Basically confirms what we already know:
-not really on LEO radar because "cyber criminals" are cashing huge money through webmoney and LR as usual
-some massive ebay scam in 2010 was laundered through online gold companies not bitcoin
-some other massive scam was laundered through virtual game gold not bitcoin
-any exchanger doing biz with Americans has to have a registered MSB so can get at private keys to match up xfers if they really wanted
tl;dr FBI doesn't care about bitcoin... yet
Topic: Bitcoin FBI Report April 2012 - page 2. (Read 14317 times)
Wired could have at least chipped in a couple coins towards the bounty if they needed a transcribed copy that bad. Leeches I tell you.
They did better: free publicity! It's not like any of us computer nerds see their ads anyways.
Wired could have at least chipped in a couple coins towards the bounty if they needed a transcribed copy that bad. Leeches I tell you.
Hey, Sgt
You're published.
Charge more next time.
You're published.
Charge more next time.
I do think it is odd that they used mine instead of the original. What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it? Maybe they just checked it over very well.
I'm sure they did 
I wonder what editor at Wired read the Transcribed Document for errors and put it up as an Original. LOL
I guess people need to do more transcribing.
Poor guy is going to get into trouble.
Oh to add some fodder: Is it: Organized or Organised? and how and when do you spell each? hmm...
The funniest part is they kept my awful name for the document itself... "Bitcoin-FBI.pdf". They just added the dash in place of the space to make it web safe. I would have at least expected them to rename it to something more official sounding.I guess people need to do more transcribing.
Poor guy is going to get into trouble.
Oh to add some fodder: Is it: Organized or Organised? and how and when do you spell each? hmm...
EDIT: Now softpedia is linking to the wired-hosted PDF.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/FBI-Concerned-About-the-Use-of-Bitcoins-for-Illicit-Activities-268664.shtml
I wonder what editor at Wired read the Transcribed Document for errors and put it up as an Original. LOL
I guess people need to do more transcribing.
Poor guy is going to get into trouble.
Oh to add some fodder: Is it: Organized or Organised? and how and when do you spell each? hmm...
I guess people need to do more transcribing.
Poor guy is going to get into trouble.
Oh to add some fodder: Is it: Organized or Organised? and how and when do you spell each? hmm...
What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it?
Exactly. You could have inserted "PENIS" very faintly in the background too. (You should have).
I don't want to ruin my reputation doing something like that though. I like to stand by the quality of my work.
I like to stand by "PENIS". In my book, that is quality of work.
Just playing. You should hit up Wired and make them give you credit. If you don't, we will you know...
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it?
Exactly. You could have inserted "PENIS" very faintly in the background too. (You should have).
I don't want to ruin my reputation doing something like that though. I like to stand by the quality of my work.
I like to stand by "PENIS". In my book, that is quality work.
Just playing. You should hit up Wired and make them give you credit. If you don't, we will you know...
What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it?
Exactly. You could have inserted "PENIS" very faintly in the background too. (You should have).
I don't want to ruin my reputation doing something like that though. I like to stand by the quality of my work.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it?
Exactly. You could have inserted "PENIS" very faintly in the background too. (You should have).
I'm no expert but different versions of PDF readers can do different things. I;m going to guess wired shelled out and get the good version.
Just speculation.
Just speculation.
No it is a bit for bit copy. It even has the same (minor) formatting errors in the exact same spots.
On edit: oops psy beat me to it.
Hey SgtSpike your famous. How does it feel to be published by Wired.
That said, I do not want credit for it. It is the FBI's document, not mine. They hold the copyright to it (if there is one?), even if I was the one who recreated it. I got my bounty, I am happy.
I do think it is odd that they used mine instead of the original. What if I HAD made a mistake somewhere in it? Maybe they just checked it over very well.
True unless the leak is intentional.
LOL... mind has been fucked.
Well maybe they did confirm it (i.e. call the FBI office). Then again journalistic standards aren't that high anymore. Could be either one.
The trained response to inquiries on a classified or confidential document is "we can neither confirm, nor deny".
But this is an Unclassified document, made to be distributed to agencies around the world also. I suppose they would have no problem confirming it as real. Maybe they would be interested how it leaked, but it's not a secret per se.
Well maybe they did confirm it (i.e. call the FBI office). Then again journalistic standards aren't that high anymore. Could be either one.
The trained response to inquiries on a classified or confidential document is "we can neither confirm, nor deny".
True unless the leak is intentional.
Well maybe they did confirm it (i.e. call the FBI office). Then again journalistic standards aren't that high anymore. Could be either one.
The trained response to inquiries on a classified or confidential document is "we can neither confirm, nor deny".
Well maybe they did confirm it (i.e. call the FBI office). Then again journalistic standards aren't that high anymore. Could be either one.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
I'm no expert but different versions of PDF readers can do different things. I;m going to guess wired shelled out and get the good version.
Just speculation.
Just speculation.
No it is a bit for bit copy. It even has the same (minor) formatting errors in the exact same spots.
On edit: oops psy beat me to it.
Hey SgtSpike your famous. How does it feel to be published by Wired.
How can they use a recreation of a document (that equally has no published sources) and base an entire article off of it? It's twice-removed from the original source and unconfirmed. Wow, just wow. (Not to mention they didn't thank SgtSpikety)
I'm no expert but different versions of PDF readers can do different things. I;m going to guess wired shelled out and get the good version.
Just speculation.
Just speculation.
No it is a bit for bit copy. It even has the same (minor) formatting errors in the exact same spots.
On edit: oops psy beat me to it.
Hey SgtSpike your famous. How does it feel to be published by Wired.
I'm no expert but different versions of PDF readers can do different things. I;m going to guess wired shelled out and get the good version.
Just speculation.
Just speculation.
Look at both documents properties... GPL Ghostscript 8.63, PDFCreator 0.9.6, same creation and alteration date.
You speculate very badly, let me tell you that.
Jump to: