Topic: Is Buffet right or wrong? (Read 11017 times)

Of course he is right - you should invest in Bank of America and Berkshire Hathaway shares instead!

/sarcasm

Yeah you are astute. Anonymity is very impractical as it currently stands. Thus Bitcoin doesn't really have it.

There are more than one research paper showing it is possible to trace coin ownership. Now if you can correlate that with IP addresses (the researchers didn't have this data, but the NSA does), then you can pinpoint identity and no longer circumstantial.

Every industry had an bubble (or will have sooner or later). Internet , finance, railway. Probably even computer hardware will get one. But there is one thing that connects them all - right now they are still highest dominance.

Buffet runs down BTC and we're on here laffing at around the same time the price starts dropping... i just looked over a report suggesting BTC in a bear phase about to bottom out, looking at graphics of support/resistance...meanwhile that Gox bloke suddenly 'finds' old wallets...

...and ol Buffers is a squillionaire, so probably not too stupid, and must know something about this money market stuff, and how to make it pay...

Your magic NSA database of bitcoin-address-to-identities would be a large collection of circumstantial evidence, not definitive proof of associations to identities.  It could be used as probable cause for search warrants and subpenas, but without collaborating evidence, it is worthless by itself in an actual domestic criminal case.

Likewise, a magic NSA database of ip-address-to-identities is also circumstantial....

All they have is the mac address of my tablet and maybe some geo data.  If that tablet is never discovered by warrant, never registered or otherwise associated with me, it can't be used as evidence linking me to the activity....

You make the claim that "governments can remove your anonymous WiFi Hotspot."  I would like to see a reference to a paper explaining how this is done, or an understandable explanation based on facts.
[/quote]

Perhaps it's just me but I didn't read the reference to be taken literally, but as a common language explanation of anon-internet access, by wifi or whatever, becoming so difficult it may be impractical. Although you are correct, its not impossible, but your university access could make it easier to correlate you with whatever you did. Even if your not directly connected to the devices mac in any way the retailer is. Even if purchased second hand the original owner is, and your purchase probably involved email or other electronic contact a limited number of times that would pop out of the original owners records.  This can be enough for a correlation. Your university puts you in a photo-hot-zone. Run the faces,weighed for proximity based on whats known and suddenly meaningless metadata on each person becomes a frighteningly powerful tool. Sure its beyond the reach of local pd at the moment, but that is changing. I am not trying to make a case for theft, but you would need to somehow access a device, and best if its not reported stolen (which would narrow your location down). Cellular access is good, but shut it off for a period of time before you rx/tx and again after and wait a while before you leave the area. Point being, its kinda impractical.

That first internet bubble was amazing.
You could turn on cable TV every morning and see Yahoo (and other stocks) up +$30, $40, even $50 several days in a row.

If you are referring to the paper "An Analysis of Anonymity in the Bitcoin System " by Fergal Reid & Martin Harrigan,  please note this very key statement in that paper:

Your magic NSA database of bitcoin-address-to-identities would be a large collection of circumstantial evidence, not definitive proof of associations to identities.  It could be used as probable cause for search warrants and subpenas, but without collaborating evidence, it is worthless by itself in an actual domestic criminal case.

Likewise, a magic NSA database of ip-address-to-identities is also circumstantial.   I may pay the bill for my residential internet service, but I allow my friends to use my wi-fi, the logs that associate their device's mac address to activity on my LAN is overwritten within 7 days.  I may be circumstantially suspect of any crimes committed through my residential IP address, but it is not definite proof.

If I were hypothetically motivated to commit some financial crime, I would most likely walk a kilometer to the large state university in my town, connect to the guest wi-fi network covering the entire campus and do my thing.   All they have is the mac address of my tablet and maybe some geo data.  If that tablet is never discovered by warrant, never registered or otherwise associated with me, it can't be used as evidence linking me to the activity.

You make the claim that "governments can remove your anonymous WiFi Hotspot."  I would like to see a reference to a paper explaining how this is done, or an understandable explanation based on facts.

Unless the standards of evidence drastically change in the USA,  I don't see how the government is going to prosecute and march off 10,000 financial criminals to ass-rape prison.  The idea is ludicrous, since there are plenty of financial crimes NOT involving bitcoin committed on Wall Street every day, and I have yet to see an assembly line of prosecutions.

Buffet was right about only two things and they were cheeseburgers in paradise and being wasted away again in margaritaville.....

I didn't get what do you mean by calling bitcoin a modern moneygram?

Their priorities will likely be proportional to your relative wealth, i.e. the Bitcoin millionaires have the most to fear.

The traceable public block chain is a big improvement over cash in their ability to associate and track.

The proportion of the block chain that can be associated with identities is likely to be a super majority. Research has supported this and that research didn't have the data about every IP address association that the NSA does. And the fact that your IP address is almost never obscured (and the governments can remove your anonymous WiFi Hotspot and unregistered, prepaid mobile device options) strongly supports this conclusion. You even admitted that most or all mixers are likely compromised. Decentralized CoinJoin can be DOS-attacked (go to the CoinJoin thread and read the debate I won over Bitcoin core developer gmaxell).

It doesn't matter how many times an idiot tries to say I am idiot or a troll, the astute readers can discern who has their facts coherent.

Well i don't agree entirely with your conclusion-- if the blockchain analysis shows 100% taint
(for example you simply passed coins from A to B to C to D), then the situation would be somewhat
clear, although still not conclusive , as you point out because wallet B COULD be another person...

But yes, obviously, Anonidiot is falling flat in his trolling efforts.  He over-estimated his
own intellect as well as the gullibility of the community.  The IRS can barely keep track
of a fraction of what's going on now, even with all their 1099s and W2s, and only
a portion of blockchain information will ever be able to associated with the parties' identities.

 

amspir proceed in your dream world. I won't wake you up.

If you're doing something really illegal, and you don't want to become a person of interest -- then sure, using a mixer might be a good idea to cover your tracks, especially if the conduit is used more than once.

But if they can't prove you ever had control of address B, and that's the only thing that links you to the crime committed with address C, then I wouldn't worry about the case ever going to trial.

But the original supposition brought up by Hopper/Anonymint is that the omnipresent black magic spy agencies can somehow map all addresses holding bitcoin to individual people and demand payment of stupid tax to compensate those that got ripped off by a hacker or a fraudster is ludicrous.

Amspir, have you seen this (from blockchain.info)

What is taint?
The taint is the percentage of funds received by an address that can be traced back to another address. An example of a taint analysis is: https://blockchain.info/taint/1dice6GV5Rz2iaifPvX7RMjfhaNPC8SXH

I'm saying that if it leaves your address A (attached to your identity) and goes to address B, then leaves address B,
and assuming address B has no other outputs or inputs, it can be reasonable argued that address B was simply
a passthrough address, if you get my drift.

Btw, this is funny:


Indeed, why would I bother to argue with an anti-bitcoin troll who drolls on
for 3000+ posts with the same crappy arguments. lol

I'm not following.  Are you saying that one should be held responsible for further activity of the output of a transaction, after it leaves the receiving address that is not attached to your identity?

Same wallet or not doesn't matter. What matters is the input and outputs to that address.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

That's the point of using a unique private/public key for each address in the transactions.   On the block chain, there's no way to determine if the transactions belong to the same wallet or not (unless they are done from the same non-shared IP, or very close together in time - which would be circumstantial evidence at best)

It's not the same thing, because there is no way to determine where the dollar bill has been in between A and D.
But with the blockchain, you see everything, including if an intermediate wallet (C) was used only for
the purpose of (amateurishly) obfuscating the intended transaction.

Think of the analog of with a cash transaction.   I get a marked $20 bill from the bank. (Wallet A)  I spend it at the store. (Wallet B)  Someone later gets it in change for a hundred (Wallet C), and pays a friend that he owes money to.  (Wallet D) That friend uses it to buy drugs.   Drug dealer gets busted, and find that $20 on him, are they gonna convict you on that?

Sure, if most every $20 that you ever withdrew from the bank is found with the drug dealer, then LE may have some circumstantial evidence that may make you a person of interest.