Bitcoin developer @lukedashjr's wallet was hacked

[JayJuanGee]

Remember a few years ago when CZ had something like 7k coins hacked and asserted that he was going to get the chain rolled back.. hahahahaha.. that did not happen, and he got beat up publicly for making such assertions.

oh your one of them types of people, still.. i thought you were getting better then that.. seems i came too early to treat you differently than them
anyways years ago
other people suggested to CZ about a possible roll back. he told wider community that he had talks with others who came up with suggestions and in same video he said his priority that week was to sort his server security and custody security, finding the bug/entry,loophole the hacker used.. and plug it..
.. and within 8 hours of video he made it clear he wont be doing a rollback.. thus it was a non starter-drama of meaningless effect that should have died within the same 8 hours of speculative chatter

Ok.. maybe I had been influenced by the wrong facts on that topic?

I am not anti-CZ... generally speaking.. .. and so I otherwise stand by my overall attempt to make the point that it could take a while to figure out who the hacker of Luke's coins might be (presuming that Luke actually lost the coins to a hacker as he has asserted to be the case), even if some folks are trying to follow and identify the hacker.

See my new edited response, below.

[1715207462]

1715207462

[1715207462]

1715207462

[1715207462]

1715207462

[franky1]

Remember a few years ago when CZ had something like 7k coins hacked and asserted that he was going to get the chain rolled back.. hahahahaha.. that did not happen, and he got beat up publicly for making such assertions.

oh your one of them types of people, still.. i thought you were getting better then that.. seems i came too early to treat you differently than them
anyways years ago
other people suggested to CZ about a possible roll back. he told wider community that he had talks with others who came up with suggestions and in same video he said his priority that week was to sort his server security and custody security, finding the bug/entry,loophole the hacker used.. and plug it..
.. and within 8 hours of video he made it clear he wont be doing a rollback.. thus it was a non starter-drama of meaningless effect that should have died within the same 8 hours of speculative chatter

Ok.. maybe I had been influenced by the wrong facts on that topic?

I am not anti-CZ... generally speaking.. .. and so I otherwise stand by my overall attempt to make the point that it could take a while to figure out who the hacker of Luke's coins might be (presuming that Luke actually lost the coins to a hacker as he has asserted to be the case), even if some folks are trying to follow and identify the hacker.

once coins enter a mixer things get harder to follow
however shifting a large amount through a mixer in a certain period would see a larger amount of outputs  after mixer too. seeing large amounts join back together to more then the usual allotments can reveal the entity again and if then going into a exchange can reveal their KYC

its not impossible. but it is harder with a mixer involved to just 'taint watch'
it requires seeing a large yield of 0.00x go into some utxo's and a large yeild of 0.00x move afterwards to see who swapped with who..
(it would be stupid for a entity to then deposit them all into same service or re consolidate after a mixer)
.. it may even result that a innocent receiver of stolen funds gets in trouble for handling stolen funds and loses their funds due to links with the mixer they used.

[JayJuanGee]

Remember a few years ago when CZ had something like 7k coins hacked and asserted that he was going to get the chain rolled back.. hahahahaha.. that did not happen, and he got beat up publicly for making such assertions.

oh your one of them types of people, still.. i thought you were getting better then that.. seems i came too early to treat you differently than them
anyways years ago
other people suggested to CZ about a possible roll back. he told wider community that he had talks with others who came up with suggestions and in same video he said his priority that week was to sort his server security and custody security, finding the bug/entry,loophole the hacker used.. and plug it..
.. and within 8 hours of video he made it clear he wont be doing a rollback.. thus it was a non starter-drama of meaningless effect that should have died within the same 8 hours of speculative chatter

timeline
8thmay 2019
8th: he done a AMA to explain why the maintenance event happened
where someone proposed TO HIM to do a roll back
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mrGmvjpbqBJy
"this morning alot of people have offered us support, and there is a few topics i will discuss in this regard"
"the idea came from the community and i did not know that we could do that"
"To be honest, we can actually do this probably within the next few days. But there are concerns that if we do a rollback on the bitcoin network at that scale, it may have some negative consequences, in terms of destroying the credibility for bitcoin."

same day 8th
Quote

  After speaking with various parties, including @JeremyRubin, @_prestwich, @bcmakes, @hasufl, @JihanWu and others, we decided NOT to pursue the re-org approach. Considerations being:— CZ 🔶 Binance (@cz_binance) May 8, 2019

purple words are not CZ talking about something HE came up with

plus it was all a non event, no drama that extended for .. a few hours.
i dont like central exchange or luke.. yet even i can stay rational and keep to the facts..
.. wish some others would keep their biases aside

my biases atleast can be found in real data and activities that actually happened

Edited to account for your additional response (explanation) that came after my post.

Ok.. maybe I had been influenced by the wrong facts on that topic?

I am not anti-CZ... generally speaking.. .. and so I otherwise stand by my overall attempt to make the point that it could take a while to figure out who the hacker of Luke's coins might be (presuming that Luke actually lost the coins to a hacker as he has asserted to be the case), even if some folks are trying to follow and identify the hacker.

Regarding your last point..

You are not even close to unbiased, even if you want to be patting ur lil selfie on the back as if you were the greatest thing since sliced-bread... #justsaying.  You do make some pretty decent points sometimes, though.. even though at other times, you seem to be totally off-of-your rocker, if you have such a rocker?

[franky1]

my biases can be backed up by events that did occur..
my issues with segwit activation is backed up by blockdata that supports how things actually happened
(id trust code/immutable blockdata, rather than a tweet or social club)
my biases against all the flaws of LN can be backed up by the flaws.

i dont have utupian fantasies. i actually do the research. and everytime, i ask others to do the research too. and not just pander to their pals who told them a story using a quote of a third party that told them.. as thats just echo chamberism of cabin fever friendships.. not facts

i know people hate HOW i am frank.. literally. ..  how im not an ass kisser or a hugger.. but then again, who deserves a hug when they are already asleep dreaming

[hatshepsut93]

bitcoin is private

no one knows the name of the entity moving the coins thus far.
no one knows the country of the entity moving the coin thus far.

bitcoin is not revealing that..
the point at which privacy breaks. is the KYC of using an exchange

Bitcoin allows tracking of funds, and by tracking funds you can find those who interacted with the owner, which could lead to finding the owners identity. KYC is not the only way it can happen, just the most common and easy one.

Imagine a thief selling coins for cash during in-person meeting, and the chainanalysis tracks down the buyer of the coins, since they do a lot of transactions and leave a large footprint. So the law enforcement questions this buyer and looks at the camera records near the place where the trade happened and get a pretty good profile of the criminal.

If Bitcoin protocol or Bitcoin ecosystem could guarantee that a previous transaction can not be linked with the next transactions, identifying users would become less likely.

[franky1]

bitcoin does not reveal identities

the only way to track down a person. is to link a person to said transactions via a service

..
also transactions can be de-linked (mixers).. where you end up chasing after a innocent recipient of mixed funds to their kyc exchange and they get their accounts frozen and treated as stolen funds

and entity(thief/luke) is now hoarding a different set of utxo

[LangePara]

kinda funny how a btc dev is seeking help from the gov lol

[buwaytress]

Second, I see a bit of a privacy dillema here with Luke trying to find the thieves. If he succeeds, despite mixers and coinjoin, it would mean that Bitcoin privacy is not good enough to protect you from adversaries. What should Bitcoin (I'm talking about the whole ecosystem, not just the protocol) future look like - weak privacy that can be broken with certain effort, or complete privacy that protects everyone, even criminals?

I'm not sure I see it this way (not a dilemma anyway)... If everyone only used Bitcoin without exposing people, then only parties in a transaction know each other (and this isn't even necessary).

The theft being announced immediately identified one party and then the thief (or at least, put him on the radar).

If Luke succeeds, it only means that they (the thief) did not know how to use (limited) privacy-enhancing features or was unaware of how Bitcoin works (not likely one might think, but hey Silk Road).

I'm thinking of past thefts that were easily tracked here.

If he fails, I see it only to do with the success of the privacy-enhancing measures the thief would have taken (mixing, coinjoin, etc).

Re the future, I thought privacy was already the current development focus of Bitcoin (seemingly moving on from scalability)?

[hatshepsut93]

If Luke succeeds, it only means that they (the thief) did not know how to use (limited) privacy-enhancing features or was unaware of how Bitcoin works (not likely one might think, but hey Silk Road).

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

As I understand, mixing is not formally proven to break the connection between coins, it's just that no one has managed to demonstrate the opposite so far. But chainanalysis companies have been working on it all these years, so there's a possibility that they will come up with a solution or maybe already have. It could be probabilistic - it may not work for every output, and sometimes provides false results.

[franky1]

If Luke succeeds, it only means that they (the thief) did not know how to use (limited) privacy-enhancing features or was unaware of how Bitcoin works (not likely one might think, but hey Silk Road).

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

As I understand, mixing is not formally proven to break the connection between coins, it's just that no one has managed to demonstrate the opposite so far. But chainanalysis companies have been working on it all these years, so there's a possibility that they will come up with a solution or maybe already have. It could be probabilistic - it may not work for every output, and sometimes provides false results.

the 119k bitfinex thieves got caught

as for using mixers
even more simpler then just taint following..
the FATF regulation policy is that any use of privacy enhancing tools (monero, LN, mixers. etc) flag up funds as suspicious
so it becomes simple.
"the more you try to hide. the more you get noticed"

the silly thing about mixers/ln/monero/etc is this.
they only work the more users use it.. less users use it the more flaws and failures are seen

with mixers being used by a 0.x% of community. it provides a narrow darkpool of suspects
working backwards from a service to the privacy tool
working forwards from a theft to the privacy tool
narrows down the privacy tool usage by certain date. further narrowing down the darkpool of suspects

....
why do you you think there are some malicious idiots trying desperately hard to get innocent normal people into using privacy enhanced tools even if privacy enhanced tools are things that will definitely get innocent peoples funds noticed more (flagged as suspicious)

because JUST thieves using a system. swapping tainted dirty funds means just the thieves receive dirty funds on the outbound
so they need to coax innocent clean people into privacy services so the thieves can take the clean funds and leave innocent people with the dirty funds

(homeless people trading their underwear, means homeless people only receive someone elses dirty underwear.. unless they can try to get more innocent retail customers to donate their clean underwear for dirty underwear)
now who would be stupid to do that, knowing they would end up catching something nasty

[larry_vw_1955]

the silly thing about mixers/ln/monero/etc is this.
they only work the more users use it.. less users use it the more flaws and failures are seen

monero has atomic swaps.

so they need to coax innocent clean people into privacy services so the thieves can take the clean funds and leave innocent people with the dirty funds

atomic swaps are anonymous. far as i know.   so the thief takes some dirty bitcoin and swaps it for some xmr. then later on sometime he does another atomic swap in the other direction to clean his bitcoin. money laundering 101.

[franky1]

the silly thing about mixers/ln/monero/etc is this.
they only work the more users use it.. less users use it the more flaws and failures are seen

monero has atomic swaps.

so they need to coax innocent clean people into privacy services so the thieves can take the clean funds and leave innocent people with the dirty funds

atomic swaps are anonymous. far as i know.   so the thief takes some dirty bitcoin and swaps it for some xmr. then later on sometime he does another atomic swap in the other direction to clean his bitcoin. money laundering 101.

just using monero.. gets your name on a hot list(small pool of suspects).......
the people spending the bitfinex 119k stash years prior.. used monero and mixers .. it was part of their downfall, and flags were raised on those exchanges.. those people are now in prison
..enough said

[BlackHatCoiner]

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

For the most part, unmixing coins requires to flag lots of innocent users as thieves. So yeah, if you're about to flag nearly every user who'll either use a mixer or coinjoin coins, then you'll most likely hit the thief too. The question is: can you point the thief's coins?

(homeless people trading their underwear, means homeless people only receive someone elses dirty underwear.. unless they can try to get more innocent retail customers to donate their clean underwear for dirty underwear)

If you think this is a good analogy, you should stop using bitcoin, because it's clearly possible for your coins to be mixed with "dirty" coins as you call at some point, unless you don't use bitcoin as currency and just hold it for eternity.

[franky1]

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

For the most part, unmixing coins requires to flag lots of innocent users as thieves. So yeah, if you're about to flag nearly every user who'll either use a mixer or coinjoin coins, then you'll most likely hit the thief too. The question is: can you point the thief's coins?

