Police people, not the money they use.
+1
Money is money. The people who think money has an agenda or intention in itself are the ones against Bitcoin.
+1 for both of them
Topic: The problem of stolen coins - page 4. (Read 8961 times)
+1
Money is money. The people who think money has an agenda or intention in itself are the ones against Bitcoin.
+1 for both of them
I think it is inevitable we will end up verifying that bitcoins did not came through dirty transations on every occassion. With paper money this isn't easily possible, with bitcoin yes by its very nature. Especially when governments start recognizing it as money.
The question is, where do we get this list of tainted addresses from? Is it possible to avoid having some central authority to maintain it?
The question is, where do we get this list of tainted addresses from? Is it possible to avoid having some central authority to maintain it?
Money is only money and Bitcoins only Bitcoins.
Online wallets are a security risk and Bitcoins wouldn´t be stolen when they would stored offline.
But a lot of people want to speculate with Bitcoins or want use the comfortability of online wallets but the price of this comfortability is a higher security risk.
I mean that Bitcoin isn´t made for online wallets.
To decrease the risk of stolen Bitcoins reduce the amount of them in online wallets (exchanges) and don´t speculate. ;-)
Then I have a idea, what would happen if there was a black list of stolen addresses which could be blocked in the Bitcoinclient or would be better sent back to the stolen address automatically?
But otherwise this black list could be misused and the effort to validate the list is very high because everybody could say that Bitcoins were stolen.
But I would prefer encrypted offline wallets with "smaller" online wallets for the daily payments.
Online wallets are a security risk and Bitcoins wouldn´t be stolen when they would stored offline.
But a lot of people want to speculate with Bitcoins or want use the comfortability of online wallets but the price of this comfortability is a higher security risk.
I mean that Bitcoin isn´t made for online wallets.
To decrease the risk of stolen Bitcoins reduce the amount of them in online wallets (exchanges) and don´t speculate. ;-)
Then I have a idea, what would happen if there was a black list of stolen addresses which could be blocked in the Bitcoinclient or would be better sent back to the stolen address automatically?
But otherwise this black list could be misused and the effort to validate the list is very high because everybody could say that Bitcoins were stolen.
But I would prefer encrypted offline wallets with "smaller" online wallets for the daily payments.
That story about the bricks isn't the issue at all. If the stolen coins randomly show up with a third party and you have full knowledge and power to give them back to the rightful owner then fine. But what will actually happen is that goods or services will be traded for the coins possibly multiple times and instead of the person with faulty security taking the loss it will be a random bitcoin user. That makes no sense, it just moves the loss from those with weakest security to bitcoin users at large.
If someone stole dollar bills that were marked - police will use that to track him down and also, I am not a lawyer but, I think that if you know that these particular bills were stolen - then accepting them would mean complicity wouldn't it?
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
There was a case where someone robbed a armored truck that picks up money from businesses. They messed up somehow and lost some of the bricks of cash near a relatively poor neighborhood. The police swarmed in that place to collect the stolen cash. Usually if a person find something that does not belong to them, then they have to report it to the police and the rightful owner has some amount of time to claim it. (here is a question, would you rather have an ounce of gold or an ounce of $100 bills?)
If I buy some items from someone that that person got by stealing it, then if those items were tracked backed to me the police would confiscate them. They can do this 2 ways. One it is not my property and another person is claiming it is theirs. The courts will decide. Second, it is evidence of a crime being committed. This is part of the liability of being in the pawn shop business. When a person pawns an item or sells it to the pawn shop, the pawn shop business has to record the item. That record goes to the police, so that in case a stolen item is reported and matches the pawn record, that item can be given back to the victim.
The problem with money is that it can be stolen. Luckily the next bitcoin will take ease of theft into account. It is interesting in the bitcoin white paper that Satoshi was more interested in theft by chargebacks and not other forms of theft.
I think the hard part is providing evidence that the coins were indeed stolen. How bitcoinica could now prove that the transactions were done illegaly?
How could Bitcoinica prove they were the original owners of the coins?
If someone stole dollar bills that were marked - police will use that to track him down and also, I am not a lawyer but, I think that if you know that these particular bills were stolen - then accepting them would mean complicity wouldn't it?
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
There was a case where someone robbed a armored truck that picks up money from businesses. They messed up somehow and lost some of the bricks of cash near a relatively poor neighborhood. The police swarmed in that place to collect the stolen cash. Usually if a person find something that does not belong to them, then they have to report it to the police and the rightful owner has some amount of time to claim it. (here is a question, would you rather have an ounce of gold or an ounce of $100 bills?)
If I buy some items from someone that that person got by stealing it, then if those items were tracked backed to me the police would confiscate them. They can do this 2 ways. One it is not my property and another person is claiming it is theirs. The courts will decide. Second, it is evidence of a crime being committed. This is part of the liability of being in the pawn shop business. When a person pawns an item or sells it to the pawn shop, the pawn shop business has to record the item. That record goes to the police, so that in case a stolen item is reported and matches the pawn record, that item can be given back to the victim.
The problem with money is that it can be stolen. Luckily the next bitcoin will take ease of theft into account. It is interesting in the bitcoin white paper that Satoshi was more interested in theft by chargebacks and not other forms of theft.
I think the hard part is providing evidence that the coins were indeed stolen. How bitcoinica could now prove that the transactions were done illegaly?
Seems fairly obvious to me you cant go around freezing or confiscating coins unless it is proven that the given person is the thief. Unlike bitcoins, dollars are centrally controlled and managed as well as being indivisible, so I don't think bitcoins and dollars are a good parallel for comparison. Sounds like a nightmare with random thefts all over and coins being split and sent to multiple people (1 stolen bitcoin over time could lead to multiple people with "dirty" coin fractions in their possession, or do I have that wrong?) to have some entities haphazardly choose which coins they'll let you keep and which will be frozen or sent back to previous owners. Plus you don't even need to take the coins away from current owner to assist in tracking the transactions back through the blockchain to find the original thief I believe.
I don't see any reason to treat the stolen coins any different than others. On the other hand I see seemingly random (from the coin owners perspective) coin confiscation as something that could drastically undermine users trust in bitcoins altogether and destroy any chance of growth (there are plenty of already present hurdles in place as it is).
If I started more actively engaging in commerce with bitcoins only to have a portion confiscated at some point due to no wrong doing on my part, I'd likely stop or do less commerce in bitcoins. That's not a good model for the future of bitcoin in my opinion.
People know the security risks involved in storing bitcoins and have some control in mitigating those risks as well as the chance to learn from mistakes when thefts do occur. Do the people that find themselves in possession of laundered stolen coins have the same opportunity to protect themselves?
I don't see any reason to treat the stolen coins any different than others. On the other hand I see seemingly random (from the coin owners perspective) coin confiscation as something that could drastically undermine users trust in bitcoins altogether and destroy any chance of growth (there are plenty of already present hurdles in place as it is).
If I started more actively engaging in commerce with bitcoins only to have a portion confiscated at some point due to no wrong doing on my part, I'd likely stop or do less commerce in bitcoins. That's not a good model for the future of bitcoin in my opinion.
People know the security risks involved in storing bitcoins and have some control in mitigating those risks as well as the chance to learn from mistakes when thefts do occur. Do the people that find themselves in possession of laundered stolen coins have the same opportunity to protect themselves?
Well it's starting, MtGox froze someones account, and is questioning them over 7 BTC.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.780362
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.780362
Not for the first time. But I talked to some of the people who have been victim to this previously, as I mentioned on the other thread. Their coins were not confiscated.
I don't think they have a choice.
They can't resell stolen goods.
This is a very interesting new development in the young history of Bitcoin.
They can't resell stolen goods.
This is a very interesting new development in the young history of Bitcoin.
Well it's starting, MtGox froze someones account, and is questioning them over 7 BTC.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.780362
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.780362
If someone stole dollar bills that were marked - police will use that to track him down and also, I am not a lawyer but, I think that if you know that these particular bills were stolen - then accepting them would mean complicity wouldn't it?
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
I agree that we have to treat the bitcoins as cleared once they go through a few transations - this looks like the only logical conclusion - but I think at least the main exchanges need to make some declaration in this matter. This of course means that the thieves now need to make some transfers from the original accounts to their other accounts. Their current problem is that it is all public and people can register the IP addresses that are used to announce the new transactions, but I guess they'll use TOR for this. Another thing is that the miners can refuse registering these transactions - but this would also work only on a very short term - eventually someone will register them.
There was a case where someone robbed a armored truck that picks up money from businesses. They messed up somehow and lost some of the bricks of cash near a relatively poor neighborhood. The police swarmed in that place to collect the stolen cash. Usually if a person find something that does not belong to them, then they have to report it to the police and the rightful owner has some amount of time to claim it. (here is a question, would you rather have an ounce of gold or an ounce of $100 bills?)
If I buy some items from someone that that person got by stealing it, then if those items were tracked backed to me the police would confiscate them. They can do this 2 ways. One it is not my property and another person is claiming it is theirs. The courts will decide. Second, it is evidence of a crime being committed. This is part of the liability of being in the pawn shop business. When a person pawns an item or sells it to the pawn shop, the pawn shop business has to record the item. That record goes to the police, so that in case a stolen item is reported and matches the pawn record, that item can be given back to the victim.
The problem with money is that it can be stolen. Luckily the next bitcoin will take ease of theft into account. It is interesting in the bitcoin white paper that Satoshi was more interested in theft by chargebacks and not other forms of theft.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Police people, not the money they use.
+1
Money is money. The people who think money has an agenda or intention in itself are the ones against Bitcoin.
Police people, not the money they use.
Send the stolen coins here 1Aiq9FYv12GQjM9LeBHoNq9c3FfFaA4GTA to get back the same amount without bad history.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
It is OK to try to trace the stolen BTC back to the thieves
.
But I don't think an embargo against the stolen coins is good. It would make using Bitcoins generally a lot more troublesome and it would affect the small-time users more because they wouldn't know how to check for stolen coins.
.
But I don't think an embargo against the stolen coins is good. It would make using Bitcoins generally a lot more troublesome and it would affect the small-time users more because they wouldn't know how to check for stolen coins.
It would also successfully be controlling bitcoins, which we vow not to do (by creating it in the first place) even at the risk of supporting terrorism, rape, child abuse, murder, drug and weapon trade, genocide, etc.
Money is money. The people who think it's more than just money are on the other side.
It is OK to try to trace the stolen BTC back to the thieves
.
But I don't think an embargo against the stolen coins is good. It would make using Bitcoins generally a lot more troublesome and it would affect the small-time users more because they wouldn't know how to check for stolen coins.
.
But I don't think an embargo against the stolen coins is good. It would make using Bitcoins generally a lot more troublesome and it would affect the small-time users more because they wouldn't know how to check for stolen coins.
Even if you don't care about what is 'right' any exchange/wallet that appears to randomly take users deposits on claims that they came from a dirty source is going to go out of business.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
Well - the question is if bitcoin is usable. If the stolen bitcoins were treated as stolen property - then I think bitcoinica can request anyone to return them back if they locate that anyone.
Do you think the same on dollars?
Let's say I videotape a break in and make sure to shoot every serial number of every bill they steal. Then 6 months later you get these same papers direct from a bank in exchange for your paycheck and I present the video.
Forcing you to give the dollars once sucks, but if it is the general practice people won't risk working for a paycheck or using a bank.
Even if you don't care about what is 'right' any exchange/wallet that appears to randomly take users deposits on claims that they came from a dirty source is going to go out of business.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
Well - the question is if bitcoin is usable. If the stolen bitcoins were treated as stolen property - then I think bitcoinica can request anyone to return them back if they locate that anyone.
Even if you don't care about what is 'right' any exchange/wallet that appears to randomly take users deposits on claims that they came from a dirty source is going to go out of business.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
If taking the coins was standard practice Bitcoin would be unusable. Even subscribing to a service that tells you if coins are known to be dirty doesn't help because thieves will turn them over before anyone gets a report in many cases.
At the least it's a slippery slope. I can understand blocking them directly from the wallet etc but no one smart enough to get to them is dumb enough to send them right to an exchange.
You're going to run in to issues if they're spent in a legit way IE:
1) someone steals 43k BTC from Bitcoinica
2) They buy a new Tesla for 15k BTC (Elon taking Bitcoin yet?)
3) The guy who sold the car deposits the BTC in an exchange
4) The exchange returns the coins to Bitcoinica.
Or something far simpler: someone buys 500 BTC OTC and then finds out they're stolen and can't unload them / exchange returns them etc.
Blocking them is one thing, that doesn't really hurt, taking them and returning them to the original owner seems to be crossing the line but is going to be up to the exchange.
Another question is what would the authorities like to do. As much as I'd like to see the rightful owner get their BTC returned it doesn't seem right if the government stepped in and started taking it from people who hadn't committed a crime. I'm sure if you went through the cash in my wallet a portion was used for something illegal at one point before it reached me. With everyone talking about how anonymous Bitcoin is this is one point where it can't compete with cash.
-Jered
You're going to run in to issues if they're spent in a legit way IE:
1) someone steals 43k BTC from Bitcoinica
2) They buy a new Tesla for 15k BTC (Elon taking Bitcoin yet?)
3) The guy who sold the car deposits the BTC in an exchange
4) The exchange returns the coins to Bitcoinica.
Or something far simpler: someone buys 500 BTC OTC and then finds out they're stolen and can't unload them / exchange returns them etc.
Blocking them is one thing, that doesn't really hurt, taking them and returning them to the original owner seems to be crossing the line but is going to be up to the exchange.
Another question is what would the authorities like to do. As much as I'd like to see the rightful owner get their BTC returned it doesn't seem right if the government stepped in and started taking it from people who hadn't committed a crime. I'm sure if you went through the cash in my wallet a portion was used for something illegal at one point before it reached me. With everyone talking about how anonymous Bitcoin is this is one point where it can't compete with cash.
-Jered
Jump to: