If they have a company which has license and under regulation of government, what can they do? what they should do? for the sake of their company benefit?
Obey government request and keep their company operates as nothing happen, or face with serious treatments from government. I am sorry for anyone lose money on centralized exchanges for any reason but they did not learn the lesson which is said repeatedly
Not your keys, not your coins
Centralized exchanges provide you a wallet but you don't have private keys or mnemonic seeds. In bad days, shit happens.
Topic: 'Frozen' Bitcoin Tied to Canadian Protests Lands at Coinbase, Crypto.Com - page 2. (Read 246 times)
February 23, 2022, 07:29:09 AM
February 23, 2022, 07:05:34 AM
Anyone behind the idea of raising funds in this way is obviously not aware that he had to completely bypass CEX in order for the whole thing to succeed to some extent. But there is still the problem of how some protesters will convert crypto -> fiat, especially if fiat withdraws to its bank account - which may mean that the bank may freeze that account.
This has already been discussed in another thread, the only solution is that there are more vendors that accept BTC directly, and then the thing would be pretty simple. Donors send BTC to a dedicated non-custodial crypto wallet, and then the guardian forwards donations to non-custodial crypto wallets of protesters who use these funds to pay directly for what they need. That means throwing banks and CEX out of the equation completely.
This has already been discussed in another thread, the only solution is that there are more vendors that accept BTC directly, and then the thing would be pretty simple. Donors send BTC to a dedicated non-custodial crypto wallet, and then the guardian forwards donations to non-custodial crypto wallets of protesters who use these funds to pay directly for what they need. That means throwing banks and CEX out of the equation completely.
February 23, 2022, 05:52:44 AM
My question would be:
Which service is worst? crypto.com or coinbase
Because if a government from another country comes to a U.S based company like coinbase or an outside entity such as crypto.com (not certain where they operate out of.. Hong Kong?) and demand them to give up the identities of it's customer base, then this would be a breach of some sort of law.
Now I know the IRS can and has does this to coinbase in the past but this is an outsider such as the Canadian government who is basically policing outside their jurisdiction.
And to me that is acting out of their own boundaries.
Which service is worst? crypto.com or coinbase
Because if a government from another country comes to a U.S based company like coinbase or an outside entity such as crypto.com (not certain where they operate out of.. Hong Kong?) and demand them to give up the identities of it's customer base, then this would be a breach of some sort of law.
Now I know the IRS can and has does this to coinbase in the past but this is an outsider such as the Canadian government who is basically policing outside their jurisdiction.
And to me that is acting out of their own boundaries.
February 23, 2022, 03:41:42 AM
In any case, if a protestor came in bitcointalk to ask everyone how to be more anonymous and how to avoid KYC, would you teach him?
Of course I would and I am certain that many of the best members here would do the same. This is a situation where Bitcoin couldn't be more helpful with the Canadian government cracking down on every thing related to the protestors in such a fascist way.It is definitely a shame that a lot of Cryptocurrency newbies believe Bitcoin gives you default privacy and anonymity. What is the chance they sold the Bitcoin over the counter and the coins were under ownership of someone else already when they arrived on Coinbase or Crypto.com?
-
Regards,
PrivacyG
February 23, 2022, 03:09:34 AM
If a protestor came to me and ask how to be more anonymous, I think I will share with him information.
He's trying to protect his assets and defend financial freedom, why not help him?
He's trying to protect his assets and defend financial freedom, why not help him?
February 23, 2022, 12:50:06 AM
It just shows us how bad these third party services are...and that they are no different to any other regulated financial organization. We saw the same thing happening when people bypassed the Fiat financial system to do transactions on the website, Backpage.com and also recently with PornHub.com.
The regulated (centralized) financial system is as toxic to Crypto currencies ...than any government can be. These governments use the Fiat financial system to force their agenda.
The average Crypto user do not know how to keep their transactions pseudo anonymous and they use regulated (centralized) services, because it is the on-ramp/off-ramp to the Fiat system.
The regulated (centralized) financial system is as toxic to Crypto currencies ...than any government can be. These governments use the Fiat financial system to force their agenda.
The average Crypto user do not know how to keep their transactions pseudo anonymous and they use regulated (centralized) services, because it is the on-ramp/off-ramp to the Fiat system.
February 23, 2022, 12:01:25 AM
i posted about some of that before on the 17th
seemed its this
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qmxpqdlfe4fmdge9yasxwt4ujuj288mnzwcp8rr
and
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qqw8mvxncl7uhehfw97er93k4zchhkvd87swk97
moved on the 22nd
also on the 20th
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1q070ahaljg4fwewr3jz6c3p2tgygw3verxsv90s
also moved on the 21st
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1q2vq9sw54nkkzu84umrux04lwxav6ctxmzgx0rg
infact.. on the 17th. only 7 out of 100 allotments of the 0.14 allotments moved..
infact.. on the 17th. only 7 out of 100 allotments of the 0.004 allotments moved..
now its 31.. out of 100 allotments of 0.14 moved..
now its 32.. out of 100 allotments of 0.004 moved..
meaning 49 out of 200 allotments moved after the 17th
seems the fund raiser multisig keyholders are moving funds.. .. and no its not individual 'truckers' .
9 hours ago. the 'unknown multisig keyholders'
consolidated 14.679btc to this address:
bc1q42t9dhpgc6du9pjmdkvxvmke82fl34jadqaxtq
then 10 minutes later split it up into 101 addresses.. where
it moved
100 addresses of amounts of 0.004
~7 addresses of 0.004 were (since spent)
93 addresses of amounts of 0.004(remain unspent at time of post)
14.279 remaining which which went to:
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447
it then 10 minutes later
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447
split up into 101 addresses.. where
1 address of 0.279
bc1qflmltfkkyjd07x6cjq7l62a3wc23z8nntav4zp
100 addresses of amounts of 0.14
where by
~7 of the 100 addresses of 0.14 and the ~7 of the previous splits of 0.004 in last paragraph consolidated into little groups
examples like:
3NNYf4XvBufLNrWMaA19V6pxG3WqSvP68K - 0.144
which appears to be coinbase deposit address
then half a dozen 0.144 - unspent(as time of posting)
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qmxpqdlfe4fmdge9yasxwt4ujuj288mnzwcp8rr
bc1qs63v2vznlx0fq9te2jq85ft0wrnx0hplluhmje
bc1qxagk2r5xzszz528e5l6dvmptca6c09pk6ckukq
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qfjns4tjz39leydh4urtlc8fx7z69mxumdmz9q7
bc1qqw8mvxncl7uhehfw97er93k4zchhkvd87swk97
leaving 13btc unspent in ~ in 93 addresses of 0.14 and 93 addresses of 0.004
consolidated 14.679btc to this address:
bc1q42t9dhpgc6du9pjmdkvxvmke82fl34jadqaxtq
then 10 minutes later split it up into 101 addresses.. where
it moved
100 addresses of amounts of 0.004
~7 addresses of 0.004 were (since spent)
93 addresses of amounts of 0.004(remain unspent at time of post)
14.279 remaining which which went to:
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447
it then 10 minutes later
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447
split up into 101 addresses.. where
1 address of 0.279
bc1qflmltfkkyjd07x6cjq7l62a3wc23z8nntav4zp
100 addresses of amounts of 0.14
where by
~7 of the 100 addresses of 0.14 and the ~7 of the previous splits of 0.004 in last paragraph consolidated into little groups
examples like:
3NNYf4XvBufLNrWMaA19V6pxG3WqSvP68K - 0.144
which appears to be coinbase deposit address
then half a dozen 0.144 - unspent(as time of posting)
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qmxpqdlfe4fmdge9yasxwt4ujuj288mnzwcp8rr
bc1qs63v2vznlx0fq9te2jq85ft0wrnx0hplluhmje
bc1qxagk2r5xzszz528e5l6dvmptca6c09pk6ckukq
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qfjns4tjz39leydh4urtlc8fx7z69mxumdmz9q7
bc1qqw8mvxncl7uhehfw97er93k4zchhkvd87swk97
leaving 13btc unspent in ~ in 93 addresses of 0.14 and 93 addresses of 0.004
seemed its this
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qmxpqdlfe4fmdge9yasxwt4ujuj288mnzwcp8rr
and
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qqw8mvxncl7uhehfw97er93k4zchhkvd87swk97
moved on the 22nd
also on the 20th
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1q070ahaljg4fwewr3jz6c3p2tgygw3verxsv90s
also moved on the 21st
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1q2vq9sw54nkkzu84umrux04lwxav6ctxmzgx0rg
infact.. on the 17th. only 7 out of 100 allotments of the 0.14 allotments moved..
infact.. on the 17th. only 7 out of 100 allotments of the 0.004 allotments moved..
now its 31.. out of 100 allotments of 0.14 moved..
now its 32.. out of 100 allotments of 0.004 moved..
meaning 49 out of 200 allotments moved after the 17th
seems the fund raiser multisig keyholders are moving funds.. .. and no its not individual 'truckers' .
