Slashdot Mirror


DOJ Hasn't Actually Found Silk Road Founder's Bitcoin Yet

Techdirt has an interesting followup on the arrest and indictment of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, in connection to which the FBI seized 26,000 or so Bitcoins. From the Techdirt piece: "However, in the criminal complaint against Ulbricht, it suggested that his commissions were in the range of $80 million -- or about 600,000 Bitcoins. You might notice the disconnect between the 26,000 Bitcoins seized and the supposed 600,000 Ulbright made. It now comes out that those 26,000 Bitcoins aren't even Ulbricht's. Instead, they're actually from Silk Road's users. In other words, these were Bitcoins stored with user accounts on Silk Road. Ulbricht's actual wallet is separate from that, and was apparently encrypted, so it would appear that the FBI does not have them, nor does it have any way of getting at them just yet. And given that some courts have argued you can't be forced to give up your encryption, as it's a 5th Amendment violation, those Bitcoins could remain hidden -- though, I could see the court ordering him to pay the dollar equivalent in restitution (though still not sure that would force him to decrypt the Bitcoins)." The article also notes that the FBI's own Bitcoin wallet has been identified, leading to some snarky micropayment messages headed their direction.

24 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Money for his defense by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But that is part of the game. You gut someones means and prosecute them so they can't defend themselves. That is the game the government plays.

  2. Disappearing Bitcoins by ndogg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This brings up an interesting thought. Since the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, and if these coins seem to now be irrecoverable, what happens to the currency when it disappears into encrypted black holes like this?

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:Disappearing Bitcoins by ThatAblaze · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's easy: The value of each bitcoin in circulation increases.

    2. Re:Disappearing Bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People do not have to know it is irrevocably lost, people do not even have to know that any of this happened. This is the most basic concept in economics.

    3. Re:Disappearing Bitcoins by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've never seen code at a financial institute, have you?

      Yes, there have been scams based on rounding decimals. No, these were not due to rounding errors or any other kind of technical error with floating point calculations, but due to the fact that currencies display a limited amount of decimal places whereas some calculations may produce more decimal places. Instead of rounding off and dropping the difference, the scam was to round off and transfer any positive difference to the thief's account. The problem is fixed nowadays by rounding off to the advantage of the customer at a relatively minor loss to the banks; there simply isn't any positive difference to transfer.

      FYI, I've worked some 12 years at various banks and had to deal with these rounding issues. These fixes were put in place decades before I started my carreer.

      The "greatest financial scams of our time" are based on social engineering, not technical engineering.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Disappearing Bitcoins by ThatAblaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Deflation just makes the idea of investing seem absurd. That may be no way to run a country, but it's a perfectly fine way to run a sub-currency. Collectables behave exactly like bitcoins, and they haven't destroyed the economy yet.

    5. Re:Disappearing Bitcoins by diamondmagic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Economists regard price deflation as bad: That's when costs for businesses and debtors go up, without a corresponding increase in revenue. Businesses fail left and right under this situation.

      Bitcoins, not now, but in the future, will have the property of monetary deflation, which is good: Prices go down uniformly and predictably.

      The key thing to keep in mind is that, if the future effects are predictable, that'll be reflected in the price now, minus interest for the price of time.

      (Monetary inflation may be predictable in many cases, but it's still damaging because it's not uniform: It benefits banks and the politically well connected with new money, letting them bid up prices, effectively stealing wealth from savings and those on fixed incomes.)

  3. Lost forever? by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now imagine that this Ulbright ends up in jail, or dies, the keys to this encrypted wallet are lost, and with it these 600,000 bitcoin are lost. I think this is a pretty realistic scenario.

    Now what consequence would this be for the bitcoin as a currency, when a significant chunk of its coins are taken our of the equation? It's about 5% of the current total number of almost 12 million bitcoin in existence (and 3% of the theoretical maximum of 21 mln). And bitcoin can not be recreated or added to, like a regular currency.

