[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: WAS BITCOIN CREATED BY THIS INTERNATIONAL DRUG DEALER?
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.wired.com/story/was-bit ... ternational-drug-dealer-maybe/
Published: Jul 16, 2019
Author: SHARE SHARE TWEET COMMENT EMAIL AUTHOR:
Post Date: 2019-07-16 08:06:04 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 39464
Comments: 88

THE MESSAGES STARTED arriving on a Sunday afternoon in mid-May. “Just wanted to draw your attention to this,” one began. “Rumors are starting to surface,” another informed me. “I’d be very interested in getting your thoughts,” a third suggested. My correspondents, mostly strangers, were polite but insistent. They wanted my take on a theory, newly circulating online, that offered a resolution to one of the most alluring digital mysteries of the past decade, the real identity (or identities) behind the persona of Satoshi Nakamoto.

The question, as someone in my Twitter DM’s articulated it, was this: “Do you think that Paul Le Roux is bitcoin creator Satoshi?”

In one sense, they’d all come to the right place. I spent five years tracking Paul Calder Le Roux, a South African pro­grammer who built a global drug and arms dealing empire, and transformed himself into one of the 21st century’s most prolific and pursued criminals. I’d obsessively catalogued his life, from his early history as an encryption coder; through his creation of an online prescription drug business worth hundreds of millions of dollars; to his diversification into smuggling, weapons, and violence; to his 2012 capture by, and cooperation with, the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Along the way he had, among other endeavors, simulta­neously fed the American opioid epidemic; built his own base operations in Somalia, protected by an armed militia; run gold and timber extraction operations in a half-dozen African countries; laundered millions of dollars through Hong Kong; plotted a coup in the Seychelles (later abandoned); bought off law enforcement in the Philippines, where he was based; trafficked methamphetamine out of North Korea; and overseen a team of engineers building missile guidance systems for Iran and drones for drug delivery.

I’d traveled into the Manila underworld and found former employees, including ex-military mercenaries who’d worked as Le Roux’s enforcers. I’d distilled hundreds of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of records into a 400-page book, The Mastermind, detailing Le Roux’s epic rise and fall.

These questions about Satoshi, however, filled me with a special kind of dread. I’d traveled down the Satoshi rabbit hole before and returned empty handed. “I’ve got a secret theory that Paul invented bitcoin,” I’d written in 2016 to Mathew Smith, Le Roux’s cousin. Smith, along with over a hundred other Le Roux–connected people I interviewed, from employees to cops, had seen or heard nothing to support my theory. By the time I finished the book, in late 2018, I’d largely discarded it. “I wasted countless hours trying to determine if there was any connection” between Le Roux and Satoshi, I wrote in the final manuscript. “As far as I could tell, there wasn’t.”

There was some relief in this. I’d seen the ignominy when people went Satoshi hunting in the past. The siren song of bitcoin’s progenitor had been calling out to journalists since Satoshi seemed to exit the cryptocurrency world in 2011, leaving behind a technology that—even today, after all the hype cycles—promises to shape the future of everything from money to contracts. Whoever Satoshi was, the person (or persons) was sitting on a fortune, roughly a million bitcoins that analysts estimated Satoshi had mined at the currency’s inception in 2009. (At current prices that stash would be worth more than $10 billion.) There had been many attempts to unmask the creator, unresolved.

But now the messages about Le Roux kept coming, driven by 4chan and Hacker News threads churning over a tantalizing new clue—a footnote in one filing in a multibillion-dollar federal lawsuit in Florida.

This is where things started to get weird. The defendant in the lawsuit is an Australian computer scientist named Craig Wright. As followers of the Satoshi saga will know, Wright was the man outed in late 2015 by WIRED and Gizmodo as a likely candidate to himself be Satoshi Nakamoto. Both publications later walked back the stories after it appeared that documents they’d relied upon had been faked and manipulated.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

#1. To: All (#0)

Bitcoin is for suckers and predators.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-07-16   8:07:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#1)

[A K A Stone #1] Bitcoin is for suckers and predators.

- - - - - - - - - -

[Pinguinite #2] The question of who created bitcoin is not relevant as it is both decentralized and open source. And even if it was important, there are hundreds of copycat crypto currencies in existence (though 98% of them I would not touch with a 10 foot pole).

The US dollar, on the other hand, is centralized. If you believe in freedom and object to centralized control of the monetary system, then bitcoin and/or decentralized crypto is what you should be championing.

There is no such thing as absolute security on the internet. With banks, you have insurance if your account gets hacked. With crypto, primarily used by crooks, drug dealers, tax evaders, and others attempting to avoid the law, a successful hack means you are usually shit out of luck, with no legal recourse.

As for a hack, anything that has been done, can be done.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032615/can-bitcoin-be-hacked.asp

Can Bitcoin Be Hacked?

By Nathan Reiff
Investopedia
Updated Jun 25, 2019

Investors all over the world are swarming to buy Bitcoin, prompting some governments to step in with severe regulations. The success of bitcoin fueled the rise of legions of followers, including hundreds of new cryptocurrency launches and a wave of startups predicated on blockchain technology. Nonetheless, with all the fuss and hubbub surrounding bitcoin, many investors are still unsure about the security of the currency itself. Can bitcoin be hacked? And, if so, how can investors work to protect their investments?

Bitcoin and Security

Bitcoin was launched in 2009 as a decentralized digital currency, meaning that it would not be overseen or regulated by any one administrator, like a government or bank. Peer-to-peer transactions have fueled the rise of the digital currency world, and bitcoin has been at the forefront throughout. The blockchain is a public ledger used to verify and record these transactions.

The issue of security has been a fundamental one for bitcoin since its development. On one hand, bitcoin itself is very difficult to hack, and that is largely due to the blockchain technology which supports it. As blockchain is constantly being reviewed by bitcoin users, hacks are unlikely. On the other hand, though, the fact that bitcoin itself is difficult to hack does not mean that it's necessarily a safe investment. There does exist the potential for security risks at various stages of the trading process.

Wallets and the Transaction Process

Bitcoins are held in wallets and traded through digital currency exchanges like Coinbase. There are various security risks inherent in each of these two components. Developers are always improving wallet security, but there are also those looking to access other peoples' wallets illegally to swipe their tokens and coins. In the transaction process. two-factor identification is commonly used as a security measure. Of course, having the security of a transaction linked to an email address or a cell phone number means that anyone with access to those components can authenticate transactions. If a hacker is able to determine some of your non-cryptocurrency-related personal information, he or she may be able to infiltrate your transactions in that space regardless.

There have been widely publicized frauds, scams, and hacks which have plagued individual investors and even major cryptocurrency exchanges in their short history. Part of the issue is simply that the technology and the space itself are new. While this makes cryptocurrencies like bitcoin incredibly exciting--and potentially very profitable--investments, it also means that there are those looking to capitalize on security holes before they are corrected. All bitcoin investors are advised to take proper precautions in order to best protect their holdings.

Related Terms

Bitcoin Definition

Bitcoin is a digital or virtual currency that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments. Bitcoin is a digital currency created in January 2009. It follows the ideas set out in a white paper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity has yet to be verified.

Cryptocurrency

A cruptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography. A cryptocurrency is difficult to counterfeit because of this security feature.

Blockchain Explained

A guide to help you understand what blockchain is and how it can be used by industries. You've probably encountered a definition like this: “blockchain is a distributed, decentralized, public ledger." But blockchain is easier to understand than it sounds.

Coincheck

Coincheck is a Tokyo-based cryptocurrency exchange and digital wallet founded in 2014.

tZero

TZero is a cryptocurrency and distributed ledger platform that was launched by Overstock.

Bitcoin Maximalism

Bitcoin maximalists favor bitcoin over other use cases and for the long term. Maximalists are unapologetically in favor of a bitcoin monopoly at some point in the future.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.bitfolio.org/cryptocurrency-hack-mt-gox

The biggest cryptocurrency hack in the history of blockchain (hack attack that uprooted a giant from industry)

Shubham Davey - 21 August 2018
Bitfolio

https://www.coindesk.com/hackers-are-turning-binances-stolen-bitcoin-into-fiat

Hackers Are Turning Binance’s Stolen Bitcoin Into Other Cryptocurrencies

John Biggs
Coindesk

Jul 16, 2019 at 11:30 UTC
Updated Jul 16, 2019 at 16:38 UTC

A new analysis by Coinfirm shows the movement of the bitcoin stolen from Binance into various wallets. The hack, which netted 7,000 BTC, happened on May 7, 2019 at 17:15:24 UTC and the hackers have been moving stolen bitcoin from wallet to wallet.

Now, however, Coinfirm has spotted some activity that suggests the hackers are moving their gains off of exchanges, potentially into other cryptocurrencies.

[...]

https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/07/16/bitpoint-cryptocurrency-hack-bitcoin-ethereum-cash-litecoin-ripple-users/

55,000 cryptocurrency users affected in Bitpoint’s $28 million hack

Bitpoint's president says it will repay victims in cryptocurrency

David Canellis
TNW

Published July 16, 2019 — 12:47 UTC

Embattled cryptocurrency exchange Bitpoint has revealed that roughly half of its 110,000 users were affected by last week’s $3.02 billion yen ($28 million) hack, reports The Mainchi.

Speaking at a Tokyo press conference, Bitpoint president Genki Oda noted that of the 3.02 billion yen stolen, customers owned 2.06 billion yen ($19 million), while 960 million yen ($8.9 million) consisted of the company’s own holdings.

According to Oda, customer losses represented 13 percent of the total amount of cryptocurrency users had kept on Bitpoint. He also pledged to repay victims (in cryptocurrency) once standard trade resumes.

The theft, which included sums of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple, was disclosed last Thursday. Originally reported to have totalled $32 million, those losses were later revised to a slightly smaller number of $28 million.

To find success, hackers were said to have targeted Bitpoint’s “hot wallets,” a term for internet-connected cryptocurrency storage software.

Oda then confirmed the discovery of an additional 250 million yen ($2.3 million) worth of stolen funds that were taken from overseas exchanges using Bitpoint software.

This directly contradicts apparently incorrect media reports that indicated a fraction of the stolen funds had been recovered.

An estimate for when Bitpoint will resume standard trade is yet to be determined, as official investigations are reportedly ongoing.

Fellow Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Zaif was ransacked by hackers last September, who stole $60 million worth of cryptocurrency in a seemingly similar raid.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-16   16:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#3)

There is no such thing as absolute security on the internet. With banks, you have insurance if your account gets hacked.

Usually true, yes. But your dollars held in a bank are not protected against debasement or inflation, which is a loss of purchasing power. This occurs when the government continues to run up a national debt or bails out financial institutions after they conduct immoral and or illegal activity which led to, as an example, the 2008 financial crisis for which no one was even charged with a financial crime.

Funds held by banks are also not safe from seizure requests made by governments or other 3rd parties with court orders that may or may not be morally legitimate even if they are legally legitimate which they, again, may not be in every case. I'm sure that would fall under illegal activity in the mind of many but it nonetheless qualifies as risk. But if one trusts the government never to do that, then it is not a concern.

But free market crypto protects against these potential losses in value.

With crypto, primarily used by crooks, drug dealers, tax evaders, and others attempting to avoid the law, a successful hack means you are usually shit out of luck, with no legal recourse.

Obviously a demonizing statement. Cars, guns, baseball bats and knives are also used by crooks attempting to conduct illegal activities.

Hacking is an admitted and understood potential problem for any holder of crypto. To be clear, this is not a problem for the crypto blockchain which is the place where crypto holdings are actually recorded. This is instead a problem with the keys to the blockchain which are not on the blockchain but held privately in "wallets" which is not really an accurate description of how crypto works. These keys must be kept secure and the hacking of crypto has always involved accessing these keys or otherwise causing these keys to be used by a hacker to transfer funds on the blockchain. In every case, therefore, hacking has been possible because of security failures related to the keys, which is the responsibility of individual parties that either hold the keys or produced 3rd party wallets, and not the responsibility of the blockchain or crypto as a whole.

Yes there have been millions (in USD value) in Bitcoin hacked by hackers, however in the case of bitcoin, funds are traceable on the blockchain, such that all bitcoin stolen from one wallet can be seen in the new wallet to which it has been transferred. Though the identity of the person or party controlling that wallet cannot be directly known from the blockchain, any subsequent transfer of funds from that wallet to a new wallet can be monitored, and if any transfer is made to an exchange or other party that can be identified, no matter how small the amount, then the potential of tracing and identifying the original criminals is possible, even many years later.

As one of the articles stated, crypto is new technology and being such, makes it vulnerable, though again, it's not the crypto itself that has demonstrated vulnerabilities but rather the 3rd party wallets and holders of crypto that have the security flaws. Crypto also is non-mature as a currency due to the time it takes to make a transaction. While it is certainly far faster and far less hassle and far cheaper than bank wires, compared to credit card transactions, it is far too slow for general usage such as in a grocery store check out line. Still, being a digital technology, crypto has the ability to improve in these areas with additional software upgrades.

I understand Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin as a direct result of how the 2008 financial crisis was resolved (or to whatever extent it qualified as being resolved) by using taxpayer funds to forgive and make right massive problems that resulted from their gross and fraudulent mishandling of funds for the benefit of shareholders of major financial instiutions. There was no other remedy offered by government to that problem.. Not in the courts via prosecution, and not in law. Government is in bed with these institutions and objecting to crypto due to its independence neglects the interests of the American people and all holders of legal tender US dollars. Crypto is a protest response currency to neglectful and abusive government policies. Crypto is facilitated by technology which in our society and world is growing at an exponential pace, and it is on that basis something I see as inevitable. Ever changing technology has impacted society and business in significant ways in the past and it will continue to do so in the future. As I see it, regardless of how people feel about crypto, it cannot be stopped.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-16   18:31:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#5)

CRYPTO CURRENCY - THEFT AND LOSS

[Pinguinite #5] Hacking is an admitted and understood potential problem for any holder of crypto. To be clear, this is not a problem for the crypto blockchain which is the place where crypto holdings are actually recorded. This is instead a problem with the keys to the blockchain which are not on the blockchain but held privately in "wallets" which is not really an accurate description of how crypto works.

That the crypto may have functioned perfectly is no consolation for those whose virtual fortune has disappeared.

[Pinguinite #5] These keys must be kept secure and the hacking of crypto has always involved accessing these keys or otherwise causing these keys to be used by a hacker to transfer funds on the blockchain. In every case, therefore, hacking has been possible because of security failures related to the keys, which is the responsibility of individual parties that either hold the keys or produced 3rd party wallets, and not the responsibility of the blockchain or crypto as a whole.

This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate. People who had invested with Quadriga CX found out the hard way with the sudden death of founder GerGerald Cotten. Cotten died and nobody else seemed to know how to access the virtual fortune. There was no hack, nor any irresponsible parties. The virtual fortune is still safe with Gerald Batten who is not talking. Five years later, customers are still left in limbo.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47203706

Quadriga: The cryptocurrency exchange that lost $135m

By Jessica Murphy
BBC News, Toronto
17 February 2019

When the 30-year-old founder of a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange died suddenly, he took the whereabouts of some C$180m ($135m; £105m) in cryptocurrency to his grave. Now, tens of thousands of Quadriga CX users are wondering if they will ever see their funds again.

In 2014, one of the world's biggest online cryptocurrency exchanges - MtGox - unexpectedly shut down after losing 850,000 Bitcoins valued at the time at nearly $0.4bn (£0.3bn).

Its meltdown shook investors in the volatile emerging marketplace - but the calamity at the Tokyo-based company proved a boon for a new Canadian online cryptocurrency exchange.

"People like the fact we're located in Canada and know where their money is going," Quadriga CX founder Gerald Cotten said at the time.

Some five years later, Cotten's sudden, untimely death has left thousands of his customers scrambling for information about their own missing funds.

"We don't know whether or not we're going to get our money back," Tong Zou, who says he is owed C$560,000 - his life savings - told the BBC.

"There's just a lot of uncertainty."

This month, Quadriga - which had grown to become Canada's largest cryptocurrency exchange - was granted temporary bankruptcy protection in a Canadian court.

The firm said it had spent the weeks since Cotten's death trying desperately to "locate and secure our very significant cryptocurrency reserves".

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Pinguinite #5] But your dollars held in a bank are not protected against debasement or inflation, which is a loss of purchasing power.

While it is true that inflation or deflation causes a loss of purchasing power for money stored in a bank, or even stored in yourr wallet or under your mattress, it is also true that crypto is unregulated and subject to wild fluctuations if value, the likes I have never seen occcur with U.S. currency in my lifetime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_cryptocurrency_crash

2018 cryptocurrency crash

The 2018 cryptocurrency crash (also known as the Bitcoin crash and the Great crypto crash was the sell-off of most cryptocurrencies from January 2018. After an unprecedented boom in 2017, the price of bitcoin fell by about 65 percent during the month from 6 January to 6 February 2018. Subsequently, nearly all other cryptocurrencies also peaked from December 2017 through January 2018, and then followed bitcoin. The cryptocurrencies' market capitalization lost at least 342 billion US dollars in the first quarter of 2018, the largest loss in cryptocurrencies up to that date. By September 2018, cryptocurrencies collapsed 80% from their peak in January 2018, making the 2018 cryptocurrency crash worse than the Dot-com bubble's 78% collapse. By 26 November, bitcoin also fell by over 80% from its peak, having lost almost one-third of its value in the previous week.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Pinguinite #5] But free market crypto protects against these potential losses in value.

I see nothing which would support this claim. A crypto currency has no intrinsic value and may devalue to zero. Paper currency could devalue to zero. If paper currency devalued to zero, there would be nobody to buy your virtual currency with real currency, and nobody would exchange anything of value for virtual currency.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[nolu chan #3] With crypto, primarily used by crooks, drug dealers, tax evaders, and others attempting to avoid the law, a successful hack means you are usually shit out of luck, with no legal recourse.

[Pinguinite #5] Obviously a demonizing statement. Cars, guns, baseball bats and knives are also used by crooks attempting to conduct illegal activities.

Cars, guns, baseball bats and knives are readily distinguishable as they were not created with the intent of evading law enforcement action.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Pinguinite #5] Government is in bed with these institutions and objecting to crypto due to its independence neglects the interests of the American people and all holders of legal tender US dollars.

I have made no objection to crypto due to its independence. It cannot be a legal currency because that is unlawful. It is unregulated, and there is little legal recourse in case of loss. As an investment it is UNSAFE due to unregulated value fluctuation, and theft or loss.

It is not demonization to observe that crypto currency was created as a means to evade government regulation.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/beware-9m-are-lost-each-day-crypto-scams/

$9 Million Lost Each Day In Cryptocurrency Scams

By Shobhit Seth
Updated Jun 25, 2019

While you may be tempted to think that open-source, decentralized, anonymous cryptocurrencies are safe because they are free of control from a single authority and work in a transparent manner, the reality is, they are constant targets for scams, including digital theft, phishing, fraud, and hacking. (For more, see Beware of these Five Bitcoin Scams.)

In a recent finding by Bitcoin.com News, $1.36 billion worth of cryptocurrencies have been stolen by fraudsters during the first two months of 2018.

Fraud constituted the majority of virtual currency scams, at 30 percent. It was followed by hacking attempts (22 percent), theft and exit scams (17 percent each), and phishing (13 percent).

The biggest recent heist occurred at cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck Inc in late January, where hackers made off with almost $500 million in virtual tokens. (See more: Coincheck May Have Suffered The Worst Hack In Cryptocurrency History.)

Around the same time, Bitconnect, a cryptocurrency-lending scheme, shut down its operations and vanished, leading to an exit scam with an estimated loss of around $250 million.

And in February, an Italian crypto exchange called BitGrail reported that it was hit with a hacking attempt that led to a loss of nearly $195 million worth of customers' virtual tokens.

[...]

https://www.pymnts.com/blockchain/bitcoin/2017/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-value-lost/

Bitcoin’s Missing 23 Percent Problem

By PYMNTS
Posted on November 27, 2017

Its expected that 21 million Bitcoins will have been mined by 2040, but the amount available to spend and trade will be a lot lower, according to recent reports from Fortune.

In fact, between 2.78 million and 4 million Bitcoin have disappeared already, implying 17 to 23 percent are already gone, according to new research from digital forensics firm Chainalysis. Each Bitcoin is valued at approximately $8,500 as of Saturday, Nov. 25.

Researchers have long made guesses as to how much of the cryptocurrency is gone, but Chainalysis’ findings rely on an empirical analysis of blockchain, the underpinnings of Bitcoin. The results reflect Bitcoins that have been lost completely — in the process of taking coins out of circulation, hoarding coins, buying and selling coins and strategic investments, among other factors — not those stolen by hackers or other bad actors.

The research shows that going forward more Bitcoins will be lost, but the rate will slow compared to the past because the cryptocurrency is more valuable. The new research also raises the question of whether the missing coins are already priced into the value of Bitcoin.

[...]

https://www.wired.com/story/wired-lost-bitcoin/

How WIRED Lost $100,000 in Bitcoin

Author: Louise Matsakis
WIRED
security
05.28.18 07:00 am

Back in 2013, when you could still mine bitcoins at home, WIRED was sent a small, sleek mining device manufactured by the now-defunct Butterfly Labs. We turned on the Roku-looking machine in our San Francisco offices and allowed it to do its job. A small fortune was soon amassed, now worth around $100,000. Then, we lost the money. Forever.

Here's what happened to WIRED's 13 Bitcoins—and to the millions of others that have faced the same fate.

[...]

Throwing Away the Key

To deal in bitcoin, you need at least two different keys, one public and one private (newer security protocols allow you to add more private keys). Together, the combination of codes lets you trade Bitcoin without an intermediary like a bank. You can look up WIRED's public key to send us money, and then in theory, we could use our private key to access those funds—had we not destroyed it. It's extremely unlikely we could successfully guess the code: it's 64 digits long and no one remembers what it was.

