Topic: So you think your anonymous do you? (Read 2151 times)

Only an idiot would fail at being anonymous on the internet. The damn fool must have send a previously used address or tied the address to his wallet somehow.

He should have sent the money to instawallet, then to a poker site, then to another online wallet, then to bitcoinfog.

exactly, haha

You've provided neither clarity nor support.  You've muddied the waters with some ridiculous speculation that bears no relation to the facts.

In fact, your article is so spectacularly stupid, I'm just going to take five minutes here out of my busy day to point out some more stupidity contained therein:


This is not even how Bitcoin works.  Miners don't verify addresses when coins are sent to them.  There are 2^160 Bitcoin addresses.  What you're suggesting isn't even theoretically possible.

Besides, this is like arguing that the postal service is "agreeing that an address is available to receive drugs from Silk Road in furtherance of drug trafficking."  Is the USPS being investigated for conspiracy?  It's so stupid, it makes my head hurt.


You don't even know what commerce means.  What kind of a law student are you?  Don't you have a professor you can ask?


The claim is not that Bitcoin affects commerce.  The claim is that extortion affects commerce.  You can't seem to keep separate, in your mind, the concepts of voluntary trade via Bitcoin and the crime of extortion which is purportedly the subject of this investigation.

Regardless, the basic assertion here, that anything which affects commerce is subject to Federal regulation, is patently absurd.  Cows farting in Africa can affect commerce.  The Constitution grants the power to regulate actual interstate commerce, not everything on Earth.



How do you claim to know anything at all about this case, and miss the completely obvious assertion right there on Pastebin that the extortionist worked with others?


Is that your real motive, here, to solicit "support" for your "organization"?  As an aspiring lawyer, is your article just an attempt to drum up business?

If you really think that "advocating" for Bitcoin means advocating for Bitcoin to be regulated, why don't you just come out and admit that you are, in fact, an enemy of what Bitcoin stands for?


Bull Shit

Listen, I'm not pulling any punches here, because I've seen far too many jackasses show up on these forums pretending to want to help Bitcoin, only to turn out to be scammers.  From Matthew Wright, to Pirate aka Trendon Shavers, they've all been obvious shysters from day one.  And you're one of them.

So, from now on, you're all getting called out.  And if your response to that is to abandon this forum, fantastic.

It's dubious you're qualified to explain "potential legal outcomes", and it seems to me on the face you fail to do anything useful in that line. A quote to illustrate:


That last question is plain stupid, on the face of it. For one, it is constructed on a mistaken presupposition of how the justice system works. Anything whatsoever can at any point be "implicated" into anything else. The question of whether something "can" be implicated is stupid on its face, akin to asking if it "can be sued". Yes, it can. Anything can be sued, and anything can be implicated.

Now, if you really meant to ask whether it is likely for it to be implicated, or whether it is reasonable for it to be implicated, you've done a piss poor job of it by replacing those words with the word "can", because words have specific meanings (as you may be aware).

You say "typically". This word implies that you are working with a large set, and are comparing the case at hand to that large set. Specifically, how many cases involving conspiracy have you been personally involved in, either as a litigant on the defense or prosecution side, as a judge, court clerk, paralegal or in any other direct capacity? How many cases involving conspiracy have you, as an unrelated third party, fully read and understood?

If indeed you used the word "typically" to mean "as I surmise from watching TV" then you have again done a piss-poor job.

It is in fact the case that conspiracy is almost always alleged by the government whether or not anything remotely like what the common usage of that word typically implies has in fact occurred, mostly as a means to circumvent due process, as this much more qualified individual rightly points out.


So, yes, you are in general doing a piss-poor job of it. This is because you are both ignorant and pretentious, and little shitfits like the above aren't helping you at all in overcoming these limitations.

 .  Nice analogy.

My only issue with your article is that it implies the SEC has no interest in Bitcoin, when the SEC is known to be investigating pirate's scam and that may ultimately lead to the SEC taking a stance on Bitcoin investment schemes.

IDK, you might be right, but that's what my gut tells me.
I mean the romney thing was a very specifc threat to them, with a potential publicity disaster if it would get out of hand. Silk road might just be a minor inconvenience.
Think of this analogy: If you stick somebody the finger from across the street or walk over to them and tell them "You know what fuck you." What would make it more likely to get punched in the face?

Silk Road is the Trollololol of highest level and it is still alive for 1.5 years! Does DEA and FBI have not the best possibilities and motivation to take it down?

Failure and failure again. If he trolled someone else he still be caught. If done properly he would remain anonymous.

Somebody is working on it currently. But that's besides the point.

It's trying to troll people far too wide up in the hierarchy without realizing the implications.
Yes of course this is also a technological failure but there is a difference of minding your own business and kicking a wasp nest.

It depends how knowledgeable and careful people are when trying to stay anonymous. KnightMB made few large mistakes

Next time consult with me when going to extort presidential candidate I may ask few bitcoins but at least you will not end picking up soap in prison shower!

Well, last time I checked, Silk Road hadn't been shut down.

So yeah, one can be anonymous on internet.

No... it it was too recently purchased they might be able to trace it.

Use an old USB stick, but write random 0's and 1's to it 10 times.

So bitcoin anonymity rule #1, use a new USB stick?   

Everyone will walk away from this story, and this article specifically, with totally different opinions, and I fully respect yours. In analyzing this story I attempted to remain true to my organizations public purpose, that being "To endeavor to provide clarity and support on legal issues related to cryptocurrencies to both existent and future cryptocurrencies, as well as to the legal community at large". Further our public mission statement is "...to advocate for a clear regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies." If I have failed on either of those fronts, no one is forcing you to support my organization.

There have been no charges filed in the Michael Brown investigation.

I don't see how explaining potential legal outcomes makes me a wolf in sheep's clothing. Responding to posts like this is a massive waste of time. I am putting forth a genuine effort to legitimize Bitcoin, only to defend myself against wholly baseless attacks. Thanks benjamindees, you have once again successfully demonstrated the abhorrent level of discourse that is all too common on this forum.

Oh it's entirely true, anyone can figure out who you are if they have hacking knowledge and a lot of time.

This is priceless.

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/petraeus-surveillance-state-fbi?cat=commentisfree&type=article

He's sitting on 3 million worth of BTC yet his donation page claims he barely scrapes out a living for himself

This article is horribly retarded.  "Matthew Elias, Director and Founder of the Cryptocurrency Legal Advocacy Group" appears to be doing quite a spectacularly shitty job.  Based on his prior posts on this forum, this really comes as no surprise to me.

The "conspiracy" charge is likely based on the claims of the extortionist herself, that she worked with an employee of PWC to obtain the tax returns.

The "racketeering" charge is basically what extortion falls under in Federal law.  It's a catch-all charge because RICO was designed to prosecute mobsters with basically no evidence of direct criminal activity, so it's almost always included.

Once again, I have to reiterate, this "CLAG" and Matthew Elias seem to be a wolf in sheep's clothing for Bitcoin, making ridiculous claims that Bitcoin is a "conspiracy" and that it is subject to Federal regulation as "commerce".

So.... wouldn't that mean if someone demanded cash as payment, the entire world would be breaking the law by accepting this cash not knowing it was stolen? Sigh... I hate these articles that try to say bitcoins are evil and only used for bad when this exact same stuff is happening with cash.

Your anonymous stampeding cantelope.