

[Harlot]

“Al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups have been operating a BTC money laundering network using Telegram channels and other social media platforms to solicit BTC donations to further their terrorist goals,” the complaint read. “As described below, al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups operate a number of Telegram channels and purport to act as charities when, in fact, they are soliciting funds for the mujahadeen.”

When we look at blockchain analytics companies like Chainalysis I think it is important to know that when they are investigating or doing their own research it doesn't mean they only analyze transaction using blockchain but they also start from somewhere like what addresses are affiliated to these terrorists groups and go from there. With this quote the article provided it looks like they received a tip that these criminal organizations are using telegram to contact and transact with each other that's why they got a hit from it. They might not be that 100% accurate but I think what stands out in court is that you have a very good evidence linking that person to the terrorist group and I think the judge seen enough for it to happen.

[o_e_l_e_o]

With this quote the article provided it looks like they received a tip that these criminal organizations are using telegram to contact and transact with each other that's why they got a hit from it. They might not be that 100% accurate but I think what stands out in court is that you have a very good evidence linking that person to the terrorist group and I think the judge seen enough for it to happen.

I mean, if you read the court documents I linked to above, the terrorists don't exactly hide the fact that they are accepting bitcoin. Telegram groups named "Jihad Media", posting adverts for "Fundraising campaign for bullets and rockets", and pictures of fighters holding banners with bitcoin addresses on them.

It's actually a little funny that the DOJ are paying Chainalysis hundreds of thousands of dollars for them to perform "blockchain analysis" on this kind of thing. I've seen more complicated investigative work on the Scam Accusations board than is in this report. It's literally "Here are a bunch of addresses which were posted on Telegram asking for donations" and "All these addresses then consolidated funds to these other addresses, which then sent coins to exchanges and gift card sellers". Anyone mildly familiar with bitcoin and Telegram and with access to a block explorer could have done this.

[hulla]

I think these Telegram channels aren't actually associated with the orgs, and just scammers.

Have read a lot of news about the organization recruiting and receiving fund from people through social media so there must be a specific online account that truly belongs to the organization as there's some which were run by scammers.

Then again, maybe people aren't as smart as they're supposed to be.

Yes and that's what happened to twitter hackers when they make silly mistakes that expose them to the authority.
In the meantime, I love the information provided by Chainanalysis guy year ago but we dont know if they have improve their services now.

[bbc.reporter]

They cannot enforce it on the blockchain, however, my question is how good are the blockchain analytics companies today in producing an analysis on coins after mixing or coinjoins?

Having read the court documents I linked above, there is no mention anywhere about the terrorists attempting to mix, coinjoin, or otherwise obfuscate their coins in this case. A number of addresses were identified as they were openly soliciting donations to these addresses, these addresses tended to consolidate the donations to one central address, and then that central address sent directly to exchanges and gift card sellers.

I reckon not yet from those addresses. However, it would also be very naive to assume that no terrorist has mixed or coinjoined their coins before.

The concern is on the innocent users who only want privacy through mixing. The blockchain analytics companies might wrongfully mark or just assume that their addresses as part of the terrorists's address.

[Betwrong]

Basically what they are saying is that anyone who is in possession of the private keys to the 155 addresses listed must forfeit them to the US government. If the people in possession of the private keys are the terrorists themselves, then obviously they aren't going to hand over anything. If, on the other hand, the people in possession of the private keys are exchanges or other third party services, then they will hand over the relevant assets.

So basically they haven't seized the Bitcoin then, as the title wrongly states. Even if they are 3rd party services and exchanges as Chanalysis claims, it's not certain they'll even have the jurisdiction over them.~

I think they have actually seized more than $1 million worth of cryptocurrency from various exchanges that were under their jurisdiction. One of the exchanges is called BitcoinTransfer, and its office is situated in Idlib, Syria. Read more from the link below:

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/cryptocurrency-terrorism-financing-al-qaeda-al-qassam-brigades-bitcointransfer

So, it's not like they just discovered 155 crypto addresses held by terrorists. They found out to what exchanges and platforms the money went, and seized the terrorists' accounts there.

[buwaytress]

Basically what they are saying is that anyone who is in possession of the private keys to the 155 addresses listed must forfeit them to the US government. If the people in possession of the private keys are the terrorists themselves, then obviously they aren't going to hand over anything. If, on the other hand, the people in possession of the private keys are exchanges or other third party services, then they will hand over the relevant assets.

So basically they haven't seized the Bitcoin then, as the title wrongly states. Even if they are 3rd party services and exchanges as Chanalysis claims, it's not certain they'll even have the jurisdiction over them.~

I think they have actually seized more than $1 million worth of cryptocurrency from various exchanges that were under their jurisdiction. One of the exchanges is called BitcoinTransfer, and its office is situated in Idlib, Syria. Read more from the link below:

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/cryptocurrency-terrorism-financing-al-qaeda-al-qassam-brigades-bitcointransfer

So, it's not like they just discovered 155 crypto addresses held by terrorists. They found out to what exchanges and platforms the money went, and seized those accounts.

So yeah, it's still a wrong title still. I'm still highly doubtful they already seized the bitcoin, which is why they're asking those in possession of private keys to forfeit them to the US govt. The report you shared and all I've read only say they've disrupted these operations. Not recovered any funds. It's going to be a challenge. Fro example, BitcoinTransfer may or may not be able or willing to do this, and since Syria is actually sanctioned by the US, I don't see why, other than to buy political goodwill, why the Syrian government would be okay with that happening either.

Either way, blockchain makes a case for efforts against terrorism financing. However you feel about that, its role in making analysis possible can't be denied.

[Betwrong]

Basically what they are saying is that anyone who is in possession of the private keys to the 155 addresses listed must forfeit them to the US government. If the people in possession of the private keys are the terrorists themselves, then obviously they aren't going to hand over anything. If, on the other hand, the people in possession of the private keys are exchanges or other third party services, then they will hand over the relevant assets.

So basically they haven't seized the Bitcoin then, as the title wrongly states. Even if they are 3rd party services and exchanges as Chanalysis claims, it's not certain they'll even have the jurisdiction over them.~

I think they have actually seized more than $1 million worth of cryptocurrency from various exchanges that were under their jurisdiction. One of the exchanges is called BitcoinTransfer, and its office is situated in Idlib, Syria. Read more from the link below:

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/cryptocurrency-terrorism-financing-al-qaeda-al-qassam-brigades-bitcointransfer

So, it's not like they just discovered 155 crypto addresses held by terrorists. They found out to what exchanges and platforms the money went, and seized those accounts.

So yeah, it's still a wrong title still. I'm still highly doubtful they already seized the bitcoin, which is why they're asking those in possession of private keys to forfeit them to the US govt. The report you shared and all I've read only say they've disrupted these operations. Not recovered any funds. It's going to be a challenge. Fro example, BitcoinTransfer may or may not be able or willing to do this, and since Syria is actually sanctioned by the US, I don't see why, other than to buy political goodwill, why the Syrian government would be okay with that happening either.

Either way, blockchain makes a case for efforts against terrorism financing. However you feel about that, its role in making analysis possible can't be denied.

Well, you see, a wrong title by CoinDesk wouldn't surprise me at all, but it turns out that there are too many "wrong titles" regarding this case.

NBC News, for instance, titled their story "Feds announce largest seizure of cryptocurrency connected to terrorism", and here's a fragment from the article:

Authorities have now seized millions of dollars across 300 cryptocurrency accounts, four websites and four Facebook pages connected to these groups.

So, I think they did seize the money.

[bbc.reporter]

Have the terrorist bitcoins seized by the American government become clean upon sequestration? I speculate that the future of public blockchain data is open for the government to label what is bad and not bad.

This might become a important issue, I reckon hehe.

[Harlot]

Have the terrorist bitcoins seized by the American government become clean upon sequestration? I speculate that the future of public blockchain data is open for the government to label what is bad and not bad.

This might become a important issue, I reckon hehe.

The US government have previously auctioned off Bitcoins related to illicit activities so I doubt this situation would be different not unless these Bitcoin they have are also stolen from people who they know this will something they do. After they have these Bitcoin and is ready for auction I assume that this will be "clean" as it has passed and investigated under them safely.

[Lucius]

Have the terrorist bitcoins seized by the American government become clean upon sequestration? I speculate that the future of public blockchain data is open for the government to label what is bad and not bad.

This might become a important issue, I reckon hehe.

Of course, the coins will become clean after being washed by a state agency - it sounds a bit paradoxical that state institutions legally wash the so-called dirty BTC and then return it to the system through auctions - although the history of these coins cannot be erased (unless they run through a coin mixer).

There is no doubt that this will be exactly the case, there will be a lot of seizure of cryptocurrencies which will then be returned to the system in this way. Is that good or bad? Well, I think it's still positive, because such coins still return to the system and are no longer marked as bad.

Silk Road total amount of seized BTC was over 170 000, after being washed they are back in the system and are probably part of many wallets - who knows, maybe some of us have them too

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius, @Harlot. What are the exchanges approved by the government? In America, I speculate that one might be Coinbase. Therefore the best method to buy clean and no KYC bitcoins might be to buy them from someone who has bought them from Coinbase.

Is there a Coinbase user in the forum hehehe?

[Betwrong]

Have the terrorist bitcoins seized by the American government become clean upon sequestration? I speculate that the future of public blockchain data is open for the government to label what is bad and not bad.

This might become a important issue, I reckon hehe.

Of course, the coins will become clean after being washed by a state agency - it sounds a bit paradoxical that state institutions legally wash the so-called dirty BTC and then return it to the system through auctions - although the history of these coins cannot be erased (unless they run through a coin mixer).