(homeless people trading their underwear, means homeless people only receive someone elses dirty underwear.. unless they can try to get more innocent retail customers to donate their clean underwear for dirty underwear)

If you think this is a good analogy, you should stop using bitcoin, because it's clearly possible for your coins to be mixed with "dirty" coins as you call at some point, unless you don't use bitcoin as currency and just hold it for eternity.

if your coins are highly mixed with dirty coins. then that says more about people you trade with than me..

even the "anti-hero" prize received(mixer sponsored competition)..  i separated and i am not going to touch or consolidate with my main stash from other clean sources.

as for you thinking that the utility of mixing is high.. well we both know thats a lie. its why certain people are desperate to phish in innocent people into privacy enhancing tools. due to a huge LACK of innocent people to swap with becomes a criminals NEED to drag people into those systems.. because the collective pool of shady systems is small in comparison(when they sound desperate and try too hard to hook in users.. you know they lack users)

lets note one example
exchanges have over 100m users locked into custodians.. a certain network only has way less than 70k nodes(most are just shll (sybil) nodes of like 10k run on some cloud service(as admitted recently last year)
but even treating those as genuine is like just a 0.07% pool of privacy enhancing tool users

this can be narrowed down way way further via many different methods

as for thinking "alot" of innocent people get flagged up.. nah.. most darkpools of mixing/privacy enhancing tools. end up being a small collective where majority of them are guilty of atleast one or more things even if its not the intended crime being investigated..

yep you think your preserving your privacy of lets say drug possession, where if you get caught handling stolen funds, by accidently using the mixer the same day lukes stash is deposited. and then boom.. they find out about your (example, not implying)drugs in subsequent investigations while you try to explain your not a thief of lukes stash.

meanwhile innocent cattle farmer gets flagged for being talked into using a mixer to protect his farming profits, gets caught in an investigation where they see he isnt a viable suspect of hacking.. but maybe might be for tax evasion at most. or taken/excluded from the suspect list upon further investigation.

narrowing down the suspect pool. of who used the mixer on specific timeframe ..

so its not as you say "lots of innocent people"

[gunhell16]

Such news is disturbing, think of a developer whose wallet was hacked, a so-called technical expert but a hacker still managed to get into it. Does that mean he is still victimized because of negligence or being careless or complacent?

If this is one of the technical experts who has been robbed, what about the other communities here who don't know anything about these matters, they are very poor, right? This means that hackers are indiscriminate, as long as they have an opportunity they will steal right away.

[franky1]

even a car technical engineer can lose his car keys.. (though he has now implanted a chip in his hand to never let it happen again):-elon

even real estate/housing developers lose house keys

it happens.
bitcoin solves many things, but it cant solve "human"


best to learn from lessons
first sticking to the points of actual occurrences/events, limitations of ability of the real life instance.  to then learn from actual events and how to mitigate if for people with similar positions..
before going spaceballs to the wall exaggerating the most elaborate systems imaginable of precaution requiring buying several devices and only using systems if your wearing a tin foil hat on a moonlit tuesday night when the stars are sat in a certain region of the sky

the most basic scheme is this..
if you have funds on old keys (non hardware seed).. SPEND THEM and put change destination as a fresh wallet not used on that system(certain software wallets are not helpful with this as they prefer to just add change address to exposed wallet or put change on same seed derived key thats seed had been exposed)

then if funds become substantial in regards to your lifestyle then decide how more elaborate you want to be

trying to tell everyone that they should "just buy hardware wallet" is silly if a hardware wallet is USB key and all they have is a cell phone
or they usb key is $80 and they are african where their savings/hoard is less than the key cost

[BlackHatCoiner]

if your coins are highly mixed with dirty coins. then that says more about people you trade with than me..

Do you believe in dirty fiat or have you adopted this nonsense for bitcoin solely? As money is concerned, it's fungible. Any opposition to this fact attacks only you and your fellows.

You say that I should be concerned, rather than you, because I'm the one who mixes bitcoin. Let me ask you, how do you know you haven't exchanged with someone who did mix coins without you knowing it? Or someone you exchanged with, did exchange with someone who mixed once? And it goes on and on, how do you know you aren't connected with some suspicious activity, without your knowledge? From a blockchain perspective, every transaction can lead to a coinbase transaction, and it's likely someone mixed among all those transactions.