No additional copies of the private key exist, at least according to the people who were there. "I didn't make a copy of the paper, or commit the 64 characters on it to memory," says Antonowicz, the technologist who set up the miner. The good news is that if someone did move the coins, the transaction would be public, allowing WIRED to see where they traveled to. In fact, you too can check out WIRED's lost Bitcoins right here.

In theory, we might be able to recover the Bitcoin wallet from the hard drive where it was stored, but even that wouldn't be much help. "There might have been a way to forensically recover the wallet—with the encrypted key—from my hard drive, but I shredded that particular drive years ago," says Antonowicz.

Plus, even if the wallet was resurrected, it's encrypted. Breaking that protection via brute force would take an unimaginable amount of time. There are three times more possible combinations than there are atoms in the observable universe, by Antonowicz's count.

"Originally I was going to say that the closest metaphor I have is that we dropped a car key somewhere in the Atlantic, but I think it's closer for me to say we dropped the key somewhere between here and the Alpha Centauri," says Antonowicz.

Recovering our bitcoins is essentially like trying to recover a photo album on a lost computer. Except not only did you get rid of the hard drive, you also protected the album in an encrypted folder with a 64-digit passcode that you threw away.

Still, we wanted to make sure there was absolutely no way to get the bitcoins back. WIRED's editor-in-chief, Nicholas Thompson, suggested that if we were able to recover the funds, they might go toward hiring a full-time cryptocurrency reporter. I reached out to the founder of Butterfly Labs, who didn't respond. I also contacted Mark Frauenfelder, a writer and the author of a WIRED article about how he recovered $30,000 worth of Bitcoin. He agrees we're screwed.

"If you lost your private keys I think it’s game over," he says. I also looked into a service that tries to crack cryptocurrency wallets via sheer brute force. But their services would be no help, since we don't have access to the hard drive itself. It looks like WIRED really did lose the money forever. The good news is we're far from alone.

Lost and Never Found

Chainalysis, a research firm that analyzes activity across different cryptocurrency markets, estimates that between 2.78 and 3.79 million, or between 17 and 23 percent of all bitcoins have been lost. That includes wallets believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious founder of Bitcoin who hasn't touched his estimated 1 million coins since 2011.

“The number of lost coins over time will drop,” says Michael Gronager, the CEO and co-founder of Chainalysis. He argues that's because there’s more awareness of Bitcoin’s enduring value, even if the price wildly fluctuates. He also says that even if Satoshi were to reemerge, his activity wouldn't significantly impact the market because he wouldn't likely spend a large sum of Bitcoin at once.

There are several ways you can lose Bitcoin. Like WIRED, you can simply lose track of your private key or your hard drive. One of the most famous cases of this is what happened to James Howells, an IT worker in London who lost 7,500 bitcoins, or around $56 million, when his laptop was thrown away in 2013. He reportedly wants to dig through five years of trash to unearth the computer. This is the most common way to lose Bitcoin; even Elon Musk tweeted that he forgot how to access a portion of a coin.

You can also lose bitcoins by running buggy code or making software mistakes, though these instances are more rare. Last year, for example, someone forgot to collect their mining reward and burned 12.5 coins. In another similar incident, someone may have accidentally swapped a processing fee with the value of the transaction, resulting in nearly 300 coins lost. One time, someone even sent 2,600 coins to an incorrectly configured address, burning them into nonexistence. All of these examples come from BlockSci, a tool developed at Princeton University for analyzing the Bitcoin blockchain.

It can be difficult to assess whether any given bitcoin is really lost for good. "It's actually pretty difficult to say for certain. A lot of what we do is look at the big picture," says Harry Kalodner a PhD at Princeton who helped develop BlockSci. He says part of the problem is that you can rarely determine whether someone is just holding onto their Bitcoin, or whether they've definitively lost access to it. Since Bitcoin isn't controlled by any single authority, there's no one who can simply close your account.

So what could WIRED have done, were we to do the whole thing again? Since 2013, Bitcoin has added a number of new, more sophisticated features. For one, we could have locked our coins away until a certain date. "One Bitcoin feature that's been added is that it now supports time-locked coins, that makes them completely un-spendable until a set point in the future," says Kalodner. Like, say, May 2018, when the editor-in-chief could really use some money to hire another reporter.

https://time.com/5625194/japan-cryptocurrency-remixpoint-hack/

A Hacked Japanese Cryptocurrency Exchange Just Lost $32 Million of Virtual Money

By Associated Press July 12, 2019

(TOKYO) — A Japanese cryptocurrency exchange has reported a hack causing the loss of 3.5 billion yen, or $32 million, worth of virtual money.

Tokyo-based Remixpoint, which runs the BITPoint exchange as well as travel, used car and energy businesses, apologized Friday, saying the losses were confirmed starting Thursday.

The reason for the losses, which include bitcoins as well as Ethereum, Ripple and other kinds of cryptocurrencies, is under investigation.

About two-thirds of the losses affected customers while the rest of the missing assets belonged to Remixpoint, the company said in a statement. All transactions have been halted.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-16   23:05:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan (#12)

That the crypto may have functioned perfectly is no consolation for those whose virtual fortune has disappeared.

As though no one has ever lost dollar holdings? It most certainly has via banks, both in distant times and in more recent times. But cash is constantly being stolen. The currency itself does not provide a guarantee vs loss due to a variety of methods. Even when banks are robbed, there is a loss. Perhaps not to the account holders directly but do you think the replacement funds are simply printed into existence without consequence? Wealth transfer *always* occurs either through debasement of the currency via more printing, in which case all USD holder pay the fee, or taxpayers picking up the bill.

So it is not accuarate to say that always safe in USD form, even when on deposit.

[Pinguinite #5] These keys must be kept secure and the hacking of crypto has always involved accessing these keys or otherwise causing these keys to be used by a hacker to transfer funds on the blockchain. In every case, therefore, hacking has been possible because of security failures related to the keys, which is the responsibility of individual parties that either hold the keys or produced 3rd party wallets, and not the responsibility of the blockchain or crypto as a whole.

This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate.

It most certainly is accurate. Your citation reflects a case of keys not being securely protected, just as I stated they must be.

Cotten died and nobody else seemed to know how to access the virtual fortune. There was no hack, nor any irresponsible parties. The virtual fortune is still safe with Gerald Batten who is not talking. Five years later, customers are still left in limbo.

In this case, Cotten and/or the company with which he was associated, utterly failed to safeguard the private keys to this fortune. It was gross negligence on their part. They apparently entrusted them to a single man's memory which was one heartbeat away for oblivion. That key could have been safeguarded in any number of ways. Bitcoin, by design, can be secured with multiple keys such that of, say, 5 different keys any 3 or 4 would be needed to access the funds. This protects both against the loss of any single key as well as protects against any one party from absconding with the funds unilaterally.

As for the members, who entrusted this company, that is most unfortunate for them of course, though ultimately, it was the account holders who chose to trust an incompetent company, so some of that responsibility resides with them, and not with the fundamental design of bitcoin.

While it is true that inflation or deflation causes a loss of purchasing power for money stored in a bank, or even stored in yourr wallet or under your mattress, it is also true that crypto is unregulated and subject to wild fluctuations if value, the likes I have never seen occcur with U.S. currency in my lifetime.

It most certainly has. Though it's not accuarte to simply conclude it has been "volatile" without also mentioning the tremendous growth in value it has seen over the years. The very first official bitcoin transaction was made for 2 pizzas. The cost: 10,000 bitcoin, which is about $100,000,000 at today's prices. Bitcoin has seen about 6 or 7 booms and busts but has not died. Each boom has well surpassed the prior boom, such that *even* if anyone had invested in bitcoin at the *worst* possible time of each boom with the exception being the most recent of $20k, he would still be sitting on a very healthy return today. And even today, with BTC price at about 50% of it's all time high, prospects are not altogether dire for it rising again above 20k.

Of course, this valuation is in US dollars, which is not necessarily the best benchmark.

2018 cryptocurrency crash

The 2018 cryptocurrency crash (also known as the Bitcoin crash and the Great crypto crash was the sell-off of most cryptocurrencies from January 2018. After an unprecedented boom in 2017, the price of bitcoin fell by about 65 percent during the month from 6 January to 6 February 2018.

This citation is not even accurate in terms of "unprecedented". It has gone up and down by amounts that would rock any standard commodity market to its core, but it's been far more up than down, even taking into consideration the half dozen or so busts that it's seen. 2018 was just the latest bust and its not even the biggest bitcoin has seen. My information is 93% drawdown is the record, and it has bounced back from that. I first accepted bitcoin for payment when it was about $450. I've certainly not done poorly with that particular transaction.

[Pinguinite #5] But free market crypto protects against these potential losses in value.

I see nothing which would support this claim. A crypto currency has no intrinsic value and may devalue to zero. Paper currency could devalue to zero. If paper currency devalued to zero, there would be nobody to buy your virtual currency with real currency, and nobody would exchange anything of value for virtual currency.

The first part of your comment implies that a paper currency that devalues to zero would still constitute "real currency". It also implies that crypto currency could or would not be exchangable for goods and services directly. It seems your thinking implies that cyrpto as never able to qualify as a currency itself, that it MUST be first exchanged for some kind of paper currency. That is certainly not the idea with which most crypto currencies were designed.

The second part of your comment that "nobody would exchange anything of value" for virtual currency in a world where no paper currency exists I see as fallacious. Currency exists not because people believe currency itself has value -- it doesn't (the paper form, at least). Currency exists as a tool for society to exchange goods and services. It's an invention that serves that purpose. And as long as society is in need of exchanging goods and services, something -- anything -- that can serve as a money will do. True, crypto has no intrinsic value but neither does the USD. But crypto does score fairly high when weighed against all properties a quality money must have such as being finely divisible, non-degrading/unlimited storage life, in limited supply, and easy to store.

[Pinguinite #5] Obviously a demonizing statement. Cars, guns, baseball bats and knives are also used by crooks attempting to conduct illegal activities.

Cars, guns, baseball bats and knives are readily distinguishable as they were not created with the intent of evading law enforcement action.

It was principly designed to evade abuse by the government itself as previously cited in regards to the 2008 finance crisis as well as the continuing problem of escalating national debt. If one believes the government is completely benevolent, then yes, they might see crypto as having little moral benefit.

I have made no objection to crypto due to its independence. It cannot be a legal currency because that is unlawful. It is unregulated, and there is little legal recourse in case of loss. As an investment it is UNSAFE due to unregulated value fluctuation, and theft or loss.

It is unregulated, but along with that unmanipulated. I agree loss is a danger, but there is no method of value storage that is completely risk free. For those who consider crypto to be only a temporary storage of value, it can be viewed as risky. As one who works in software development and is cognizant of the ever growing impact that technology has in society and given my general distrust of government which I consider well validated, I view crypto as a tool that is both unstoppable and a moralizing force to right some of societies wrongs. That is my personal assessment.

It is not demonization to observe that crypto currency was created as a means to evade government regulation.

No, not to evade regulation. It was to evade theft of value as previously mentioned. If one does not see anything morally wrong with the 2008 bailouts, one may indeed see the development of crypto as having only nefarious, immoral purposes. But bitcoin would not have any value if it was only used by the relatively small criminal elements in the world. It would only have value if the general population starts to adopt it. And the general population is that entity that the government is morally bound to serve. It was never intended that the government would rule the general public.

Re: your links at this point, I'll only say that yes, hacking and criminal theft of crypto has occurred, as has happened with all forms of wealth. Your source of investopedia may well be biased, as I have found that traditional financial professionals are generally anti-crypto simply because it is contrary to everything about finance they have ever learned. Crypto is a new kid on the block, and none of us likes it when we our lifelong expertise is challenged.

Bitcoin’s Missing 23 Percent Problem

Yes some crypto has been lost. There is a hard drive in a land fill somewhere that was accidentally thrown away in the early bitcoin days when bitcoin was worth fractions of a penny. The rightful owner has offered a sizeable percentage to anyone who can think of a way to find it. But it's not really necessary as far as the economy goes. The smallest increment of bitcoin is worth about 1/100th of a penny. If bitcoin gose to $1 million per coin, the smallest increment would be worth 1 cent. That's small enough to serve monetary needs, and even if it weren't, software upgrades could divide it even further.

So no, it's not a "problem" for bitcoin as a whole.

"If you lost your private keys I think it’s game over,"

FTR, most wallets -- all I am familiar with -- translate your private key to a series of 12 or 24 ordinary words that are much more easily memorized. With those words memorized or recorded somewhere, in the correct order, one can recreate their wallet and restore full access to funds. That provides a recovery method even if all of your electronics were destroyed in, say, a house fire.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-17   1:53:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#15)

That the crypto may have functioned perfectly is no consolation for those whose virtual fortune has disappeared.

As though no one has ever lost dollar holdings?

Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???

That happened in the Quadriga case where Quadriga CX founder Gerald Cotten died suddenly. The assets of the entire exchange were rendered inaccessible.

So it is not accuarate to say that always safe in USD form, even when on deposit.

I never made any such claim. To the contrary, I explicitly stated at #12, to which you purport to reply, that "it is true that inflation or deflation causes a loss of purchasing power for money stored in a bank, or even stored in your wallet or under your mattress," and that "paper currency could devalue to zero."

In the United States, in over two centuries, the count

Your straw man argument is a fail.

[Pinguinite #5] These keys must be kept secure and the hacking of crypto has always involved accessing these keys or otherwise causing these keys to be used by a hacker to transfer funds on the blockchain. In every case, therefore, hacking has been possible because of security failures related to the keys, which is the responsibility of individual parties that either hold the keys or produced 3rd party wallets, and not the responsibility of the blockchain or crypto as a whole.

[nolu chan #12] This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate.

It most certainly is accurate. Your citation reflects a case of keys not being securely protected, just as I stated they must be.

It is most certain that after five years, the customers still cannot access their assets, and that hacking or a security failure had nothing to do with it. The founder of the exchange died. The keys were so securely held that nobody has ever discovered a copy. Perhaps they were held in the most secure location, Gerald Cotten's brain. However the keys were secured, they remain secured, as do the assets. The numbers are still there, but they have been rendered useless and without value. The individual investors' only mistake was putting their assets in that exchange.

It is small consolation that the block chain and crypto continue to work, and the exchange remains locked out.

As for the members, who entrusted this company, that is most unfortunate for them of course, though ultimately, it was the account holders who chose to trust an incompetent company, so some of that responsibility resides with them, and not with the fundamental design of bitcoin.

You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?

it's not accuarte to simply conclude it has been "volatile" without also mentioning the tremendous growth in value it has seen over the years.

It is accurate to call crypto volatile. The term indicates large swings back and forth. That is what crypto has done.

Of course, this valuation is in US dollars, which is not necessarily the best benchmark.

Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States. Things may be valued in crypto, but nobody has to accept it, and it cannot be marketed as currency or the marketer can be prosecuted and sent to prison.

It is not demonization to observe that crypto currency was created as a means to evade government regulation.

No, not to evade regulation. It was to evade theft of value as previously mentioned.

Righhht. The drugs dealers were concerned with inflation of the dollar, not with prosecution for income tax evasion and civil asset forfeiture of their ill gotten loot. They are really good guys with noble souls when you get to know them.

Of course, that was it. /s

FTR, most wallets -- all I am familiar with -- translate your private key to a series of 12 or 24 ordinary words that are much more easily memorized. With those words memorized or recorded somewhere, in the correct order, one can recreate their wallet and restore full access to funds.

If the owner or director of the exchange suddenly dies, and he takes his memorized key with him, the exchange cannot access the data. The customers have a learning experience.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-17   15:01:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: nolu chan (#49)

Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???

Am I allowed to go back to 1929, or more recently in other countries? I myself suffered an inability to access my funds for a period of time due to a bank failure in the state of Maryland circa 1984. I was refunded by the state insurance on the bank I recall FSLIC, but my funds were indeed mishandled and lost.

[nolu chan #12] This sweeping claim is evidently not accurate.

It most certainly is accurate. Your citation reflects a case of keys not being securely protected, just as I stated they must be.

It is most certain that after five years, the customers still cannot access their assets, and that hacking or a security failure had nothing to do with it. The founder of the exchange died.

We obviously disagree on the definition of "security failure". I define it as, in this context, a failure to preserve the private key to the crypto funds. They lost the key. That was a security failure and I'm completely comfortable classifying it as such. Perhaps you define "security" as when something is completely immune from access by unauthorized parties. If so, then yes, this company's losing of the private key was an overwhelming security "success". I don't define it that way, as losing access for any reason, whether because it was absconded by an unauthorized party or permanently buried in a desert the size of the solar system is just as bad. In fact it's worse as there's no prospect of recovery as there is with theft.

The keys were so securely held that nobody has ever discovered a copy. Perhaps they were held in the most secure location, Gerald Cotten's brain. However the keys were secured, they remain secured, as do the assets. The numbers are still there, but they have been rendered useless and without value. The individual investors' only mistake was putting their assets in that exchange.

I find your characterization of losing private keys as something other than a security failure to be disingenuous. Regardless, it is semantics. The company is what failed. I presume we could agree on that.

You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?

Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal?

Crypto holders certainly should understand the basics of crypto and how to secure their crypto holdings, and they should similarly understand that companies they transfer control of their crypto to are similarly being trusted to know what they are doing.

It is accurate to call crypto volatile. The term indicates large swings back and forth. That is what crypto has done.

It's done far more "forth" than "back". Far, far more.

Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States.

More accurately, US dollars are the only "legal tender" currency" in the US, meaning that people are obligated by law to accept it as payment for goods and services. Your statement should not be inferred to mean that other forms of currency are forbidden as I do not believe that is the case. Only that other forms of currency do not carry penalties for failure to accept it.

That the US dollar requires a law obligating people to accept it is a statement unto itself as, if the dollar does have real value, then why is there a law required obligating people to accept it as payment?

Things may be valued in crypto, but nobody has to accept it, and it cannot be marketed as currency or the marketer can be prosecuted and sent to prison.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it cannot be marketed as "dollars". Marketing it as "currency" is a bit more obtuse and it would surprise me if that term is in the law. But this is an area I concede you should have better access to than me.

Righhht. The drugs dealers were concerned with inflation of the dollar, not with prosecution for income tax evasion and civil asset forfeiture of their ill gotten loot. They are really good guys with noble souls when you get to know them.

I reject the presumption that those in government do not possess fraudulent and criminal motives. The FBI activities with Trump illustrate that well. Hillary Clinton. James Clapper lied to congress about the gov's survailance of the American citizenry. That these individuals violated the law does not incriminate the gov at a whole. That they went unprosecuted does.

Civil asset forfeiture is a violation of the 4th, plain and simple. Such is the nature of people and power. We always want more and the erosion of the Bill of Rights is an obvious example of that.

If the owner or director of the exchange suddenly dies, and he takes his memorized key with him, the exchange cannot access the data. The customers have a learning experience.

They should have a suing experience for the gross negligence of the company.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-17   16:43:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Pinguinite (#52)

Can you identify where all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???

Am I allowed to go back to 1929, or more recently in other countries?

You may go back to any point in history as long as you remain on topic. The question pertains to "all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???" Bankruptcy, where the assets are gone, does not apply. The assets have not been taken, but cannot be accessed, as in the case of Quadriga CX.

You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?

Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal?

In a plea deal you are given an attorney who explains it to you, the Court explains the deal to you, and you must state to the Court that you understand the deal and its consequences, and that you enter into it freely and voluntarily.

Bitcoin does not provide a mathematician or geek who explains an Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), a hash function, or a one way function, or a 51% attack or a Sybil attack. As it is unregulated, the user assumes the risk.

Of course, US dollars is the only legal currency in the United States.

More accurately, US dollars are the only "legal tender" currency" in the US, meaning that people are obligated by law to accept it as payment for goods and services.

I provided the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter:

The Constitution 'was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in all the States.' It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the states. The states cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress. . . .

The SCOTUS usage is correct. The distinction is noticable in some other countries where some offcial currency is not legal tender, e.g., not all Bank of England pound notes are legal tender in Scotland.

That the US dollar requires a law obligating people to accept it is a statement unto itself as, if the dollar does have real value, then why is there a law required obligating people to accept it as payment?

Commerce.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it cannot be marketed as "dollars". Marketing it as "currency" is a bit more obtuse and it would surprise me if that term is in the law.

Bernard von Nothaus had a learning experience when the Court stated,

The Court finds that Section 486 means exactly what it says, and that the language within Section 486 is, in fact, plain and unambiguous, with the possible exception of the phrase "intended for use as current money." To the extent deemed ambiguous, the Court construes the phrase "intended for use as current money" consistent with its "ordinary and plain meaning." See e.g., Yeatts, 39 F.2d at 1189 ("A basic canon of statutory construction is that words should be interpreted as taking their ordinary and plain meaning.") (internal citation omitted). "Current money" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "money that circulates throughout a country; currency." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1021 (7th ed. 1999). Commonly understood definitions of related terms such as "money," "currency," and "legal tender" all refer to United States-approved money. Applying plain meaning to the terms themselves, and considering that the thrust of § 486 is to penalize competition with U.S. currency, Section 486 is not meant to be applied unless actual U.S. currency is being competed with.

The Court also stated,

... it is the view of this Court that the phrase "intended for use as current money" speaks to the requisite statutory intent for conviction under § 486. The Liberty Dollar can be "intended for use as current money" even if the specific coin denominations are different.

A four dollar coin (or bill) intended for use as current money provides the requisite criminal intent.

And the Court also stated,

In other words, the difference between a private barter system and counterfeiting is intent.

If there is intent to compete with official U.S. currency, it ain't a private barter system.

I reject the presumption that those in government do not possess fraudulent and criminal motives.

I reject the notion that I said any such thing. Strawman argument fail.

Civil asset forfeiture is a violation of the 4th, plain and simple.

Under the First Amendment, you are entitled to make and repeat absurd statements of law.

Your pronouncement that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional lacks any basis in law. SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that the civil asset forfeit laws may not impose excessive fines, but civil asset forfeiture was left in place and constitutional.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-17   18:33:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: nolu chan (#56)

You may go back to any point in history as long as you remain on topic. The question pertains to "all customers of a bank lost all their deposited assets because the bank could not access them???" Bankruptcy, where the assets are gone, does not apply. The assets have not been taken, but cannot be accessed, as in the case of Quadriga CX.

Sigh..... And here I thought we were talking about the merits and safety of dollars vs crypto. So.... People who deposited dollars in a bank account but lost their money in a particular way don't count as having lost their dollars due to a failure of the custodian of dollars themselves. Crypto is worse, you say, because the custodian of the crypto lost the crypto in a different way. So, crypto is much worse than dollars. Okay, got it.

You mean it is the customers' responsibility to understand block chain technology and asynchronous cryptography?

Perhaps we could liken that to the responsibility of criminal defendants to understand the law and court procedures when they appear before a judge and offered a plea deal?

In a plea deal you are given an attorney who explains it to you, the Court explains the deal to you, and you must state to the Court that you understand the deal and its consequences, and that you enter into it freely and voluntarily.

Freely and voluntarily? Are you shitting me? There is no "freely and voluntarily" when you are dragged against your will into a courtroom and given a choice of which hell you want to go through. That is an absolute LOAD OF CRAP nolu! Yes they must say they understand and are making the statement freely. And it's a load of SHIT every time because the key word is "must". They have NO CHOICE.

And yet somehow, because there's this friendly attorney sitting them telling them their choices, that somehow makes it okay when people who did not commit the crime they were accused of committing end up taking a guilty plea deal that provides a permanent felony conviction and ruins their employment prospects for life.

The legal system is no doubt where your profession lies and you stand by it and defend it like it's your only child. You've defended the legal system saying it works as designed or words to that effect. Okay fine, but then you come on and bash crypto likes it's the worst thing that's ever been created because people have gotten hurt with it. Hypocrisy, nolu. Go fix your legal system so innocent people stop getting felony convictions and even executed and then come on back and tell us about how bad crypto is.

And one more point on this: No one is forced to participate in crypto. Anyone buying, trading, exchanging or sitting on crypto does so as a matter of free choice.

Getting charged with a crime is NOT any such free willed activity. When a woman rides her bike down the road and is stopped by a crooked cop who claims he found drugs in her purse, she doesn't have the choice to participate or not in the legal system. She is arrested and dragged before a court and has her whole life, both present and future, at state. It is NOT a matter of free will.

So don't you dare try to demonize crypto as victimizing people who had a choice and then stand proudly by a legal system that has caused injury to innocent people, even sending them to their deaths for murders for which they were later exonerated. And you know full well that has happened.

Your pronouncement that civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional lacks any basis in law. SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 that the civil asset forfeit laws may not impose excessive fines, but civil asset forfeiture was left in place and constitutional.

Then the USSC has outlived its usefulness.

But it is apparent from the facts that the conviction of Nothaus related to Liberty dollars was because his coins and redeemable bills stated a value in dollars. Many similar silver rounds have been produced over the years as any visit to any bullion dealer can prove, but the only the Liberty dollars attracted legal trouble.

I guess that makes the Liberty Dollar coins I still have collectors items!

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-17   23:55:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Pinguinite (#62)

Sigh..... And here I thought we were talking about the merits and safety of dollars vs crypto.

Ugggh. No, I was showing that crypto uncurrency is not safe, and you were attempting to digress about dollars, as if showing that dollars or credit cards were unsafe would somehow make crypto uncurrency a safe investment.

Crypto uncurrency remains dangerously volatile and hackable.

Crypto is worse, you say, because the custodian of the crypto lost the crypto in a different way.

Crypto uncurrency is worse because when disaster strikes, the user has no legal recourse. The one saving grace is when disaster strikes and the crypto kid jumps of the window and lands on the sidewalk. He survives landing on the sidewalk outside his mother's basement window.

Freely and voluntarily? Are you shitting me? There is no "freely and voluntarily" when you are dragged against your will into a courtroom and given a choice of which hell you want to go through.

Yes, freely and voluntarily. You made a choice of your own free will and you swore under penalty of perjury that was so. You had a choice between a plea deal and a trial. You were free to pick between either one. Take away the possibility of a voluntary plea deal and you would be left with the choice of pleading guilty and accepting what comes your way, or pleading not guilty and proceeding to trial.

The legal system is no doubt where your profession lies and you stand by it and defend it like it's your only child.

As usual, you know nothing about me, and merely spout from your point of ignorance. By your standards, you would adjudge that the legal system is where the profession of most inmates lie. As they work on their appeal, they become knowledgeable on the law. Learning sooner, rather than later, is good preventive medicine.

Okay fine, but then you come on and bash crypto likes it's the worst thing that's ever been created because people have gotten hurt with it.

I do not bash crypto as the worst thing ever created. I bash claims that crypto is safe or invulnerable. It is not. It is very risky and well understood by few. The people deserve protection from the predators shilling his crap, just as they deserved protection from the predators shilling bogus income tax avoidance plans, or counterfeit, contraband coins.

And one more point on this: No one is forced to participate in crypto. Anyone buying, trading, exchanging or sitting on crypto does so as a matter of free choice.

Few have the knowledge to recognize the risks of crypto uncurrency and to make an informed choice to accept that risk.

So don't you dare try to demonize crypto as victimizing people who had a choice and then stand proudly by a legal system that has caused injury to innocent people, even sending them to their deaths for murders for which they were later exonerated.

I dare. I dare. Get down off your high horse and stop shoveling that shit. In defending your absurdly pie in the sky claims about crypto, you invariably try to change the subject. INVESTING IN CRYPTO IS DANGEROUS.

Then the USSC has outlived its usefulness.

You sound like Ilhan Omar and the socialist/commuunist clan calling themselves "The Squad."

That seems a good argument for you to take to court when your blather runs directly contrary to SCOTUS opinions. On the odd chance that the court will not agree that SCOTUS is passé, you can always pick up a law book and read it. You never know, you might learn something.

But it is apparent from the facts that the conviction of Nothaus related to Liberty dollars was because his coins and redeemable bills stated a value in dollars. Many similar silver rounds have been produced over the years as any visit to any bullion dealer can prove, but the only the Liberty dollars attracted legal trouble.

Again. Stop with the bullshit.

The court opinions quoted at my #50 and #64 make perfectly clear that your repeated claim is bullshit. The Court made unerringly clear that von Nuthaus was placing his counterfeit coins into commerce in competition with the U.S. dollar.

As I quoted the Court stating in my #64:

The Indictment alleged that the Liberty Dollar coins were to be introduced into the U.S. economy and meant to compete with U.S. currency in violation of federal law. According to the Government, the Defendant sought to have his Liberty Dollar coins accepted by merchants (and distributed by merchants) in the place of U.S. currency in order to make a profit for the Defendant and those associated with his Liberty Dollar Organization.

[...]

According to the Government, Defendant von Nothaus and his fellow Liberty Dollar Organization members made money on each transaction. (3/8/11 Tr. 54, 106-11; 3/9/11 Tr. 245). Walsh testified that when distribution of a given value of Liberty Dollar coin was no longer profitable for the organization, Defendant collected the existing coins (always the same 1 troy ounce silver coins) and had them reminted at a higher face value. (3/8/11 Tr. 110-11; 3/9/11 Tr. 205). This procedure was called the "move-up."

Agent Walsh testified:

"The Liberty Dollar structure was based on the moving average of the spot price of silver. So when the 30-day moving average of the spot price of silver was a certain level . . . if that spot price was less than $8, then . . . the Liberty Dollar was minted with $10 on the front of it. But once that average went over $8, it was minted with $20 on the front of it."

(3/9/11 Tr. 151). The Defendant was responsible for determining the price point or when to remint and move-up to a greater face value. (3/9/11 Tr. 155-56). Agent Walsh testified about the events leading up to the move from a $10 silver base Liberty Dollar to a $20 silver base in November 2005. (Government Exhs. 30-32).

[...]

At trial, the Government's theory of the case was "making money making change." Agent Walsh testified that as a Liberty Dollar Associate, she was trained via the Liberty Dollar Organization to pitch the Liberty Dollar coins to merchants as a means for "making money by making change" for consumers with the Liberty Dollar as opposed to ordinary U.S. currency or legal tender. (Government Exhs. 19-25). The Welcome Packet included a book entitled, The Liberty Dollar Solution; Chapter 58 was titled, "Making Money - Making Change." (3/9/11 Tr. 242-44; Government Exh. 25A).

The Government produced evidence during its case-in-chief that Liberty Dollar training materials [dated as early as 2006 and as late as 2007] expressly state that associates are not to "attempt to educate people about money when using Liberty Dollars." (3/8/11 Tr. 121-22). Special FBI Agent Andrew F. Romagnuolo ("Romagnuolo") explained that the FBI's concern was not the merchants voluntarily accepting the Liberty Dollar coin, but rather the folks receiving Liberty Dollar coins without being educated about the coin and its actual value:

"The problem occurs when these coins that they're distributing in currency leave the pyramid of the people who are educated about the Liberty Dollar Organization and they distribute them by making change with no further information to unsuspecting people in those businesses. They could end up with a 10, 20 or even 50 dollar coin that's worth half, or in some cases less than what the coin is marked as."

(3/8/11 Tr. 34; 60, 75-76).

Although Defendant admits to most of the facts alleged, namely, that he designed, minted, marketed, sold, and used the Liberty Dollar coins in commerce, Defendant disputes that his purpose or intent was unlawful. The Defendant maintains that his purpose and intent was, and always has been, to promote use of a "local currency" or "private barter currency" and to repeal the Federal Reserve Act as opposed to attempting to compete with U.S. currency.

Special FBI Agent Andrew F. Romagnuolo explained that a "local currency" or "private barter currency" is "something where a trade occurs" and "could be as simple a barter as trading a chicken for chopping a cord of wood." (3/8/11 Tr. 67-68). Agent Romagnuolo was familiar with a local currency used in Ithaca, New York, called the "Ithaca Hours." (3/8/11 Tr. 68). The "Ithaca Hours" community issued certificates with a designated hour and worth that could be used for trading. Id. According to Agent Romagnuolo, the only legal requirement for the Ithaca Hours was that individuals report whatever is gained to the Internal Revenue Service. Id.

The jury verdict reflects that the fact finders accepted the Government's evidence and theory.

I guess that makes the Liberty Dollar coins I still have collectors items!

You should keep your collection outside the United States. Recall, as quoted at my #50 and #64, the Court decided, "NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, pursuant to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its Memorandum and Order of November 10, 2014, its Memorandum and Order of December 1, 2014, and 18 U.S.C. § 492, ORDERS that the following properties are contraband and that no person or entity, other than the United States, may have a property right or interest in them."

You should keep your Liberty Dollar coins hidden in your pocket, only taking them out to briefly gaze upon these relics of another scam that resulted in criminal convictions, and to proclaim your affection for your precious.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-18   17:06:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 73.

#76. To: nolu chan (#73)

Freely and voluntarily? Are you shitting me? There is no "freely and voluntarily" when you are dragged against your will into a courtroom and given a choice of which hell you want to go through.

Yes, freely and voluntarily. You made a choice of your own free will and you swore under penalty of perjury that was so.

oooo... under penalty of perjury, you say? Well, that changes everything, doesn't it? As no one charged with violating a feloney law would EVER lie to a judge, right?

You live in your lala land all you want. You have chosen your god, and it is the legal system with its high priests in black robes that tell you the difference between right and wrong, because YOU can't tell that by yourself. Feel free to ignore the real world that real people live in, where innocent people falsely accused would yes, commit their very first federal crime by pleading guilty to a crime they did not commit and not seek the dangerous path -- far more dangerous than crypto could ever be -- of insisting on a trial where jail time could by far more ... far far more than they get if they agree not to trouble the state and the court for an honest trial. In t he real world, nolu, these falsely accused people have responsibilies of parenting and caring for loved ones where taking that extra time to fight and sit in jail has a cost that you apparently are clueless about.

So yeah, go take solice in the make believe world that you live in where those who actually plead guilty are making a "free choice" in doing so. It certainly should make you feel good. Certainly requiring people to do so under PoP is designed not for the benefit of the accused, but for the benefit of people like you that want to believe the justice system is a perfect, moral machine.

How ironic that this PoP plea arrangement only creates a criminal out of those who are falsely accused, and never for those real criminals who are correctly accused.

Every case should go through trial. That would greatly increase the load on the judicial system and force the state and the courts to only deal with REAL crimes that REALLY matter, and also deliver the due process that people, particularly the falsely accused, are entitled to.

I do not bash crypto as the worst thing ever created. I bash claims that crypto is safe or invulnerable.

Who ever said that? I sure didn't.

It is not. It is very risky and well understood by few.

How many people understand the US dollar? How many people understand fractional reserve banking, or the M1 M2 & M3 money supply? How many people understand the history behind it?

I dare. I dare. Get down off your high horse and stop shoveling that shit. In defending your absurdly pie in the sky claims about crypto, you invariably try to change the subject. INVESTING IN CRYPTO IS DANGEROUS.

Investing in the stock market has risks. Investing in real estate -- risks. Any kind of "investing" has risks. Starting a business is more risky than crypto given a strong majority fail in the first 2 years.

Life has risks. Get used to it.

But it is apparent from the facts that the conviction of Nothaus related to Liberty dollars was because his coins and redeemable bills stated a value in dollars. Many similar silver rounds have been produced over the years as any visit to any bullion dealer can prove, but the only the Liberty dollars attracted legal trouble.

Again. Stop with the bullshit.

The court opinions quoted at my #50 and #64 make perfectly clear that your repeated claim is bullshit. The Court made unerringly clear that von Nuthaus was placing his counterfeit coins into commerce in competition with the U.S. dollar.

... because the fact that they were denominated in US dollars was deemed to have constituted competition. Do you have any other case anywhere of anyone making silver rounds being convicted or even charged? Again, visit any coin bullion shop and you'll see plenty of 1 ounce silver coins available to purchase.

You should keep your collection outside the United States. Recall, as quoted at my #50 and #64, the Court decided, "NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, pursuant to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its Memorandum and Order of November 10, 2014, its Memorandum and Order of December 1, 2014, and 18 U.S.C. § 492, ORDERS that the following properties are contraband and that no person or entity, other than the United States, may have a property right or interest in them."

Yes, noted. Fortunately for me, I didn't see any of my liberty coins listed in the order which was plainly referring ONLY to the specific property that which was apparently seized from Nothous.

Or do you maintain that this court order, which involved a case in which I was not a party, is binding upon persons not that were not a party to the case OR to property that was also not involved?

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-07-18 21:43:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com