    Another thing of note, is that apparently a single bitcoin user managed to amass 5% of the total number of that currency in existence. Those numbers potentially give that person massive market power: dumping them all on the market in one go would cause the value of bitcoin to crash. Smaller quantities have that potential already.

    1. Re:Lost forever? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now imagine that this Ulbright ends up in jail, or dies, the keys to this encrypted wallet are lost, and with it these 600,000 bitcoin are lost. I think this is a pretty realistic scenario.

      No, he has the bitcoin equivalent of 600,000; Not 600,000 actual coins. The coins themselves are divisible.. so he has a crapton of fractions of coins, adding up to a total of 600,000.

      Now what consequence would this be for the bitcoin as a currency, when a significant chunk of its coins are taken our of the equation? It's about 5% of the current total number of almost 12 million bitcoin in existence (and 3% of the theoretical maximum of 21 mln)

      Umm, bad news: As of this submission, there were 11,800,375 coins created so far. The "theoretical maximum" is 21 million coins, yes, but you forgot each coin is divisible by https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#21_million_coins_isn.27t_enough.3B_doesn.27t_scale

      ">100,000,000. So in actuality, there are 2,099,999,997,690,000 units of currency that can be traded without modification to the current protocol. What most people don't understand about bitcoin is that even if a few coins here and there fall out of circulation, or even more than a few, so long as there are a sufficient number of atomic currency units available for trade, the system will function perfectly. Trading in bitcoins is more like trading in company stock than in actual currency -- they can be divided, aggregated, etc., etc. A bitcoin is, at the protocol level, just a token for a massive transactional log called the 'block chain'. It doesn't matter how many bitcoins are generated, or how many fall out of circulation, as long as enough remain in circulation to cover the transactions since the last block in the chain was created.

      Another thing of note, is that apparently a single bitcoin user managed to amass 5% of the total number of that currency in existence. Those numbers potentially give that person massive market power: dumping them all on the market in one go would cause the value of bitcoin to crash. Smaller quantities have that potential already.

      That person is now no longer a person, but a government. Just a minor footnote. Now, all that said, here's the thing about bitcoins... should we ever run out of them for whatever reason, we can always 'reset the clock' as it were -- start a new seed, a new block zero, and start building a new block chain from there. This isn't like IPv4 address space exhaustion; We just plug in a new seed and viola, Bitcoin Mark II.

      Eeeh... all that said, I don't trade in bitcoins and I think the entire business is silly but if we're going to talk turkey, we should at least be accurate in our assessments.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Minor details! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    in the criminal complaint against Ulbricht, it suggested that his commissions were in the range of $80 million -- or about 600,000 Bitcoins.

    Yes, and given how badly he managed his assets, I doubt even a fraction of this will be recovered. He was not a very good businessman, his servers weren't very well secured... in fact the only thing in the "had lots of" category with this guy was ego. I mean really... "Dread Pirate Roberts"? And have you seen some of the things he wrote on this website of his? "I'll take as much of your money as I want because this is my ship. If you don't like it, fuck off." -- It's actually included in the criminal indictment against him, along with a laundry list of, shall we say, personality shortcomings of his leading to other elements of the criminal underground coming by to explain all meanings of the word "respect" to him, and then him blowing tons and tons of money either paying these people off, or trying (pathetically) to put hits out on them.

    If there's one charge I could add to the indictment, it would be criminal stupidity.

    It now comes out that those 26,000 Bitcoins aren't even Ulbricht's. Instead, they're actually from Silk Road's users. In other words, these were Bitcoins stored with user accounts on Silk Road.

    Technically, they were for purchases pending. Silk road worked by letting you transfer coins into a silk road proxy account. It ran every submission through its "tumbler" to randomize which coins were actually used for which transactions. So what was seized was basically the day's take out of the register, as it were.

    Ulbricht's actual wallet is separate from that, and was apparently encrypted, so it would appear that...

    That he'll be charged as a terrorist and sequested in a room somewhere to be beaten with a metal pipe or waterboarded until he gives up the password. Has anyone heard from him lately?

    And given that some courts have argued you can't be forced to give up your encryption, as it's a 5th Amendment violation...

    We'll just create a new court especially to prosecute terrorists like him extrajudicially. Oh wait... we already did.

    The article also notes that the FBI's own Bitcoin wallet has been identified, leading to some snarky micropayment messages headed their direction.

    Taunting the police has historically worked out quite well for criminals. Dude, you aren't anonymous. You basically just signed your own search warrant.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:Money for his defense by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But that is part of the game. You gut someones means and prosecute them so they can't defend themselves. That is the game the government plays.

    Only with people dumb enough to not prepare ahead of time for this. This guy was 'new money'. He didn't know how to manage his assets, how to invest, how to setup multiple accounts, and didn't have the good sense to bond a lawyer ahead of time and give them limited power of attorney so they could coordinate his estate while he was in jail. See, this is what 'old money' does, and it means they get to hire entire bus loads of attorneys to show up at court, and the government can't do dick about it because they were bought and paid for ahead of time and are being funded out of accounts they can't seize or have access to because the money's been cleaned and separated from his personal accounts through shell corporations, etc.

    Don't talk about how to play the game... this guy wasn't a player, he was a loser. He was setup from day one, by his own stupidity, to lose. If I was running a website like that, the very first thing I'd have done after getting ahead financially is separate out as much money as I could for future legal troubles, and hire accountants and lawyers so when the day came to save my sorry ass, all I'd have to do is just sit in jail and wait while Plan Bravo executed all on its own to spring me.

    But, since the man was basically a walking cliche instead of a proper criminal or businessman or even passably decent nerd, I feel compelled to quote off his namesake:

    "Do you hear that, Fezzik? That is the sound of ultimate suffering. My heart made that sound when the six-fingered man killed my father. The Man in Black makes it now."

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  6. Re:Money for his defense by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe you lack adequate information on how Bitcoin works. If he or someone he trusts and gave instructions to beforehand has access to another copy of the wallet, it's just as good as the original, and the coins may be transferred elsewhere and converted to other currencies, etc via the normal exchanges. I'll be surprised if the prosecuting authorities manage to figure out how to track that; they certainly won't be able to stop it. If by some chance they manage to gain access to the encrypted keys that protect the wallet in their possession, it almost certainly won't be of any value (to them) by then.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  7. Re:Money for his defense by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He might need some of that hoard to pay for his defense. I don't know that going cheap on this will be in his interest.

    According to Wired he's using a public defender.

    Remember, Ulbricht was living in a shared apartment and working out of a library. If his defense is that he's not the guy running Silk Road, it would be suspicious for a man in his situation to suddenly have an expensive defense team.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  8. Re:interesting end for my travel on the silk road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't get it... you go through all that trouble to purchase in a manner you feel is anon on silk road, but then you post about it on slashdot using your registered account? I don't know much about silk road or its transactions, but it sort of blows my mind that people would sent drugs through the mail, nevermind risk picking them up. Same people who don't mind their drugs having bits of feces on them from time to time I suppose.

  9. Re:interesting end for my travel on the silk road by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get it... you go through all that trouble to purchase in a manner you feel is anon on silk road, but then you post about it on slashdot using your registered account?

    Given the nature of the internet, it can easily be argued that he's lying his ass off. Even if he isn't, 'small hash order' indicates he's a user, not a dealer, thus *on average* incredibly unlikely to be a worthy target for the 3+ agencies you'd need to coordinate with in order to track him down.

    Off the top of my head - you'd need to get a warrant to get slashdot to disclose Cito's account and IP address information. Then you'd need to figure out WHERE in the world he is(presumably the USA). You have to hope that he was using home or at least work for his slashdot postings rather than using the same anonymous internet cafe. Once you've figured out where he is, you have to contact the appropriate state police agency to coordinate with, along with the postmaster general(assuming USPS was used as opposed to UPS/Fedex).

    On Average it's just not worth it. They want dealers, not users.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  10. Re:Power of attorney transfer them from his wallet by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If he has secured his private keys, then nobody can touch his Bitcoins. Not the NSA, FBI, CIA...

    I've heard people say that the NSA can decrypt various things that are thought to be impossible (in reasonable time). Even if that were true, I doubt they are going show their hand and remove all doubt over something as trivial as this, so i think you are correct.

    While he still has access to his bitcoins, they can argue that they should be allowed to force him to give up his keys. If he no longer has access to his bitcoins then they can't, so there is an advantage to him putting them somewhere where he can't get them. He'd need to find someone he can trust though...

  11. Re:Money for his defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Judging from what you're saying, you'd probably enjoy Breaking Bad. You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about the way it handles its subject matter.

  12. Re: "[x] Post Anonymously" -- use sparingly by deadlydiscs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Uh... come on folks, this is /. after all. When you [x] Post Anonymously, it's anonymous. Basically, when you click that anonymous button, it does a reverse traceroute and auto-roots every server and network device you've traveled across to get here. From there, it modifies server and device logs to substitutes your IP with the IP of [famous coffee shop] farthest from your actual location. Only post anonymously when you're absolutely sure you need to. ;)

  13. Re:Money for his defense by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big mistake hipsters make is assuming anyone cares about how hipster they are. We were talking about encryption, virtual currencies, legal tactics, and as usual where people gather, the occasional pop culture reference.

    Back on topic, now, please.

  14. Re:Money for his defense by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is an actual cool feature of Bitcoin - you can copy money. You can only spend it once, but you can have a backup copy of your money. Or several.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. Re:Money for his defense by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snark aside though... if this 'Walter White' guy is mass producing drugs for a TV show, the odds are very, very good that the producers have given a highly slanted perspective on how drugs are actually made and distributed, because the day to day is actually quite boring for the people involved... and they don't make as much money as you seem to think either.

    And you know this how? You're either making shit up to appear smart, or a genuine idiot bragging about her actual extensive experience working for a drug cartel on a public web forum where your IP can be easily traced - on a story discussing a drug bust that ultimately resulted from the accused posting on a forum, no less.

    Either way, epic fail.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  16. Also for a lot of things by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Public defenders are a good choice. I know that there's this Hollywood cliche that public defenders were C students that are worthless and don't know what they are doing but that isn't usually the case. Many of them are quite passionate about what they do, and good at it. Also they have a lot of trial experience, which is something that private attorneys often don't. Knowing the law and being good at trial are different things and public defenders get a lot of trial time. Plus they have experience with criminal law, since that's what they do. They don't spend time messing with estate planning or shit like they, they defend criminal cases.

    So depending on the charge, the area you are in, etc, etc a public defender can actually be good, maybe even the best, option. They may have a better handle on the law and be better at trial than a private lawyer.

  17. Re: Power of attorney transfer them from his walle by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they try "swordfish"?!?

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  18. Re:Money for his defense by ultranova · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or option c: I have had friends who got involved in the wrong people, and helped to get them out of it, with the help of law enforcement and a lot of time at a law library where, reviewing case after case of drug busts of all varieties searching for a technicality, I may have inadvertently learned a few things as well the good old fashioned way: With primary research.

    Or option d: You made shit up earlier, and are now making up more shit to avoid admitting that. And the rest of your posts don't really suggest you have the capability of learning law on the fly. And even if you did, law enforcement isn't exactly famous for helping people get out of drug-related charges, or helping them research technicalities.

    Friend Occam, what do you say?

    I could not have stated your failure any more succinctly.

    Losing to a non-native speaker of your language in eloquence of expression is not exactly something to brag about, now is it?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.