Topic: delete this (Read 1329 times)

I would work under the assumption that Lauda did in fact encrypt the message that he posted. However the fact that anyone would ever know what the message said if Lauda decrypted it for us (and lauda would only decrypt the message if he was called out about the extortion), makes me think the message was more an insurance policy, and less a declaration of what he will actually do if the extortion was successful. If Lauda did get paid off, then zeroaxl would logically not have made the extortion public, and no one would ever have been the wiser when Lauda ended up keeping the proceeds to himself (or sharing them with his co-conspirators).


(note that zeroaxl's OP in his thread had the message that lauda sent say that it was continued from slack). I get the feeling that the extortion threat was something more along the lines of "if you don't pay up, then me and my friends will call the police and make it difficult for you to trade on bitcointalk". It seems that minifrij first opened his thread to show that they were serious about making good on their threats, then TMAN opened his thread once zeroaxl responded to the extortion attempt by opening a scam accusation against Lauda. TMAN made this post to install additional fear into what will happen if they made good on their threat to contact the police if TMAN does not pay up, I think "the hole is getting deeper" means that zeroaxl will get in more trouble if the police are contacted.

I don't think this was a situation in which Lauda acted alone, I think many people worked together in regards to this extortion attempt. There are four additional people who confirmed in zeroaxl's thread that they knew about the extortion attempt prior to it taking place. I cannot authoritatively say that any of those people participated in any conspiracy, however I believe that it does give credence to my belief that both minnifrij and TMAN conspired with lauda to attempt to extort zeroxal.

Going back to one of my previous examples, if you were threatening to tell my wife that I was having an affair (even though this is not true), the above would be very similar to making this extortion demand, then later posting statistics about divorce rates after affairs, or saying that you talked to my wife today and that you think she would be heartbroken if she found out she was cheated on. The purpose would be to install fear, not make an additional extortion demand.

Yes, they talk on Slack, probably more than they talk on here. I spoke to zeroaxl who has advised me that he did not make any extortion payment and that everyone agreed to close their respective threads because they would talk about things privately. Even if my assumption that zeroaxl paid up is incorrect, this does not change the fact that Lauda attempted to extort zeroaxl (unsuccessfully).


I understand that extortion is a felony and a serious crime, so it is possible the federal government may attempt to prosecute lauda, especially how public the extortion attempt has become. I am not sure how high a priority this kind of crime would be, nor am I sure how good of a job Lauda did in protecting his identity.

Regardless of if this case ends up in court or not, I do think this is a reasonable standard when deciding if something is right or wrong, or when deciding if someone is a scammer by attempting to extort someone.


If you were still undecided if you approved of this method or not, then I would say this:

The broad decision to be able to break the law by a law enforcement agent does not rest with the individual agent, but rather someone very high up the chain of command (the agent's boss's boss's.....boss), probably someone with 'director' and/or 'chief' in their title. It would not be okay for a DEA agent on the street to sell illegal drugs to someone with the intention of trying to find the "head" of a drug cartel if they are not previously assigned to the case, and approved to be breaking certain laws to help with the investigation. The "chief' would send word down the chain of command that a specific agent has approval to break certain, specific laws to help investigate the case.

I also remember a case a few years ago where someone tried to rob a citizen's house, the citizen was able to successfully stop the robbery, placed the robber under citizens arrest, and drove the robber to the jail. The citizen was able to prevent the robber from leaving by placing him under citizens arrest, however the act of moving the robber from their house to the police station (Point "A" to point "B"), constituted kidnapping, and the citizen was charged with such crime.

Yeah, we can ditch the signed part, it also was a bad move to encrypt it to their own key as this leaves only the two pages to confirm the integrity of the message. For all we know the encrypted message is a cookie recipe.


Well TMAN did not prepare a similar message as Lauda, which means I cant simply argue mens rea. Further I dont think I know the person so I cant judge their character based on a past.

There is no time given by Zeroxal, so when the call took place is not clear. Might have been yesterday for all we know, both speak in past tense so I think its unlikely that it was moments before the posts.

"the hole is getting deeper. " does not sound like there is still a way out of this. This was also posted in public. Thus I cant follow your argument that it was another extortion attempt. Looks more like scorn to me. Good job securing the archive btw.


I think they talk or talked on slack. I dont approve of this, but asssuming a extortion payment was made is just that, an assumption.


Probably not, but I dont think this will end up in front of a court either. Unless we consider this forums scam accusation section its court.


True, I have not seen any evidence that Zeroxal actually did what he is accused off. Well, the alt accounts are solidly connected, but ban evasion seemed like a side point to me and should IMHO have been handled by a PM to an admin or global.


Im still undecided whether I approve of the method or not. No, actually a simple kant makes me strongly disagree with this method. Which seems a common theme with me and Lauda.

A doctor will generally have your consent prior to giving you a shot. In cases where, for example you are unconscious (and connot give consent), a doctor may give you a life-saving shot, the doctor will have immunity from prosecution because of specific exemptions to the law given by "good samaritan laws"

It is common for law enforcement to break the law when attempting to gather evidence of a crime, however they generally do not commit crimes in which there is a specific victim (without the consent of said potential victim), but rather they commit crimes in which "society" is the victim.

