Early Bitcoin Adopters Facing Extortion Threats

An anonymous reader writes Wired recounts the story of Hal Finney, one of the very first adopters of Bitcoin. Finney died earlier this year after a long fight with Lou Gehrig's disease. But for months before his death, he was a victim of constant harassment from somebody trying to extort his Bitcoins. He and his family faced a variety of threats, and had a SWAT team called on their residence. And it turns out Finney is not alone — other early adopters are being targeted with similar threats. "That's when someone using the names Nitrous and Savaged hacked into [early adopter Roger Ver's] email accounts and demanded that he cough up 37 bitcoins—about $20,000 at the time—in order to prevent his private information from being published online. Ver refused, and the hacker apparently backed off after Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on his head. Ver, who was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison for illegally shipping explosive across state lines, believes that Savaged is not only the same person who swatted Hal Finney, but also the person who gained access to Satoshi Nakamoto's email account earlier this year."

Comments

anonymous!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Aren't bitcoins supposed to be anonymous? So anonymous no government jack booted thugs can find you? So great you could pay off goons in bitcoins to knock off spouses with inconvenient pre-nuptial agreements?

If random hackers find you and shake you down, your imagined immunity from FBI is just imaginary, isn't it? Shows without a legal government backing it up and providing for a non-violent conflict resolution options and contract enforcement options, all these "digital anonymous currencies" are just jokes, created by folks unconnected with reality creating castles in the air.

Re:Still can't believe

[ultranova]

when you give people the simplified choice of, should this tragedy have happened, or do we prevent it in the future, they will always pick the "lets prevent this in the future option". Because they are not writing the budges, they are not directly taking money out of schools or medical care. They are not deciding exactly what rights to trampled on.

Yes, it's the dumb public who's at fault. Except... for some strange reason the police don't behave this way in, say, Nordic countries, despite them being openly and officially huge-government welfare nanny states straight from Ayn Rand's worst nightmares. So perhaps, just perhaps, the problem behind the police acting like an occupying force is not the public but the police themselves?