I was hacked (1170btc stolen) - 500btc max BOUNTY

[Benjig]

1170 BTC wow .. thats like over $600k

Wheres the main Address again ?

I will start ignoring some of those who has primedice on their signature, as i said, many here are only typing non-sense posts, some just to raise his post count.

[1715122528]

1715122528

[1715122528]

1715122528

[1715122528]

1715122528

[1715122528]

1715122528

[1715122528]

1715122528

[BurtW]

Off topic but I would fully support immediate perm bans for anyone with a paid signature.  That would instantly clean up the entire bitcointalk forum.

Just the opinion of a cranky old timer.

[roslinpl]

at the moment only 368BTC remain unmixed

This is very sad that things like that are just that simple ...

I hope he left some nice clues somewhere else instead of tracking coins ...


currently biggest amounts @

https://blockchain.info/pl/address/1GKiZEENq3k9Y9ogSP68dDX9XLgLvNwca9
https://blockchain.info/pl/address/197VbaCPmJLHE6HWWHvqMJhK2HGwAshBVW

Those coins you are tracking are his old coins.  The coins he gave to the mixer when he got change from them.  It is like you are tracking the $100 bill in my example above.  He moved on a long time ago once he got his change from the mixer (totally unrelated BTC).  Why are you tracking the original BTC?  Are you just curious as to how mixers work?  Wondering about the other clients of the mixer?  I am curious.

Sorry if I am doing something wrong but all I did was tracking biggest transaction from a thief address till this is what is at the end at the moment... I though that those coins are related as those transactions begins from thief address and a tree of transactions is clearly showing that those are branches. But I might doing something not right indeed. ..

I am very bad at tracking anyone I am just trying to warn people to keep an eye on those addresses.
But if you say those are not related at all ...  
For me they are as llike I told before ...

Regards.

[BurtW]

at the moment only 368BTC remain unmixed

This is very sad that things like that are just that simple ...

I hope he left some nice clues somewhere else instead of tracking coins ...


currently biggest amounts @

https://blockchain.info/pl/address/1GKiZEENq3k9Y9ogSP68dDX9XLgLvNwca9
https://blockchain.info/pl/address/197VbaCPmJLHE6HWWHvqMJhK2HGwAshBVW

Those coins you are tracking are his old coins.  The coins he gave to the mixer when he got change from them.  It is like you are tracking the $100 bill in my example above.  He moved on a long time ago once he got his change from the mixer (totally unrelated BTC).  Why are you tracking the original BTC?  Are you just curious as to how mixers work?  Wondering about the other clients of the mixer?  I am curious.

Sorry if I am doing something wrong but all I did was tracking biggest transaction from a thief address till this is what is at the end at the momend ... I though that those coins are related as those transactions begins from thief address and a tree of transactions is clearly showing that those are branches. But I might doing something not right indeed. ..

I am very bad at tracking anyone I am just trying to warn people to keep an eye on those addresses.
But if you say those are not related at all ...  
For me they are as llike I told before ...

Regards.

If you want to learn something take the time to read this entire thread from the first post.  You will find it very educational.

[roslinpl]

If you want to learn something take the time to read this entire thread from the first post.  You will find it very educational.

I was reading this thread from post 1... maybe I missed one of the pages? Can you track me on the right direction? Instead of being sarcastic?

[The Avenger]

The mixer has done nothing wrong.  The mixer is not obligated to keep customer records.  The mixer simply makes change.

This is fucking awful argument, I can't believe you and CEG5952 are still trying to convince everyone blatant money laundering is a-okay.


Please go to your local police department and tell them you accepted $750,000 in stolen cash, in marked bank notes and exchanged them for $746,000 in unmarked notes.

Tell them you knowingly partook in this money laundering operation to disguise the proceeds of crime so that it could not be traced back to the original theft.

Tell them you have done nothing wrong and have kept no records. Tell them you were just giving the thief change for a $750,000 note.