There is no doubt that this will be exactly the case, there will be a lot of seizure of cryptocurrencies which will then be returned to the system in this way. Is that good or bad? Well, I think it's still positive, because such coins still return to the system and are no longer marked as bad.

Silk Road total amount of seized BTC was over 170 000, after being washed they are back in the system and are probably part of many wallets - who knows, maybe some of us have them too

MTE. The coins can't be doubly bad, and the situation isn't that tangled as @bbc.reporter is saying. It's pretty simple actually. Unless the coins get dirty again, after the government auctions, they are going to be considered clean, obviously. Government can't just label something as "bad" or "not bad" without providing some proof.

[bbc.reporter]

@Betwrong. Agreed, ethically the government should not label any address as bad without proof, however, we cannot trust them to act ethically all of the time. They can assume or imply that your coins are dirty, declare it in public and tell exchanges to deny you.

In transparent blockchains, we can be considered guilty until we can prove our innocence by ourselves.

[Betwrong]

@Betwrong. Agreed, ethically the government should not label any address as bad without proof, however, we cannot trust them to act ethically all of the time. They can assume or imply that your coins are dirty, declare it in public and tell exchanges to deny you.

In transparent blockchains, we can be considered guilty until we can prove our innocence by ourselves.

In a V for Vendetta kind of state, we could. But, fortunately, there are few states like that left on Earth(with Belarus trying to stop being like that right now, but that's another topic). I really believe that in the world we are living, people are getting more and more freedoms, including financial ones, with time, and not the vise versa. Governments have to provide a really strong case for seizing someone's money.

[Lucius]

In a V for Vendetta kind of state, we could. But, fortunately, there are few states like that left on Earth(with Belarus trying to stop being like that right now, but that's another topic). I really believe that in the world we are living, people are getting more and more freedoms, including financial ones, with time, and not the vise versa. Governments have to provide a really strong case for seizing someone's money.

I would not agree that freedoms are actually increasing, especially financial ones were in many countries everything is already under the full control of Big Brother. The whole set of laws introduced by the Americans after the attack 9/11 actually allowed not only the USA to become a totally controlled state, but the pressure from the Americans on other countries is constantly increasing to do the same.

In the case of Bitcoin located on a crypto exchange, the authorities need only express suspicion of the illegality of these funds, and it is up to the client to prove the origin of the property. It is true that rarely will anyone check the history of their coins, so each of us can have some dirty coin because of which the authorities can always ask for seizure.

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius. I reckon not only in America, in China, Russia, Israel, Singapore and many other countries can label your address as bad and would threat exchanges to have their licenses removed if they do not deny bad wallets.

It would also be easier for exchanges to deny or freeze users' accounts than face the problem.

[Betwrong]

@Lucius, @bbc.reporter, I appreciate your concerns, because being a regular citizen who's neither connected to the government nor working for its institutions, I myself can be affected in a bad way by such arbitrary actions of the authorities. And if people were silent all the time, or, like me, were saying that our governments are not that bad, no doubt the government would tighten the screws on us all, making our lives miserable. So, again, guys, thank you for your attitude!

I just think that at this point, in the "first world" countries, no BTCs were seized just because they were "dirty", ever. CMIIW, please.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would not agree that freedoms are actually increasing, especially financial ones were in many countries everything is already under the full control of Big Brother. The whole set of laws introduced by the Americans after the attack 9/11 actually allowed not only the USA to become a totally controlled state, but the pressure from the Americans on other countries is constantly increasing to do the same.

If you think you are free then you haven't been paying attention. Even the things we know about are horrendous. The "EARN IT" bill allows the government to stick their noses in to encrypted data. The recently proposed "Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act" will force companies to build backdoors in to all their software and allow the government to read all your encrypted data. The Snowden leaks and the NSA mass surveillance program is incredibly invasive, and is only the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the far worse things going on behind closed doors that we don't know about. We live in a surveillance state.

I just think that at this point, in the "first world" countries, no BTCs were seized just because they were "dirty", ever. CMIIW, please.

Not by the police/feds/government, as far as I am aware, but centralized exchanges seize coins and freeze accounts on a daily basis if they don't like where the coins have come from (and sometimes if they don't like where you've be sending other coins after you've withdrawn them).

[Lucius]

I would not agree that freedoms are actually increasing, especially financial ones were in many countries everything is already under the full control of Big Brother. The whole set of laws introduced by the Americans after the attack 9/11 actually allowed not only the USA to become a totally controlled state, but the pressure from the Americans on other countries is constantly increasing to do the same.

If you think you are free then you haven't been paying attention. Even the things we know about are horrendous.

I do not know from what you conclude that I think I am free, because on the contrary I think that all human freedoms are constantly diminishing in all countries, especially in the so-called great democracies of the Western world. In my country which is a member of the EU, for years there is absolute control of the tax administration over all bank accounts, every and the smallest transaction is visible to the authorities.

It is quite clear to me that we live in a totally spy society, all social networks, computers, mobile phones, cameras on the streets and shops are networked and monitor every person - and I am also aware that things are happening in the background far from the public eye, we only see what they want.


Betwrong&bbc.reporter, BTC blockchain is public, all the data is available to anyone to monitor and study as much as they want. Some call it the advantage that BTC has over the existing financial system, others might say that it is a weakness that the authorities will take advantage of if the need arises. Realistically, as one US congressman said, Bitcoin is still a small baby that can be very easily manipulated and does not pose a great danger. I have no doubt that things will become completely different if a small baby becomes too dangerous for those who rule the world.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I do not know from what you conclude that I think I am free

I wasn't referring to you personally; rather I was just speaking in generalities.

It is quite clear to me that we live in a totally spy society, all social networks, computers, mobile phones, cameras on the streets and shops are networked and monitor every person

Agreed. The only thing more worrying than how much corporations like Google and Facebook spy on your every move, photo, word, call, search, payment, etc., is just how little the general public seem to care that they don't have a shred of privacy left in their lives.

Thankfully, as time goes on, we are developing more and more ways to maintain and protect our privacy with bitcoin, and more and more people seem to be using them. DEXs are seeing more volume than ever before, and it was reported last week that they had more volume last week than in the entirety of last year. Mixers are more popular than ever, and things like CoinJoin and PayJoin continue to be developed.

[Lucius]

I wasn't referring to you personally; rather I was just speaking in generalities.

I assumed you were referring to something from my post because you quote me, no problem

~snip~

It is true that most do not care about privacy at all, as if they have consciously sacrificed it for the modern way of life - it is unbelievable that the growing invasion on privacy passes almost without any resistance. Good information for DEX, if this is accurate data then it is really an indication that users are increasingly turning to decentralized crypto exchanges which should mean that things are changing for the better.

In the event that a significant portion of the crypto market switches to DEX, do you think the authorities have an effective way to combat it in the sense that they require these services to take some action against their users? Specifically, if funds from terrorist organizations were transferred via DEX and also mixed via coinmixers, would that be something that would mean complete anonymity?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Good information for DEX, if this is accurate data then it is really an indication that users are increasingly turning to decentralized crypto exchanges which should mean that things are changing for the better.

Much of the volume will presumably be coming from DeFi altcoins being traded for Bitcoin or Ethereum due to the general bull trend, but it is encouraging nonetheless that people are using these services more. The more interest there is in DEXs on the whole then the more development and competition we will see in the DEX space, which is only a good thing.

In the event that a significant portion of the crypto market switches to DEX, do you think the authorities have an effective way to combat it in the sense that they require these services to take some action against their users?

I'm sure the authorities will try. Many DEXs still have a lot of centralized components to them - trading platforms, servers, owners, etc. - so although you don't have to deposit your coins to a centralized wallet to be able to use them, there are still centralized components which authorities can act against, take down, sanction, and so on. Probably the best option for avoiding this at the moment is Bisq, as its structure is not unlike that of bitcoin itself. Although there are obviously core developers and websites, the trading platform software is ran peer to peer over Tor, and therefore very difficult for it to be shutdown

Specifically, if funds from terrorist organizations were transferred via DEX and also mixed via coinmixers, would that be something that would mean complete anonymity?

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as "complete anonymity", just as there is not such a thing as "complete security". Each additional step that you use - mixing, coinjoining, DEXs - makes it exponentially more difficult to deanonymize you (provided you are careful to not leak your data in other ways), but a sufficiently powerful and determined adversary could still manage.

[coolcoinz]

@Lucius, @Harlot. What are the exchanges approved by the government? In America, I speculate that one might be Coinbase. Therefore the best method to buy clean and no KYC bitcoins might be to buy them from someone who has bought them from Coinbase.

Is there a Coinbase user in the forum hehehe?

Gemini holds a NY state license so we can say it's approved by the government, although no Bitcoin exchange is really approved by the "agencies" as their attitude can change at any moment. You never know when people in suits appear on your doorstep.
Even though there are approved exchanges it's impossible for them to keep track of every coin that passes through their wallets. I bet there are "dirty" coins going through Gemini and Coinbase as well.

[bbc.reporter]

I would not agree that freedoms are actually increasing, especially financial ones were in many countries everything is already under the full control of Big Brother. The whole set of laws introduced by the Americans after the attack 9/11 actually allowed not only the USA to become a totally controlled state, but the pressure from the Americans on other countries is constantly increasing to do the same.

If you think you are free then you haven't been paying attention. Even the things we know about are horrendous.

I do not know from what you conclude that I think I am free, because on the contrary I think that all human freedoms are constantly diminishing in all countries, especially in the so-called great democracies of the Western world. In my country which is a member of the EU, for years there is absolute control of the tax administration over all bank accounts, every and the smallest transaction is visible to the authorities.

It is quite clear to me that we live in a totally spy society, all social networks, computers, mobile phones, cameras on the streets and shops are networked and monitor every person - and I am also aware that things are happening in the background far from the public eye, we only see what they want.


Betwrong&bbc.reporter, BTC blockchain is public, all the data is available to anyone to monitor and study as much as they want. Some call it the advantage that BTC has over the existing financial system, others might say that it is a weakness that the authorities will take advantage of if the need arises. Realistically, as one US congressman said, Bitcoin is still a small baby that can be very easily manipulated and does not pose a great danger. I have no doubt that things will become completely different if a small baby becomes too dangerous for those who rule the world.

However, clearly bitcoin's data transparency is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. It will create a scenario where coins are not valued the same. This is also why we have mixers and the argument that everyone should mix their coins regularly to create a big, indistinguishable, anonymous pool of transactions.

[Betwrong]

~
However, clearly bitcoin's data transparency is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. It will create a scenario where coins are not valued the same. This is also why we have mixers and the argument that everyone should mix their coins regularly to create a big, indistinguishable, anonymous pool of transactions.

This is not that clear, imo. In the long term, when there will be no authoritarian regimes with their ridiculous laws, transparency will be a bad thing only for terrorists, fraudsters and other outlaws. Normal citizens will not suffer from it at all. Since I'm an optimist and I believe that those good times are approaching, I think Bitcoin, with its transparency, is perfect money for the future world.

[o_e_l_e_o]

transparency will be a bad thing only for terrorists, fraudsters and other outlaws. Normal citizens will not suffer from it at all.

Completely disagree.

You are essentially making the "nothing to hide" argument - if you aren't doing anything shady or immoral, then you have nothing to hide, and therefore you have nothing to fear from the government/feds/big brother sticking their noses in to your business and monitoring all you transactions. Only criminals/scammers/terrorists/etc. who are doing illegal things have something to fear.

Privacy is a fundamental human right. Without it, "normal citizens" as you put it suffer greatly. They simply become subjects of their government, willing to roll over and do whatever they are told to. Privacy must be protected.

I don't need to spend a lot of time dismantling the "nothing to hide" argument, because it is already widely discredited. I will share one of my favorite quotes on the topic though:

The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

[bbc.reporter]

~
However, clearly bitcoin's data transparency is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. It will create a scenario where coins are not valued the same. This is also why we have mixers and the argument that everyone should mix their coins regularly to create a big, indistinguishable, anonymous pool of transactions.

This is not that clear, imo. In the long term, when there will be no authoritarian regimes with their ridiculous laws, transparency will be a bad thing only for terrorists, fraudsters and other outlaws. Normal citizens will not suffer from it at all. Since I'm an optimist and I believe that those good times are approaching, I think Bitcoin, with its transparency, is perfect money for the future world.

I am not thinking about this from a good user and a evil user attitude. I am thinking about this from the attitude that blockchain data transparency might have an undesirable effect on bitcoin's fungibility and acceptance and its value.
 

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am thinking about this from the attitude that blockchain data transparency might have an undesirable effect on bitcoin's fungibility and acceptance and its value.

This already happens, with centralized exchanges choosing to seize coins and freeze accounts if you deposit or withdraw directly to a casino, sportsbook, darknet market, coinjoin, and so on.

It's an untenable position for a couple of reasons. First of all, the majority of bitcoin in circulation have, at some point, passed through one of these "undesirable" services. Centralized exchanges cannot ban them all since they would rapidly go out of business. So how far back do they look? 5 transactions? 10? 20? So if you bounce your bitcoin around for n+1 transactions then suddenly they become "clean" again? It makes no sense. This is only going to get worse as time goes on, with more people using bitcoin and fewer bitcoin entering circulation means pretty much every bitcoin which isn't in a long term hold will become "tainted" in one way or another.

Secondly, people are getting fed up of this kind of behavior. The number of DEXs and the volume they are handling is steadily growing. Mixer use is increasing. Coinjoin is becoming mainstream. It is becoming more and more difficult to track "tainted" bitcoin if you are intent on obfuscating them. Again, centralized mixers cannot ban every coin which has ever been through one of these services.

The community should do its part and stop supporting centralized services which dictate what you are and are not allowed to do with your own money.

[bbc.reporter]

@o_e_l_e_o. How far do they look? It might become longer and farther as blockchain analytics improve hehehe.

Also, if the government can pressure a centralized exchange or a bank and order them to deny you of their service, this is similar to censorship. This only shows one of the weaknesses of a transparent blockchain.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It might become longer and farther as blockchain analytics improve hehehe.

True, but the longer and farther back they look then the more and more bitcoin will be deemed "tainted". If they decide to look back far enough, then pretty much every bitcoin in circulation will be "tainted" and they would have to shut down because of lack of customers. Whatever cut off they use will be completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Also, if the government can pressure a centralized exchange or a bank and order them to deny you of their service, this is similar to censorship. This only shows one of the weaknesses of a transparent blockchain.

It's absolutely censorship, but it only shows the weakness of using centralized services. There is nothing a government can do to stop me trading on Bisq, for example.

[Betwrong]

transparency will be a bad thing only for terrorists, fraudsters and other outlaws. Normal citizens will not suffer from it at all.

Completely disagree.

You are essentially making the "nothing to hide" argument - if you aren't doing anything shady or immoral, then you have nothing to hide, and therefore you have nothing to fear from the government/feds/big brother sticking their noses in to your business and monitoring all you transactions. Only criminals/scammers/terrorists/etc. who are doing illegal things have something to fear.

Privacy is a fundamental human right. Without it, "normal citizens" as you put it suffer greatly. They simply become subjects of their government, willing to roll over and do whatever they are told to. Privacy must be protected.

I don't need to spend a lot of time dismantling the "nothing to hide" argument, because it is already widely discredited. I will share one of my favorite quotes on the topic though:

The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

Privacy must be protected, I agree with you. And to not let the government to go too far in "tightening the screws", we need people like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. Such people devote their lives to protecting our fundamental rights, and we must be grateful to them for that.

However, all humans are not perfect. We all make mistakes. And someone has to keep an eye on the process of protecting our freedoms, lest our protectors go too far in that. Let's not forget that there is the Paradox of Freedom, formulated by Karl Popper in the following way:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek."

- Karl Popper

When I was younger, I'd say "Go, f**k yourself with your "paradox". I want as much freedom as possible!" But today I have come to realization that we would have 9/11 happening every week, if there were no surveillance.

Again, I'm not criticizing what people like Greenwald and Assange are doing. I'm grateful to them. I just claim the right to disagree with what they are saying, at least partially.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But today I have come to realization that we would have 9/11 happening every week, if there were no surveillance.

Again, I'm going to absolutely disagree with that.

First of all, I have seen very little evidence that mass surveillance leads to fewer terrorist attacks, catching criminals, or is effective in any way. The NSA have been unable to provide a single example of a terrorist attack being prevented by their mass surveillance program.

Secondly, mass surveillance predominantly spies on law abiding citizens. "If you make privacy illegal, then only criminals will have privacy". Terrorists aren't stupid - they know how to use Tor, how to use encryption, how to hide their tracks.

Mass surveillance is about control of the population, nothing more.

[bbc.reporter]

It might become longer and farther as blockchain analytics improve hehehe.

True, but the longer and farther back they look then the more and more bitcoin will be deemed "tainted". If they decide to look back far enough, then pretty much every bitcoin in circulation will be "tainted" and they would have to shut down because of lack of customers. Whatever cut off they use will be completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Also, if the government can pressure a centralized exchange or a bank and order them to deny you of their service, this is similar to censorship. This only shows one of the weaknesses of a transparent blockchain.

It's absolutely censorship, but it only shows the weakness of using centralized services. There is nothing a government can do to stop me trading on Bisq, for example.

It might not be entirely meaningless because there might also be cases where the government would find any type of culpability. You know how they can be hehehe.

Cryptocoin to cryptocoin there is nothing they can do, however cryptocoin to fiat, there might be something. I have heard of bank accounts being frozen because the user made bitcoin trades with payments sent to his bank account.

[Betwrong]

But today I have come to realization that we would have 9/11 happening every week, if there were no surveillance.

Again, I'm going to absolutely disagree with that.

First of all, I have seen very little evidence that mass surveillance leads to fewer terrorist attacks, catching criminals, or is effective in any way. The NSA have been unable to provide a single example of a terrorist attack being prevented by their mass surveillance program.

Secondly, mass surveillance predominantly spies on law abiding citizens. "If you make privacy illegal, then only criminals will have privacy". Terrorists aren't stupid - they know how to use Tor, how to use encryption, how to hide their tracks.

Mass surveillance is about control of the population, nothing more.

Again, I don't want you to change your skeptical attitude. No, no! Keep an eye on them f***ers!

But I personally think that when Obama was saying:

“We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information, not just in the United States but in some cases threats here in Germany,” he said. “So lives have been saved.”

it was at least half-truth. So, I believe, many lives were saved thanks to the surveillance.

[hv_]

Seizing crime munitions is good.

Defining crime harder

[o_e_l_e_o]

So, I believe, many lives were saved thanks to the surveillance.

I read this today so thought I would share it here: https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-court-finds-2020-9

Despite monitoring all the mobile phone data of millions of Americans for years, the NSA could only point to a single criminal case where this data was used, and it turns out that even then it was irrelevant to the conviction. So not only did the mass surveillance not prevent a single terrorist attack, but it wasn't even useful in convicting terrorists after the attacks had taken place. That, of course, didn't stop them from blatantly lying and saying that such programs are vital to preventing terrorist attacks.

Now, ask yourself why the government would continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mass surveillance when they knew it wasn't preventing attacks or leading to convictions?

Population control.

[7788bitcoin]

Now, ask yourself why the government would continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mass surveillance when they knew it wasn't preventing attacks or leading to convictions?

I am not following these minute details but one thing is certain that we have not seen any major terrorist attack in the US for a very long time and whether these  mass surveillance has anything to do with is out of my scope.

One thing i am finding it hard to understand is that how come they are able to identify bitcoins linked to terrorism, they might have seized the coins claiming the users have links to terrorism but there is no proof regarding that.

[Betwrong]

So, I believe, many lives were saved thanks to the surveillance.

I read this today so thought I would share it here: https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-court-finds-2020-9

Despite monitoring all the mobile phone data of millions of Americans for years, the NSA could only point to a single criminal case where this data was used, and it turns out that even then it was irrelevant to the conviction. So not only did the mass surveillance not prevent a single terrorist attack, but it wasn't even useful in convicting terrorists after the attacks had taken place. That, of course, didn't stop them from blatantly lying and saying that such programs are vital to preventing terrorist attacks.

Now, ask yourself why the government would continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mass surveillance when they knew it wasn't preventing attacks or leading to convictions?

Population control.

No NSA fan myself, so I'm not going to defend them. Snooping on Americans' phone records was definitely a violation of the right to privacy, among others. The good news is that it's over now:

The NSA's program of collecting bulk metadata was discontinued in 2015 when Congress passed the USA Freedom Act.

Imo, they(NSA, CIA, FBI and the likes) shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. Yet, I wouldn't go so far to say that the world would be a better place without them. There are evil people in this world, who have to be stopped. But, of course, the "stoppers" must be under constant public supervision.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The good news is that it's over now

I would bet every satoshi I have that it isn't.

[bbc.reporter]

@Betwrong. Hehehe, do not trust the official reports. Many of those reports are not 100% true.

In any case, you might say that I am a conspiracy theorist, however, you already know that the government is lying frequently. Why would you not be a conspiracy theorist hehehe?

[Betwrong]

The good news is that it's over now

I would bet every satoshi I have that it isn't.

Well, I wouldn't. Doing something which is not prohibited, therefore assuming it's permitted, is one thing. But doing something which is against the law is entirely another.

NSA can't collect metadata without help from phone companies. And phone companies can now say NSA to go f*ck themselves if asked to assist in bulk collection of Americans' metadata.

And I can't think that all major phone companies are part of the conspiracy. It's too much for my brain to grasp.

[bbc.reporter]

@Betwrong. There are individuals on the high level inside the government who are working with individuals on the high level in many different companies that give and take favors from each other. They do not play under the same rules as everyone hehehe. We have to wake up and accept this.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Doing something which is not prohibited, therefore assuming it's permitted, is one thing. But doing something which is against the law is entirely another.

The NSA have a long and consistent record of ignoring the law and just doing whatever they like. And again, these are only the things that have been publicly revealed. What is going on behind closed doors is almost certainly much worse.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/nsa-continues-blame-technology-breaking-law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb7eg9/the-nsas-12-year-struggle-to-follow-the-law
https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-myths-about-illegal-nsa-spying-program

Perhaps now we have one more reason to avoid voice calls through phone and do that through Whatsapp or other VoIP services.

WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, one of the worst companies for respecting privacy in existence (probably second only to Google). Further, there has been plenty of talk about Facebook building a "backdoor" in to WhatsApp to allow the government to decrypt communications when they like. Better to use an open source alternative like Signal or Element (which used to be called Riot).

In this case they have done that to the terrorists, but I am sure that there may be other incidents, when this was done to law abiding citizens.

They do it to everyone, all the time. Anything you text, email, say, write or post online, or search for, is being monitored and recorded. If you want to maintain your privacy, then you must take active steps to do so.

[Lucius]

NSA can't collect metadata without help from phone companies. And phone companies can now say NSA to go f*ck themselves if asked to assist in bulk collection of Americans' metadata.

You may not know it, but they don't call that agency "no such agency" for no reason. With all that o_e_l_e_o  has written, you need to know that privacy, human rights, and everything that goes with the semblance of democracy mean nothing when it comes to national security, which is a priority after the 9/11 attacks.

And I can't think that all major phone companies are part of the conspiracy. It's too much for my brain to grasp.

Everyone and everything is under control, and whoever refuses to cooperate is very quickly out of the game - what Snowden discovered is not only what many think only about the United States, but about a global total surveillance operation that even went as far as tapping the German chancellor's cell phone.

The German government summoned the US ambassador on 24 October - a very unusual step - after German media reported that the NSA had eavesdropped on Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone.

The allegations dominated an EU summit, with Mrs Merkel demanding a full explanation and warning that trust between allies could be undermined. She discussed the matter by phone with US President Barack Obama. He assured her that her calls were not being monitored now and that it would not happen in future. But the White House did not deny bugging her phone in the past.

[bbc.reporter]

No NSA fan myself, so I'm not going to defend them. Snooping on Americans' phone records was definitely a violation of the right to privacy, among others. The good news is that it's over now

Perhaps now we have one more reason to avoid voice calls through phone and do that through Whatsapp or other VoIP services. Since they are encrypted, I don't think that anyone can snoop them (unless someone physically manages to install spyware on the phone). In this case they have done that to the terrorists, but I am sure that there may be other incidents, when this was done to law abiding citizens.

The NSA, CIA, MI6, the Russians, Israel and all competent spy agencies have webcrawlers that collect all public forum posts, blogs, social media posts, some leaked emails and more. If your posts and expressions are consistent in having I hate the government, down on democracy, praise Allah, jihad jihad jihad, dirty bombs and many more, you will be closely under surveilance.

I reckon bitcointalk might be under heavy surveilance before because there were many radical libertarians. At present, not anymore. Too many account farmers and spammers hehehehe.

[Betwrong]

NSA can't collect metadata without help from phone companies. And phone companies can now say NSA to go f*ck themselves if asked to assist in bulk collection of Americans' metadata.

You may not know it, but they don't call that agency "no such agency" for no reason. With all that o_e_l_e_o  has written, you need to know that privacy, human rights, and everything that goes with the semblance of democracy mean nothing when it comes to national security, which is a priority after the 9/11 attacks.

And I can't think that all major phone companies are part of the conspiracy. It's too much for my brain to grasp.

Everyone and everything is under control, and whoever refuses to cooperate is very quickly out of the game - what Snowden discovered is not only what many think only about the United States, but about a global total surveillance operation that even went as far as tapping the German chancellor's cell phone.

The German government summoned the US ambassador on 24 October - a very unusual step - after German media reported that the NSA had eavesdropped on Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone.

The allegations dominated an EU summit, with Mrs Merkel demanding a full explanation and warning that trust between allies could be undermined. She discussed the matter by phone with US President Barack Obama. He assured her that her calls were not being monitored now and that it would not happen in future. But the White House did not deny bugging her phone in the past.

Yes, but all of that happened before the Congress passed the USA Freedom Act in 2015, right? Since then it has become much harder to spy on regular citizens, and that's what's important. I'm not idealizing NSA and the likes. They consist of humans, not at all perfect creatures, with all the attendant issues. I'm just saying that in the Western World peoples' freedoms expand over time, and not the vice versa, like dictatorship governments want their citizens to believe.

[bbc.reporter]

@Betwrong. You trust the government that it will not lie to its country's citizens? Some skepticism would be nice hehehe.

In any case, that statement I just made might add me to their surveilance list hehehe.

[Betwrong]

@Betwrong. You trust the government that it will not lie to its country's citizens? Some skepticism would be nice hehehe.

In any case, that statement I just made might add me to their surveilance list hehehe.

I don't trust the government. What I trust is that they won't risk their careers, doing something that is illegal. Well, there are exceptions, of course, and that's why we should always keep an eye on them, but, in general, they just want to earn good money, associated with their position, and they don't want to lose that position(and maybe even their freedom) because of some illegal activity.

In a one-party state the situation is completely different. People from the government violate the Constitution all the time, and if someone points that out, that person goes to prison. But when in a Western democratic country someone from the government breaks the law, an opposition party is more than happy to point that out. And the result is not persecution of the opposition, but changes in the corrupted government, or even complete change of the whole government.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a difference between the possibility and harmfulness of unlawful surveillance in a one-party state and that in a country like USA or UK. Anti-Western propagandists say that the situation is worse in the West. But it's a lie.

[bbc.reporter]

@Betwrong. Everything you see on tv about the government and those politicians there is a charade. It is entertainment.

Also, agreed. Low level politicians like mayors might not risk their careers, however, on the highest level they give the order to drop bombs, put the public under surveilance and maybe send some innocent people to Guantanamo Bay in the name of democracy hehehe.

[bryant.coleman]

I reckon bitcointalk might be under heavy surveilance before because there were many radical libertarians. At present, not anymore. Too many account farmers and spammers hehehehe.

Yeah.. when I first joined Bitcointalk in 2012, a lot of the users were Libertarian (including me) and some of them were quite radical. But back then, most of the users were ideologically driven. Very few of us thought in 2012 that Bitcoin exchange rates would go up by 4,000x. Then we had the bull runs of 2013, and this attracted the money-minded users. A very few of the Libertarian users of 2012 are still here, but I am noticing their posts less often nowadays. Many of these accounts have gone dormant. A few might have got hacked and taken over by spammers.

[bbc.reporter]

@bryant.coleman. It is almost similar to saying that bitcoin's usecase as a speculative investment has surpassed its usecase as a tool for political liberation and autonomy on 2013 hehe.