[buwaytress]

Or maybe chainanalysis is so strong that it can unmix the mixed coins, so even if the thief did everything correctly, the funds will be tracked.

As I understand, mixing is not formally proven to break the connection between coins, it's just that no one has managed to demonstrate the opposite so far. But chainanalysis companies have been working on it all these years, so there's a possibility that they will come up with a solution or maybe already have. It could be probabilistic - it may not work for every output, and sometimes provides false results.

I know this might come back to bite me in the ass but I've always held the belief that these companies don't know more than developers (I frequently bring up the Chainalysis whistleblower case several years back who confirmed that they were selling software that couldn't do better than what an armchair sleuth would find on public tools).

I'm sure there will get better.

why do you you think there are some malicious idiots trying desperately hard to get innocent normal people into using privacy enhanced tools even if privacy enhanced tools are things that will definitely get innocent peoples funds noticed more (flagged as suspicious)

Forget malice, ignorance and carelessness too. When I first started p2p selling, some guys got so lazy they gave me an exchange or even casino address and that might "taint" me just by sending them even though I specify to give a clean personal one.

[JayJuanGee]

why do you you think there are some malicious idiots trying desperately hard to get innocent normal people into using privacy enhanced tools even if privacy enhanced tools are things that will definitely get innocent peoples funds noticed more (flagged as suspicious)

Forget malice, ignorance and carelessness too. When I first started p2p selling, some guys got so lazy they gave me an exchange or even casino address and that might "taint" me just by sending them even though I specify to give a clean personal one.

It is true that regular people do all kinds of weird shit, and then sometimes any of us who are wiling to transact might end up getting connected to their transactions.

I remember in about 2017-ish I was introduced to a guy who wanted to meet with me so that I could sell him bitcoin directly. One of his friends had recommended to go to me to get bitcoin, and at first I had to tell him that I would not transact with him unless he had at least $300, but then when I finally met him after he was able to accumulate at least $300, he told me that he wanted me to send the bitcoin to a "one coin" address.   I would frequently try to inform people about the differences of having their own wallet versus using a third party wallet, and I would suggest that there were several advantages towards having their own wallet rather than having me send BTC to a third party (which was their account).  

Sometimes people are in a rush, and they might have other reasons, and from my own point of view, I might try to consider if I might choose my wallet (or sending address) differently based on the wallet that I am sending to, and if the transactions are not very large, then there might be fewer concerns about sorting out these kinds of matters, even though surely if coins are being traced then sometimes there could be lower and lower coin amount thresholds that trigger attention from folks tracing the coins.

In my first interaction with the one coin guy, I told him that one coin was a scam, and he really should just buy bitcoin directly rather than getting scammed out of his money.  He was in his early 30s, perhaps?  and he surely was an adult, yet he told me that he really wants to send bitcoin to that one coin address because his friend had recommended that was what he was supposed to do, so I told him that as long as he gives me $300 and a valid bitcoin address, I don't care where I send the bitcoin that he is purchasing, and he is responsible for the whole matter in regards to the validity of the receiving address and if he would be able to get access to his coins.. or credit for having had received the coins from me to that address that he was giving me.  

So over the next several months, I transacted with the guy several times and various amounts, and each time I told him that one coin is a scam, and there were times in which the address was not working or that he called me and said that the transaction had not gone through and I would tell him that I sent it or that it looks like it went through on my side or that I would confirm the number of confirmations might vary depending on who is receiving the BTC and various strange things, but he kept coming back to me every few weeks, until at one point when he did not.. but it was a bit weird of a situation that each time I would lecture him, and he would insist on going through with the transaction in spite of variations of my lectures... Maybe I would reconsider the matter today?  I am not sure.  the amounts did not tend to be that much, and sometimes I would just use the same wallet that I had used previously, and other times I would send from a different wallet (or a different address).  

I don't recall having coin control capabilities at that time beyond my then practices to run some addresses or wallets until they would go to zero and then to recharge the wallet after running it to zero in order to lessen the amount of traceability.. but still I could see that I could end up being targeted based on some of those kinds of weird transactions.  I would also frequently tell strangers that I would not transact with them more than a few thousand dollars on the first time, and sometimes people wanted to do very large transactions, and I would not meet with those kinds of people or agree to doing what I considered to be large transactions.. and they would sometimes call me names and various things like that after I said that I would not do those... Direct transactions with strangers can sometimes end up in strange places, I suppose.. and sometimes we might believe that we are engaging in some innocent transaction with a vendor, and then the vendor might have had some $10k plus transaction or maybe even several very large transactions with questionable people, but then we get roped into his/her chain of transactions.  

I try to be careful, but at the same time, I believe that we should try to promote doing transactions without having to gather data..

I told one of my relatives that if I transact with him and he wants to buy bitcoin from me, that he would have to pay me 5% above the spot price, and he seemed to be very turned off by the idea that i would charge him a fee.. so sometimes newbies might not really know the difference between what might be KYC free coins and the ones gotten through KYC channels... I told him that he can get his coins on an exchange too.. but there could be some value in his holding coins directly rather than getting them on an exchange or holding them on an exchange, and he did seem to appreciate the idea of holding value outside of systems (comparable to holding private stashes of gold).

I recall also in late 2017, there were all kind of crazy people contacting me and wanting to buy BTC from me and I kept raising my premium, and I think that I got up to 12% for a few transactions.. usually the lowest that I would be would be 5%, but if I was getting too many folks at that price, I would raise it, just to weed people out, and I could have charged more than 12% during those crazy times (even 20%), but I did not want to.  At some point, I just went completely off of the availability status and would tell people that I was not doing any transactions with strangers until the crazy-bitcoin atmosphere cooled down, and even people who I knew, I limited how much I would consider transacting with them because the whole environment in late 2017 and into early 2018 was feeling weird and unsafe to me...

BTC Price runs can cause some weird behaviors, especially when interacting with people directly... and yeah, we could end up transacting with folks who might either directly be involved in shady activities or folks who had been transacting directly with their own web of shady folks.  The world of interactions might not be too far removed from the necessary number of hops before some transactions might end up being potentially shady.

[franky1]

if your coins are highly mixed with dirty coins. then that says more about people you trade with than me..

Do you believe in dirty fiat or have you adopted this nonsense for bitcoin solely? As money is concerned, it's fungible. Any opposition to this fact attacks only you and your fellows.

You say that I should be concerned, rather than you, because I'm the one who mixes bitcoin. Let me ask you, how do you know you haven't exchanged with someone who did mix coins without you knowing it? Or someone you exchanged with, did exchange with someone who mixed once? And it goes on and on, how do you know you aren't connected with some suspicious activity, without your knowledge? From a blockchain perspective, every transaction can lead to a coinbase transaction, and it's likely someone mixed among all those transactions.

if its fungible(you view as a binary option yes or no(facepalm)). there would be no such thing as "border seizures" or "bank IRS seizures" or crimes like "handling funds related to a crime" no "handling stolen goods or proceeds"

your group emphasise "fungible " a little too much, without understanding the depths of it.. . if a drug dealer hands you $10. they will(can) seize it and question you until you give a compelling answer for them to hand it back

heck look at the FTX saga.. 2 months on and 10 more to go, and those that did withdraw 2 months ago might have their withdrawals clawed back at any time

museums after many auctions end up having to hand artwork back if provenance is tested that art was stolen

as for how i know about my sources of coin..{edit out. dont wanna help you out too much} there are many many ways.

shame after so many years you still think mixers are acceptable to CEX, shame you think fungible is binary, one taint is clean enough.blah..  and think that innocent people should use them(which shows after years you havnt done research for your own security risk aversion of your own value)

also. if you cared to do some research you might learn how to "clean" the dirty.
and work out at which point FATF would declare funds now clean("fungible") and no longer blacklisted.
but i wont help you out in that regard.. because.. well honestly. you dont deserve that spoonfeed. its now time the baby learns to feed itself.  you should work it out for yourself, ESPECIALLY if you are holding alot of mixed/dirty funds

as for fiat
i get my fiat out of an ATM.. nice crisp bank notes. no folds, no crumples, no creases, no stains.. thus clean

have a great 2023. hope you do your research

screw it. its the new year.. fresh starts and all.. so one spoon tip:
currency suspicious links to criminal activity is not a boolean yes or no.. .. its a sliding scale or rating of suspicion. its not boolean(incase i was too subtle in earlier paragraph)