For example, a DEA agent might buy, sell, or consume illegal drugs when investigating a suspected drug trafficking ring, however they would not assault someone who owes the drug trafficking ring money (as would sometime happen within these types of criminal enterprises).

Another good example is Operation Fast and Furious, in which the DEA allowed/helped guns to be sold illegally. No DEA agent pulled the trigger to kill anyone with any of these illegal guns, but did allow guns to be moved across the border illegally and to be purchased illegally. This program was actually more then likely illegal, however the Obama administration stonewalled the investigation.

You are not going to find examples of law enforcement killing people in an effort to further an investigation, you are not going to find examples of the police assaulting someone to further an investigation, nor will you find examples of law enforcement stealing to try to further an investigation. (The only reason why law enforcement would assault a suspected criminal would to be either arrest them, or because someone's life is in immediate danger. It would be possible that a robbery victim consent to a robbery in order to help catch a suspected criminal. However neither of these would apply in this case).


I have to disagree with you on this point. Lauda posted an encrypted message onto two pastbins and included the hash of a recently found block in the message. The pastbins would theoretically prove that the message was created on or before a certain time, and the hash of the recent block proves that the message was created on or after a certain time. The message however was encrypted to Lauda's GPG key only, so one could argue that message would only be shown if the extortion attempt was unsuccessful and was called out about it. It is also unclear if the message was actually signed, all I know is that it was encrypted.

There is also evidence that the extortion continued after Lauda was called out on it. For example this shows that Zeroxal received a threat that his mother would receive a phone call, this post shows that TMAN was giving Zeroxal more reasons to avoid a police report being filed against him by paying the extortion, and this post is evidence that Zeroxal was given a reason to pay up, or else he would not be able to continue doing business on the forum. I would also point out that this thread was opened, yet Zeroxal was never given negative trust (as of the time of this post).

The fact that both Zeroxal closed his thread against Lauda, and TMAN and minifrij closed their threads against Zeroxal at roughly the same time makes me believe that Zeroxal ended up paying the extortion payment. I have not seen any evidence that Lauda has not profited from this apparent payment.

I don't think that a signed message is sufficient to remove Mens rea from what Lauda did, if anything it shows that Lauda knew in advance that what he was doing was wrong. I don't think any court would accept this kind of statement as a defense to a crime.

Also the payment of extortion is not evidence of guilt. The fact that someone does not want whatever the extortionist is threatening to do to happen is why an extortion payment would be paid. The fact that zeroxal (probably) paid the extortion payment could mean that he does not want the police to investigate him. If you were to threaten to tell my wife that I am having an affair (despite this being untrue) unless I pay you 1 BTC, then I might pay you because my wife might already have trust issues, we are having some problems, or I might think that my wife receiving this kind of message would make her feel threatened, among other reasons. Or, if you were to threaten to tell the IRS that I was lying on my taxes, (even though the fact that I overreport income and underreport expenses/losses would likely result in me receiving a refund at the completion of an audit), I might still pay the extortion payment because the cost of an audit would be greater then the extortion payment.

Ross Ulbright's lawyer tried to get the whole case against him thrown out because there was a corrupt FBI agent who had extorted him. IIRC correctly, the reason why it was not thrown out is because all of the evidence used against Ross was gather by another field office.

Yeah I did.


Its actually common to do these things for a certain set of people. Whether or not Lauda can be considered something similar for this forum I dont know. E.g. a doctor is not charged with assault when they give you a shot. Members of the german bundestag can be except from law enforcement entirely when they take similar precautions (notary statement) and have a good reason (investigating a crime). I assume this is similar for other countries.

A crime requires not only an unlawful act but also what is called "mens rea"[1] an intent to do something criminal. The written, signed and timestamped statement in advance clearly shows that mens rea is not given in Laudas case. Whether or not this should be a right DT or Staff should have when investigating I have no opinion on yet. My frist gut instict tells me it would not be a good idea to make this common practice.


I wasnt aware of the latest drama at the time of my last posting that is true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

You should review this post. Lauda admitted to attempt to extort someone under the guise of collecting information about criminal activity. Lauda made a self certified statement that he will not profit from the extortion if it is successful, however this statement is worthless and irrelevant (and obviously unenforceable).

I think it is fairly obvious that this thread is about this exact incident. 

Sounds like you are trying to derail this conversation. Im working on something in regards to trust ratings as mod crutches, but I dont see it as extortion.

Probably depends on the individual situation. At the very least the community will leave negative feedback if they agree that it's blackmail or extortion. Create a thread in Scam Accusations or Reputation about it and let others decide.

In that case feel free to give Lauda and all of his/her/it's puppets/helpers a negative for their "attempted"/"fake" extortion "attempt."

I think it depends on how severe it is. At the very least it would warrant negative ratings from DT and repeating the same threats should fall under the no-spam rule.

Well it is illegal but now sure that transfers to bannable on bitcointalk. I would say no its not lol but they should get red trust and of course be banned so lets see the answer.

delete this