This could end up being very messy for a lot of members in the forum that participated in their signature campaigns if the FBI and US justice department decide to force forum members to repay all the money they received from Chipmixer as signature campaign income.
I'm not convinced this will be the case, for the exact reason TryNinja explained:
They should first go after Google for receiving money for scam advertising (which happens on a large scale, every single day).
There's also a difference between
knowingly advertising a service that's been deemed illegal, and unknowingly, at least as far as I understand. There's an argument for everyone still wearing the signature to now remove it for this reason, but at the same time the signature is no longer advertising an "illegal service" - because the website is no longer operational. So is kind of irrelevant either way imo.
More relevant though imo, a particularly strange part of the
court documents highlights how far the reach of warrants to different services extended (or records provided) by the likes of; Google, Yahoo, Protonmail, Paypal, Binance, Dropbox, Apple, LinkedIn,, Twitter, Reddit, Hetzner, DigitalOcean... basically
everyone and anything to do with the inveestigation, but bitcointalk wasn't referenced as included?
At least it's not referenced that bitcointalk provided information or received a warrant. I understand when referencing the "ChipMixer persona" - as it's reasonable to assume ChipMixer profiles would represent the ChipMixer service based on public posts - but when in reference to "hotpassion" that is accused of being the suspect's alt, there was apparently no information provided or warrant used? Would they not request information in order to double check IP addresses further, with hotpassion and/or ChipMixer profile? Maybe they did and the IP's didn't match their narrative so weren't used as evidence? Just a theory at least.
This is one part of the investigation I can't get my head around. Either bitcointalk was an exception to the rule, and was one of the few (or only) websites that didn't didn't provide records or receive a warrant, or otherwise they didn't use evidence of it (ie reference it) as it wasn't useful/accurate to their investigation. As otherwise worst case scenario there is an ongoing investigation to do with bitcointalk and chipmixer, so they didn't want to use any of the evidence in the documents - as would then have to reference the records/warrant provided - and tip users off. I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist here, but it's super weird imo.
Ideally theymos could clarify whether any US agencies requested information, or if any was provided. Because if he can't, then it'd be an argument for bitcointalk using a
canary in future.