And when you get out of prison in 10 or 15 years, please tell us what it was like.

[Benjig]

The mixer has done nothing wrong.  The mixer is not obligated to keep customer records.  The mixer simply makes change.

This is fucking awful argument, I can't believe you and CEG5952 are still trying to convince everyone blatant money laundering is a-okay.


Please go to your local police department and tell them you accepted $750,000 in stolen cash, in marked bank notes and exchanged them for $746,000 in unmarked notes.

Tell them you knowingly partook in this money laundering operation to disguise the proceeds of crime so that it could not be traced back to the original theft.

Tell them you have done nothing wrong and have kept no records. Tell them you were just giving the thief change for a $750,000 note.

And when you get out of prison in 10 or 15 years, please tell us what it was like.

So are you saying that bitmixer has to be aware of "stolen bitcoins" why the hell does he need to care where the bitcoins are coming from?, so if im selling houses, do i have to go to the bank to trace down all the bills the customers give me so i can be sure they dint get used by something illegal??

think twice please.

In this case you got lucky because they admit to have received them , in other case they just dont talk anything and they can say all the mixing is automatically and they dont put hands on during the process.

[The Avenger]

This is a much bigger question than just saying, "just this one time." You are either for privacy, or against it when it doesn't suit you. Pick one. If the latter, then just denounce the very premise of mixers already.

Read above post. Plus

I am totally for privacy. Mixers can be used for privacy and I am all for that.

So I'm for privacy.

But a mixer can be operated where the chance of mixing stolen coins is minimised, which I wrote about in the other thread.

Anyone who comes up and says

"My name is XYZ, from country XYZ. You can see my identity here.

I am running a mixing service to protect peoples privacy. There are no fees, I am providing a service I feel is essential for the bitcoin network.

The mixing service takes (for example) one week to spit out your coins at the other end, so I can be sure they are not reported stolen. After a week where no claims of theft have been made and evidence provided, they will be returned mixed."

I'm down with that.

So you can have mixers and privacy and a good deal of transparency about who owns the mixing service without any trouble.

You argument that you are either for or against mixers is totally false, as there are all the shades in between.

A mixing service that held funds for a week and responded to any claims of theft would probably hardly ever mix stolen coins.

A mixer who will takes anyones coins - without question - and put them through a mixer after only 1 or 2 confirmations is no doubt a criminal, knowingly working for criminals. Especially if they are openly discussing in their thread how to get rid of their dirty coins on an exchange, to cover tracks of theft.

Stop trying to brand everyone who doesn't like obvious money laundering as anti-privacy. It's a pathetic argument.

[The Avenger]

So are you saying that bitmixer has to be aware of "stolen bitcoins" why the hell does he need to care where the bitcoins are coming from?

Because if he doesn't, he's a criminal, KNOWINGLY partaking in criminal activity.

Somebody paying for an item, buying a property is one thing.

But someone who gets paid to hide the tracks of where money comes from is in another league.

[Eadeqa]

So are you saying that bitmixer has to be aware of "stolen bitcoins" why the hell does he need to care where the bitcoins are coming from?,

Absolutely. He is dealing with money, and stolen money. He needs to keep a record. If not, he he would be liable both criminally and civil lawsuit.  bitmixer should  hope that he isn't in the US. If he was, he would get in trouble (serious trouble) someday. Eve if he isn't in the US, his funds/ personal bank accounts can be frozen by the US govt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Laundering_Control_Act

[JorgeStolfi]

If you give me a $100 bill and I give you back $100 in change in smaller bills have I committed a crime?
Is it my responsibility to get AML and KYC information from every random stranger that asks me for change?  If I don't is it a crime?
That is what a mixer does:  makes change.
The mixer has done nothing wrong.  The mixer is not obligated to keep customer records.  The mixer simply makes change.

If you exchange 500'000 USD in cash for other cash, you are not making change. You are, quite likely, helping someone keep money that is 'dirty' in some sense out of reach of the the police; and you kow that.  That is what 'money laundering' is.

If, after you are long gone I find out that the $100 bill you gave me was stolen have I committed a crime and am I obligate to return the $100 bill to the injured party?

In principle not, if you received that dollar bill in good faith.  If the police is after someone's money for some reason, they don't want the same baknotes, only a certain amount of money.  So the question is: how much will the courts demand from each of the people who cooperated in the illegal act (including anyone who consciously provided money laundering services), to make up for the stolen money, evaded taxes, fines, damages, expenses, etc.

[ The mixer ] takes in fungible BTC and returns fungible BTC.  Unless you don't think BTC are fungible?

It is not up to the bitcoiners to decide whether bitcoins are fungible or not.  Fungibility of bitcoins, or of dollar bills, may be a desire of their users, but it is not a legal right nor a mathematical consequence of the protocol's design.

Bills and bitcoins are fungible only if those who receive them cannot be expected to check their origin.

Dollar bills are generally fungible because those who receive them cannot be forced to check their serial numbers against a police database of stolen cash.  But, if the Bank of Smallville was robbed yesterday, then a dufflebag full of neat 100$-bill bundles, with "Bank of Smallville" printed on the paper bands, will not be fungible at all.  A car dealer who accepts a few bundles out of that bag could be charged with knowingly receiving stolen money; and that charge may stick in court.

Ditto if a bank receives for deposit a large pile of loose 100$ banknotes, since the bank can be expected to check at least some of their serial numbers against said database.

If thousands of BTC are stolen by a hacker, any address that receives them, pure or mixed, will be suspected of being controlled by the thief, or by his accomplces, or by other people who may be trying to hide other money from the police.  Therefore, anyone who accepts a large BTC payment and does not make a minimal effort to check their history may get charged with etc. etc..  That check may be rather impactical at present, but if the police were to set up a database of addresses containing 'dirty' bitcoins, updated in real time as they move in the blockchain, then people may be legally required to check that database when receiving a large bitcoin payment. (Note that one must be connected to the internet when using bitcoin, but not when using cash.)  If that comes to pass, bitcoins will not be fungible at all.

[Benjig]

But that goes to a dead end, if someone steals your bitcoins and send them to a mixer, how will you be able to prove that those bitcoins are yours?? here is pretty obvious but in another case, perhaps if i send 100 bitcoins to a mixer and a friend of mine was aware of my address, so he sees the coins in the mixer, he can claim those were his coins!! so i will get my coins struck only because of an idiot making a joke?
mixers should not have the right to hold any coins, and if i read that they can i would not use them.

Perhaps it would be more easy that if you hold almost a million dollar worth of bitcoins, treath it like what really is, alot of money!!! split them in 10 separate cold storage wallets and write the password too in separate places! and leave some with only passprahse in your brain!

We are in the bitcoin world guys, here is not like fiat world, transactions are irreversible and bitcoin cant be traced because you cant know who owns every address.

I fear this but the only option left is to go to the FBI maybe they can track the ip under the proxy/tor and get the stolen bitcoins wallet at knocking basis from the thief, not triying to make maps in the blockchain

[poeEDgar]

The mixer has done nothing wrong.  The mixer is not obligated to keep customer records.  The mixer simply makes change.

This is fucking awful argument, I can't believe you and CEG5952 are still trying to convince everyone blatant money laundering is a-okay.


Please go to your local police department and tell them you accepted $750,000 in stolen cash, in marked bank notes and exchanged them for $746,000 in unmarked notes.

Tell them you knowingly partook in this money laundering operation to disguise the proceeds of crime so that it could not be traced back to the original theft.

Tell them you have done nothing wrong and have kept no records. Tell them you were just giving the thief change for a $750,000 note.

And when you get out of prison in 10 or 15 years, please tell us what it was like.

LOL

Go call Klee's local police department and see what they do. Tell us what it's like.

Go start a crusade against mixers. You can't simultaneously condone mixing services (that by definition must not retain customer records or else be rendered useless) while supporting legal pressure against a mixer in a specific instance.

A mixer is useless if your privacy is at stake based on their own arbitrary discretion. And legitimate mixers will always pop up to meet the demand.

[poeEDgar]

This is a much bigger question than just saying, "just this one time." You are either for privacy, or against it when it doesn't suit you. Pick one. If the latter, then just denounce the very premise of mixers already.

Read above post. Plus

I am totally for privacy. Mixers can be used for privacy and I am all for that.

So I'm for privacy.

But a mixer can be operated where the chance of mixing stolen coins is minimised, which I wrote about in the other thread.

Anyone who comes up and says

"My name is XYZ, from country XYZ. You can see my identity here.

I am running a mixing service to protect peoples privacy. There are no fees, I am providing a service I feel is essential for the bitcoin network.

The mixing service takes (for example) one week to spit out your coins at the other end, so I can be sure they are not reported stolen. After a week where no claims of theft have been made and evidence provided, they will be returned mixed."

I'm down with that.

So you can have mixers and privacy and a good deal of transparency about who owns the mixing service without any trouble.

You argument that you are either for or against mixers is totally false, as there are all the shades in between.

A mixing service that held funds for a week and responded to any claims of theft would probably hardly ever mix stolen coins.

A mixer who will takes anyones coins - without question - and put them through a mixer after only 1 or 2 confirmations is no doubt a criminal, knowingly working for criminals. Especially if they are openly discussing in their thread how to get rid of their dirty coins on an exchange, to cover tracks of theft.

Stop trying to brand everyone who doesn't like obvious money laundering as anti-privacy. It's a pathetic argument.

That ain't gonna happen. There is no incentive for anyone to run a charity like that, for the sake of being some community vigilante. Why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't you do it?

The fact that someone possesses tainted coins IN NO WAY connects them to any crime. You apparently don't understand how bitcoin works, if you think that removing tainted coins from circulation accomplishes anything. How would claims EVER be verified? How could the possession of tainted coins possibly justify the theft of said coins by the mixing service? Completely absurd. You live in a fantasy world.

[The Avenger]

But that goes to a dead end, if someone steals your bitcoins and send them to a mixer, how will you be able to prove that those bitcoins are yours??

You can say it. You can send the original wallet, which shows how the funds were built up over the years. You can show the last address before they were stolen is in the wallet.dat. And probably a lot of others ways, that other can suggest if they want to build this service.

here is pretty obvious but in another case, perhaps if i send 100 bitcoins to a mixer and a friend of mine was aware of my address, so he sees the coins in the mixer, he can claim those were his coins!! so i will get my coins struck only because of an idiot making a joke?

Yeah, someone can be an asshole and claim they are stolen. But in 7 days they have to provide proof. If they don't, all claims are null and void and mixing starts. After that, there is no return.

At present, there are no, what you might call "good mixers", who are honest and only want to mixer coins for the privacy of their users. I'm making up the 7 day rule as an example. It could be more or less and there might be other rules if someone made a claim of theft. But really, if you can't provide evidence you own coins in 7 days, then you probably are joking.

mixers should not have the right to hold any coins, and if i read that they can i would not use them.

Well that says a lot about you.

If you were joe-ordinary-bitcoin-user and you like to mix your coins once a year to maintain your privacy. AND you know the mixer operator and he/she has a solid reputation within the community. Then there is no reason not to trust your coins for a week. If the mixer service ever illegally holds onto the coins more than 7 days, then the business is over.

[poeEDgar]

But that goes to a dead end, if someone steals your bitcoins and send them to a mixer, how will you be able to prove that those bitcoins are yours??

You can say it. You can send the original wallet, which shows how the funds were built up over the years. You can show the last address before they were stolen is in the wallet.dat. And probably a lot of others ways, that other can suggest if they want to build this service.

Let's say the stolen coins originated at some point at an address I control. I sent them as payment for services rendered. They are then stolen from that recipient. What stops me from signing a transaction from my address, proving control, and laying claim to the coins, if the recipient reports that his coins were stolen?

Proving you control an address in the transaction tree means nothing. Hell, the coins could have been stolen FROM ME originally, but I could lay no claim until the coins were sent to the mixer. So the default owner is the person who controlled the LAST address holding the coins? Such a fail.

[Eadeqa]

Go start a crusade against mixers. You can't simultaneously condone mixing services (that by definition must not retain customer records or else be rendered useless) while supporting legal pressure against a mixer in a specific instance.

It's irrelevant as "mixing" service have not been tested under the law as no one cares about cryptos outside of small community. I am pretty sure  if if the govts really take a note, all such services would face full force of money laundry laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Laundering_Control_Act

"The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570) is a United States Act of Congress that made money laundering a federal crime. It was passed in 1986. It consists of two sections, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 18 U.S.C. § 1957. It for the first time in the United States criminalized money laundering. Section 1956 prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as “specified unlawful activities” (SUAs). Additionally, the law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds. There is no minimum threshold of money, nor is there the requirement that the transaction succeed in actually disguising the money. Moreover, a “financial transaction” has been broadly defined, and need not involve a financial institution, or even a business. Merely passing money from one person to another, so long as it is done with the intent to disguise the source, ownership, location or control of the money, has been deemed a financial transaction under the law. Section 1957 prohibits spending in excess of $10,000 derived from an SUA, regardless of whether the individual wishes to disguise it. This carries a lesser penalty than money laundering, and unlike the money laundering statute, requires that the money pass through a financial institution

[The Avenger]

Go start a crusade against mixers. You can't simultaneously condone mixing services (that by definition must not retain customer records or else be rendered useless) while supporting legal pressure against a mixer in a specific instance.

Here we go again. WHERE DID I SAY THEY MUST RETAIN RECORDS??? Please point it out.

I get the feeling one person must use multiple accounts in this thread, because the amount of times someone puts words I didn't say into my mouth in this thread is unbelievable.

That ain't gonna happen. There is no incentive for anyone to run a charity like that, for the sake of being some community vigilante. Why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't you do it?

I did say in the other thread that there is a lot of risk in doing this, with little reward, so maybe no one would be interested in doing it. The open source community is voluntary, so it's not totally outrageous that someone might decide they want to do it. Not everyone is a criminal with a criminal mindset.

You apparently don't understand how bitcoin works, if you think that removing tainted coins from circulation accomplishes anything.

I didn't say that.

Completely absurd. You live in a fantasy world.

Quoting me as saying things I didn't say is competely absurd. If you are seeing words I didn't write, I'd go to a doctor about that.

[poeEDgar]

Here we go again. WHERE DID I SAY THEY MUST RETAIN RECORDS??? Please point it out.

I get the feeling one person must use multiple accounts in this thread, but the amount of times someone puts words I didn't say into my mouth in this thread is unbelieable.

So you are only interested in having some uninterested third party make an executive decision to confiscate bitcoins from people and send them to others, based on their best judgment?

Yeah, I think there are potential legal problems with a mixer stealing coins whenever they want, and answering to nobody.

You apparently don't understand how bitcoin works, if you think that removing tainted coins from circulation accomplishes anything.

I didn't say that.

Oh? So what happens when the mixer determines that the coins may have been stolen?

[Benjig]

I would not approve a mixer holding coins because most of the scams made here are coming from websites so i dont like another pretext to hold coins.
Anyway that 7 day hold could be good but for only big amounts like 100 or more btcs. But you cant blame them now.

And as i said i add, the day that some guy comes here saying he got blanked even with my security procedures, then i would not try to blame 3rd parties, i simply would dump my btcs because it would had become hackeable and worthless,