February 22, 2022, 11:39:53 PM
It appears that that these protestors should be given step by step instructions on what software they should be using and be guided on what other cryptocoins are available to perform safer and more anonymous transactions. They are only being a danger to themselves and they will only waste those donations.
In any case, if a protestor came in bitcointalk to ask everyone how to be more anonymous and how to avoid KYC, would you teach him?
The situation shows the limitations of a government’s ability to thwart transactions on decentralized systems – but also the limitations of those systems to circumvent such sanctions.
On Feb. 16, Canadian police ordered that all regulated financial firms stop facilitating transactions for 34 wallets associated with the protestors (30 were bitcoin wallets and the rest held other cryptocurrencies). The police sent a letter to a number of banks and crypto exchanges, Canada’s The Globe and Mail reported, but didn’t specify which ones received the warning.
That night, at least some of the funds were distributed among unidentified parties and later sent to centralized exchanges Coinbase and Crypto.com, blockchain data shows. An address connected to the Tallycoin fundraising address, which the truckers had used to accumulate funds, sent 14.28 BTC to 101 addresses in even fractions of 0.14 BTC each.
On Feb. 17, in a separate legal fight brought by locals affected by the protest, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that nine crypto platforms freeze accounts associated with 120 cryptocurrency addresses belonging to the movement. This means that if those platforms received funds from the listed addresses they should prevent any further movement of them. The list of addresses was provided via a Mareva injunction – a form of court-provided asset freezing.
The sending address for the Feb. 16 transaction was mentioned in the Mareva injunction, but not in the earlier list from the Canadian police.
On Feb. 17 and 18, four of the addresses on the Mareva injunction list sent 0.14 each BTC to Coinbase (1, 2) and Crypto.com (1, 2), either directly or via several intermediary addresses, according to data from the Crystal Blockchain analytics system. (Crystal confirmed CoinDesk’s findings.). It’s unclear whether users managed to sell the funds for fiat at these platforms.
Coinbase’s director of global policy communications, Ian Plunkett, said the firm has “nothing to share on specific transactions and accounts for obvious reasons,” and referred CoinDesk to a blog post by the exchange’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, on its rules for removing user accounts.
Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/02/22/frozen-bitcoin-tied-to-canadian-protests-lands-at-coinbase-cryptocom/
In any case, if a protestor came in bitcointalk to ask everyone how to be more anonymous and how to avoid KYC, would you teach him?
The situation shows the limitations of a government’s ability to thwart transactions on decentralized systems – but also the limitations of those systems to circumvent such sanctions.
On Feb. 16, Canadian police ordered that all regulated financial firms stop facilitating transactions for 34 wallets associated with the protestors (30 were bitcoin wallets and the rest held other cryptocurrencies). The police sent a letter to a number of banks and crypto exchanges, Canada’s The Globe and Mail reported, but didn’t specify which ones received the warning.
That night, at least some of the funds were distributed among unidentified parties and later sent to centralized exchanges Coinbase and Crypto.com, blockchain data shows. An address connected to the Tallycoin fundraising address, which the truckers had used to accumulate funds, sent 14.28 BTC to 101 addresses in even fractions of 0.14 BTC each.
On Feb. 17, in a separate legal fight brought by locals affected by the protest, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that nine crypto platforms freeze accounts associated with 120 cryptocurrency addresses belonging to the movement. This means that if those platforms received funds from the listed addresses they should prevent any further movement of them. The list of addresses was provided via a Mareva injunction – a form of court-provided asset freezing.
The sending address for the Feb. 16 transaction was mentioned in the Mareva injunction, but not in the earlier list from the Canadian police.
On Feb. 17 and 18, four of the addresses on the Mareva injunction list sent 0.14 each BTC to Coinbase (1, 2) and Crypto.com (1, 2), either directly or via several intermediary addresses, according to data from the Crystal Blockchain analytics system. (Crystal confirmed CoinDesk’s findings.). It’s unclear whether users managed to sell the funds for fiat at these platforms.
Coinbase’s director of global policy communications, Ian Plunkett, said the firm has “nothing to share on specific transactions and accounts for obvious reasons,” and referred CoinDesk to a blog post by the exchange’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, on its rules for removing user accounts.
Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/02/22/frozen-bitcoin-tied-to-canadian-protests-lands-at-coinbase-cryptocom/
Jump to: