Topic: sdasdasd (Read 4059 times)

I agree. I think that forcing you to give information as to how to find BTC that you own would likely b considered to be forcing you to incriminate yourself which cannot be done. Additionally it would be very difficult to for the courts to know for sure if you are disclosing all of your holdings as there are many addresses that have not had any sent TX in a long time.

Another excellent idea. Never give up anything to the giverment.

If you are that  concerned about this, you should be saving your coins on cold storage away from your residence.   Are you really worried about your house being raided?

Then have a throw away account with small amount of BTC in it or tell them to just fuck off. I would do the later and take the free room and board.

You would still have 5th amendment issues in this case as if there was incriminating evidence against you on there, you would be forced to provide evidence against yourself.

paper wallet is better for a long term point of view, even with encryption you are forced to reveal it, or they arrest you

Claim insanity. That works for many other things too.

I don't think a court can actually compel you to give up this kind of information. If you had to give up this information then you could potentially be implicated in a crime. The 5th amendment protects you from being forced to do this. 

Here's an idea: Encrypt your wallet or public/private keys using RAR or Truecrypt (last working version is 7.1a) or AESCrypt, using a Yubikey static password that is 64 characters long.

Claim you lost the Yubikey and you don't have a backup, or it got destroyed (crushed, burned and melted by thermite, lost at sea.)

There's a story about how a guy buried his rifle and ammo for several years in the woods.

The important thing is that you must have prepared for this to happen, so you already have all the possible excuses and alibis worked out, and your actual back up is stored somewhere no one else can get.

People have been memorized pi to thousands of digits. I'm sure you could do the same if you just put your mind to it.

If not, there are many places to hide your private keys, or the passphrase to your private keys. Micro SD cards. Small pieces of paper. Dots in a book like your personal copy of Harry Potter or something. The order of the deck of cards.

The possibilities are endless. The resources of law enforcement are not. But don't give them a reason to put you in jail. Don't ask. Don't tell. Concealed means concealed. Always smile. And greet the officers.

Ok, but just for the sake of argument.  What if you "forgot" the password.  I have truly lost access to bitcoins like that in real life.  How could they in principle tell whether you were lying or not?

I think that Ross was trying to avoid connecting to SR while having any connection to his ISP at all. If the FBI were to somehow execute a 0 day attack on him then they would only be able to see the IP address of the library, but if he was somewhere in private then a 0 day attack would be able to identify him specifically. I think he gave up one security rule in order to prevent a possible other attack against him.

I really don't think he ever predicted that Silk Road was going to be as successful as it was. It appears that the government put a lot of effort and resources into finding out Ross's identity and gathering evidence against him, effort and resources that would likely not be put into trying to convict a small time drug dealer. However all they got was information from simple mistakes that could have been prevented if he had known how much of a wanted person he would become in the future.

I would argue that if Ross had known how successful Silk Road would become, he would likely have created a throwaway email account on TOR to register for that drug forum to post about Silk Road (that the FBI agent found, the one that originally had Ross's gmail account, but was later changed to altoid@altoid). If he had done this then I don't think he would have ever been caught.

That is why you only unlock your wallet when you are in a secure environment, and only for a brief period of time.

A secure environment is relative to your situation. If you are running the FBI's #1 criminal syndicate, with the entire US government and every politician after you, a secure environment is NOT a public library in a major city. In that situation a secure environment is something much more remote where you can be sure you will have enough advanced warning to re-lock or close your wallets. However if you are your average bitcoin user a secure environment is in your home, maybe using an off-line computer if you're very paranoid.

Paper wallets if you use them, need to be stored in a very very secure location that only you and those you absolutely trust know about. This is not your basement or even a security deposit box. Paper wallets are also something that you never ever go back to unless you absolutely need them, they are meant to "store and forget".

Ross broke many of these best practices. A great thing about bitcoin is they can be secured absolutely, but require correct usage by the owner and are susceptible to user error.

This is basically what happened to Ross Ulbright when the FBI arrested him, but instead of paper wallets they used his online account that he was already logged into.

The idea is a good one.
They had previously is how to know the number of your Btc？

Not if you encrypt the private key. bitaddress.org allows for this, and is probably the only way you should create a paper wallet, especially if you are sending copies to family as a backup method.

No, because they can just take the paper wallet and have the bitcoins.

Would a one off use of a computer to generate paper wallets then wiping the hard drive work? Paper wallets would be a lot easier to hide in multiple places.

Well if you have an extremely trusted family member living at another address, and the court and law enforcement would have no reason to connect them to you in whatever questionable thing you're doing, you could give the wallet to them. Then if they take everything from you you'll still have that. I also like the idea about putting a "fake" wallet, with like ten percent, in another wallet and act like you don't want them to have that but then finally cave and give them the ten percent.

Thanks. Yes, I tried to google for some US court decision, but I couldn't find one.

It's disputed and has gone both ways in courts over the past few years. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140626/06532327686/massachusetts-ignores-5th-amendment-says-defendant-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-his-computer.shtml