I’m super not interested in “doing crime” on a permanent public ledger - no matter how good the math is today.
It’s a gamble. A gamble that the zero knowledge proof, implementation, etc. will outlive the statute of limitations for whatever crime I commit. If it’s broken before that, my only hope is that I’m a small fish in a big pond of crime.
I understand that past a certain threshold of crime, the risks of moving large volumes of other assets exceed the risk of a blockchain. But I’m not here to make large scale organized crime more resilient.
I’ll pay cash thank you.
(As a side note, I’m surprised at how many folks use Venmo for this stuff. The social feed is hilarious. Like it’s cool I can see that some dude I haven’t talked to since grade school sent some other dude $45 for weed. Not sure I needed that feature though.)
> A gamble that the zero knowledge proof, implementation, etc. will outlive the statute of limitations for whatever crime I commit.
And that is only for the blockchains which do actually use ZK-proofs. Like, say, David Chaum's upcoming "XX network" chain (FWIW David Chaum is the author of Digicash, predating Bitcoin, and one of the seven papers cited in Bitcoin's whitepaper).
Most blockchains by very far are using a public ledger and zero ZK crypto.
Every elliptic curve signature, used in nearly all cryptocurrencies to transfer funds, is a ZK proof of knowledge of a private key, so most blockchains do use some ZK cryptography.
Monero uses them too of course, the one people actually use, so it's the better example rather than something obscure you're obviously trying to promote
And if that's outlawed I'd pay in cigarettes, ammunition, or my kids marble sets before reaching for Blockchain based currencies when commiting crimes.
There's a TED talk out there where an FBI digital crimes investigator refers to the Bitcoin Blockchain as "prosecution futures" -- they might not know who is behind a specific BTC address today but they have identified the people behind most of the transactions they track over time.
I couldn't find a TED talk from my quick search, but for reference, there is a transcript of a talk at Amherst College [1] that mentions the concept:
Alex Tapscott (at the talk as an Amherst College alumnus, known for being the CEO of a cryptocurrency company and writing a popular book published in 2016 about cryptocurrency): "The FBI started calling Bitcoin prosecution futures, because whenever someone spends it, down the road with enough information they can actually trace it back to who the original spender was, and they were able to reclaim a whole bunch of lost coin."
I searched a bit more to see if an FBI agent or attorney used the term on-the-record, but it looks like the closest source is a New York Times article that quoted lawyers without naming a name [2]: "Hence Bitcoin’s wry new nickname in legal circles: “Prosecution Futures.”
Maybe I'm missing something but since bitcoin is a public ledger and exchanges all have KYC features it seems worse than buying visa gift cards with cash from a privacy perspective. I don't know that much about the crypto space honestly, but it didn't seem to make sense to me it was the go-to currency for criminal transactions.
You can use mixers and the like to obfuscate the address that hits the exchanges from the address that is used for crime. When properly executed the strategy is foolproof unless the mixer you use is a honeypot. The issue is that there's a goodchance all the mixers are honeypots and properly executing the strategy requires an amount of vigilance that is beyond most organized crime groups.
This is automatic acceleration of probable cause. If you’re a state-level actor, mixers are fine. (You have a state behind you.) If you’re just having fun, go for it—it’s neat conceptually. For anyone less, take a lesson from the cartels.
The minute your address interacts as a counterparty to a known mixer you're automatically flagged and everything around your risk profile accelerates dramatically. That wallet is effectively burned and you'll be locked out of using any kind of reputable exchange.
Bitcoin's advantage is worked online for people who are banned from normal online payment mechanisms.
There are other privacy oriented coins that may do better than bitcoin for avoiding tracing (monero?) but the main reason criminals used it is it worked and nobody really cared about drugs, etc.
> don't use too much cash, lest you run afoul of banking regulations or become a victim of civil asset forfeiture
Don’t hold too much cash. That single-handedly neuters the latter. Unless you’re spending $10 to 100k a month, banking regulations won’t give you an issue. (Below, you’re innocuous. Above, you’re big enough to find a bank that gives a fuck.)
That's not a direct quote from an FBI spokesperson and instead just part of the subtitle of this article. I personally wouldn't read that it's "private, and not necessarily anonymous" as it seems likely that the author didn't distinguish so strongly between these things.
To the point of anonymous cash transactions, I strongly suspect there are ways to acquire cash in a way that the bills which are used in a given transaction aren't necessarily traceable to the individual who made the transaction. I've heard mention of such tactics but never tried to put them into practice because I don't care enough (in most cases) to make it more than theory.
and this is exactly why its not. I think we can all agree that the hollywood idea of competent people behind the scenes in positions of power has been proven wrong again and again. Any 4d chess move is the accidental consequence of a move so dumb that it becomes unimaginable to us.
There's no erasure or loss of information in the ledger, as in with cash transactions. It's just obfuscation, so yeah, it can be a treasure trove of forensic information.
Readit News
It’s a gamble. A gamble that the zero knowledge proof, implementation, etc. will outlive the statute of limitations for whatever crime I commit. If it’s broken before that, my only hope is that I’m a small fish in a big pond of crime.
I understand that past a certain threshold of crime, the risks of moving large volumes of other assets exceed the risk of a blockchain. But I’m not here to make large scale organized crime more resilient.
I’ll pay cash thank you.
(As a side note, I’m surprised at how many folks use Venmo for this stuff. The social feed is hilarious. Like it’s cool I can see that some dude I haven’t talked to since grade school sent some other dude $45 for weed. Not sure I needed that feature though.)
And that is only for the blockchains which do actually use ZK-proofs. Like, say, David Chaum's upcoming "XX network" chain (FWIW David Chaum is the author of Digicash, predating Bitcoin, and one of the seven papers cited in Bitcoin's whitepaper).
Most blockchains by very far are using a public ledger and zero ZK crypto.
And if that's outlawed I'd pay in cigarettes, ammunition, or my kids marble sets before reaching for Blockchain based currencies when commiting crimes.
Sadly looks like it stopped updating.
Alex Tapscott (at the talk as an Amherst College alumnus, known for being the CEO of a cryptocurrency company and writing a popular book published in 2016 about cryptocurrency): "The FBI started calling Bitcoin prosecution futures, because whenever someone spends it, down the road with enough information they can actually trace it back to who the original spender was, and they were able to reclaim a whole bunch of lost coin."
I searched a bit more to see if an FBI agent or attorney used the term on-the-record, but it looks like the closest source is a New York Times article that quoted lawyers without naming a name [2]: "Hence Bitcoin’s wry new nickname in legal circles: “Prosecution Futures.”
[1] https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/learn/amherstreads/pastfeatur...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/business/eagle-scout-idea... ; The MIT Technology Review cited this article with their report that prosecutors have begun to use the term "prosecution futures": https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/02/18/173936/marginall...
This is automatic acceleration of probable cause. If you’re a state-level actor, mixers are fine. (You have a state behind you.) If you’re just having fun, go for it—it’s neat conceptually. For anyone less, take a lesson from the cartels.
Deleted Comment
All that money sloshing around and untaxed.
There are other privacy oriented coins that may do better than bitcoin for avoiding tracing (monero?) but the main reason criminals used it is it worked and nobody really cared about drugs, etc.
Just don't use too much cash, lest you run afoul of banking regulations or become a victim of civil asset forfeiture.
Also interesting that a federal agency would be on board with anonymous monetary transactions.
Don’t hold too much cash. That single-handedly neuters the latter. Unless you’re spending $10 to 100k a month, banking regulations won’t give you an issue. (Below, you’re innocuous. Above, you’re big enough to find a bank that gives a fuck.)
To the point of anonymous cash transactions, I strongly suspect there are ways to acquire cash in a way that the bills which are used in a given transaction aren't necessarily traceable to the individual who made the transaction. I've heard mention of such tactics but never tried to put them into practice because I don't care enough (in most cases) to make it more than theory.
Can read more about it in this book. I'm not sure where to find the definitive account.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/american-exception-empire-and-...
Cool, let's start by putting all government transactions on an open blockchain.
That is an arbitrarily BIG gap.
It’s the same concept as tor, in a way: once you get it out, that’s the nucleation point for tracking.