Topic: Bitcoin FBI Report April 2012 (Read 14407 times)

The only sense in which economics "assume" rational behavior is, in fact, a tautological axiom. The axiom states that given a choice between two or more goods, an actor will choose the good which is highest on his or her internal scale of preferences. The scale itself, however, is an unknown and unknowable element outside of the individual's own psyche; they are probably not even consciously aware of all their preferences at any given moment. Preferences can also change over time. All one can know of another person's preferences are the snapshots revealed through their choices. Therefore, there is no way that any set of observed choices could possibly contradict the axiom. Given the choice, it is simply more productive to think of action in terms of objectively rational choices between subjectively-valued goods than vise-versa.

The well-founded economic models take the subjective theory of value as a given, being careful not to exclude non-material goods, and consequently are able make perfectly good predictions. The less-well-founded (e.g. utilitarian) models assume objective relations between the values of various goods, based on unreliable indicators such as historical prices, surveys, and "common sense", and are left trying to explain why people seem to behave "irrationally".

So much for the naysayers...

How stupid do you all look now?

Well it now looks like it was authentic.
Adrianne Jeffries of BetaBeat reports that she has confirmed it with the FBI.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2012-05-14-betabeatcom-fbi-that-bitcoin-report-was-authentic-but-it-81787

Yeah, it'd be difficult to test without having the better-quality original to test with.

Haha, thanks.  I really wanted that bounty, and had some competition, so I had to do it quick!

Oh, you mean the edges were even more clear?

I suppose it could be tested.

Meh... Not really that concerned as to the report.

I am more impressed with your work and speed in transcribing then the original authors efforts put into the report.

::Props::

Aren't the ridged edges of the Bitcoin logo simply due to the low quality of the entire document though?

Sgt,

Referencing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92797476/FBI-Bitcoin-Report-April-2012 as the original. The logo ridged edges around the boarders. This could easily be solved but was not. Anyone printing and/or seeing it would immediately see the Cut/Paste of the logo which would seem very, Unofficial, Unprofessional, and very Unclassified. But it might have just been an 'intern' creating the document, since there really wasn't any useful information in the report for the agencies in which it was distributed. I can imagine people at those agencies after reading it saying: "Geesh Thanks, next time just send a link to bitcointalk.org and save some tax payer dollars." OR "Hey fellas, we have 'another' FBI report; lunch time."

But as said, the contents might be correct and things added later.

I am curious, what artifacts on the first page of the original document are you speaking of?  Not trying to challenge that it is fake or real, but just want to know what you saw.

The original document was completely Times New Roman, and I did mine to match.  Font was size 12 or 10 throughout the entire document, with the exception of the superscripts (duh) and the front page.

The one thing that I noticed that did seem curious was the (U) in the largest font on the front page didn't seem to quite match the (U) on my front page.  Mine seemed a bit wider.  Couldn't figure out why that was, even though I played with the font for a while...

EDIT:  It's almost as though the kerning was changed on that largest font to move all the letters closer to each other.  Though, it could just be something about the way the original was rendered to a PDF...

EDIT2:  Lol, just found two rather major mistakes as I was looking back through my document again... the footnotes on pages 4 and 5 are completely the wrong font!  It was defaulting to Calibri, and I thought I had changes all of it to times, but I must've missed those two pages... oops.  I guess anyone who wants to prove to wired that they don't have the original can now do so.   

I still don't believe in its authenticity as presented in the original document simply because of the artifacts on the 1st page in the originally presented document. The transcribed document used by Wired and the other news sources that reference Wired shouldn't be presented as an original (props to Sgt). The originally released document might have been altered for presentation effect but the basis of the report correct.

A distribution list has been published at the end of the document. The RCMP and New Zealand Police would probably tell a News Agency if they have received a similar document and could confirm the authenticity as presented before a FOIA Request would respond.

I must admit the 'report' did a better job sourcing than many news reports do today. I really would wish that this reputable agency would put a basic sourcing claimer at the bottom of their stories. Something simple: A source from here has confirmed.

Because of the way the story is being presented in the press: The FBI Fears Bitcoin, it will do more good than harm to Bitcoin and draw a lot of people to BTC. So, I would expect the FBI to make some statement about the report if it is false.

btw: A method of detecting leak sources is to slightly alter the distributed documents to each agency. So if a leak occurs, it is immediately determined within a reasonable suspicion which agency has the leak.

I assumed people have checked, the original document, for government approved font type.

Guys, the Big Lion Watermark doesn't do anything for you guys? Looks more like a community college mascot then the real mccoy, since the head is floating in space.

Fair enough. 

I disagree on the language thing.  My guess is they had to make sure the language wasn't too fancy, and the overview on Bitcoin wasn't too complex, because the intention of this document was to inform the law enforcement of the rest of the world about the current and potential criminal uses of Bitcoins.  Even though it appears as though all of the agencies on the distribution list speak English (I didn't look up what the acronym'd ones are though), they might still be concerned about minor language differences between the different cultures causing confusion, misunderstandings, etc.  Better to be safe by using simple and consistent language.

I also wouldn't expect an FBI paper to be as bureaucratic as, say, a propose bill from congress.  I was a bit surprised at how "unbureaucractic" it sounded myself, but it makes sense given that the FBI doesn't need to use lawyerly talk in documents like this.

Don't assume rational behavior. Economists do, and that's why they can never explain anything.

ALso, the language of this document simply doesn't strike me as being bureaucratic and self-important enough.

And as a counterpoint to the "too much time to fake it" argument, I attest that over the course of my life, there have been many occasions I've spent more time and energy on school projects, work projects, pranks, and other endeavors that yielded far less profit and lulz relative to the effort necessary to accomplish them than the author of this document has possibly gained.

Exactly - that's Matthew's job. 

Agreed.  Unless they actually did verify it, but I doubt that...

In light of new evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the document is real and the source who wants to remain anonymous is unwilling to explain publicly. It is however still possible that the source is lying and just made it himself and doesn't want to be persecuted publicly. Either way, I think his job is at risk by coming clean either way so I'll just say that without proof directly from the FBI I would still recommend that journalists with any self respect at least mention that this PDF is suspect and unverified and not quote it directly as if the FBI handed it to you themselves like Wired did.

...much less for the lulz...

No, but that would have been a clever idea!

I still stand by the sheer amount of time spent on this.  Again, if it was a troll/fake, whoever made it still did spend 100's of hours compiling it all together.  I certainly wouldn't do that for only 10 BTC!

Yeah, I think SgtSpike made this all up so that he could earn 10 BTC by "retyping" it. 

Sorry to quote this from earlier, but I think this pretty much sums it up. The style of writing is the biggest give-away here! It is completely off. Plus the insider-bitcoiner references. I wonder if someone here is pretending to subjectively comment on this when in fact they made it themselves. 

How true.  Everyone is a criminal, even the little old lady from Pasadena.


Bravo!

Ok, that is funny

See the problem is, unfortunately, the U.S. has lost its way and a lot of its power to tell others what to do. The Laws that they are trying to enforce are for the most part ignored everywhere else. Hence, a vacuum is being created which is sucking all the business out of the United States. Big businesses have enough 'pull' to ignore the rules and set up shops overseas. Small Businesses and Personal accounts are left to the vultures.

So, I would suggest that 'we' get with the program and bend like a reed in the wind rather than be a brick wall trying to hold back a tidal wave.

Under that law, if you take money from someone to give to someone else, you are guilty. Think about that. It is a badly written law. There should at least be a qualifying clause before it can go into effect: Such as once the annual revenue reaches a preset amount adjusted to the CPI.

The ABA thinks there may be nearly ten thousand laws, the Congressional Research Center has lost track. So, narrate what you did today and a lawyer can tell you how many laws you broke. It is no longer about the 'law' because we know that the only reason the 'law' is there now is to punish people they want to punish. It has stopped being there to 'serve' the people.

Any 'law' that is unenforceable is by definition: A moot point.  Illegal or legal matters not when one can't enforce the 'law.'

With the above noted, I don't mean to be complicit in money laundering or the use of 'blood' money. However, it is a world economy now and not sets of local ones. Why doesn't the Law Enforcement Agencies try to stop the crimes that require the use of money laundering rather than trying to stop money laundering?

So when you come in and state the 'LAW', please consider what it is there to do now. It is there to keep the 'small' guys from taking business from the 'big' guys and NOT to create a fair and equal playing field for the people. Yes, the criminal element will take advantage of monetary systems. Did you think that would ever stop? So, Mr. FBI agent get up off your seat in front of your computer and get in the game. Seriously, your not going to catch the big fish that really do harm to people because they pay more and hire the best and brightest away from you. You know, like BoA, WF, UBS, HBSC, EXXON, BP, etc...  They are in the majors while you are still playing in the minors. They have developed methods of communicating with out really communicating using innuendo, hunting trips, fishing trips, sailing trips, golf, etc... The places with out, you got it, computer and cell phone usage.

However, 'I have a Dream' that one day every individual on the planet could easily and effectively transfer currencies among themselves without fear of repercussions from governments. I have a Dream to empower the people and put the money back into their control. I have a Dream that governments will be forced to serve the people rather than the people serve the governments. I have a Dream that rather than people fearing the Governments that the Governments will fear the people. I have a Dream that a person's sweat and labor goes towards themselves and not towards overburdensome taxes.


End Rant.