Slashdot Mirror


Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com)

jwhyche, Slashdot reader #6,192, writes: If you bought some illegal narcotics off Silk Road or even gave money to Wikileaks. Researchers at Qatar University and Hamad Bin Khalifa University have been able to link these transactions with real world identities. They have been able to do this even if the transactions are years old. Their research shows how easy it is to link accounts to these transactions without using any of the tools available to law enforcement like search warrants or subpoenas.
The researchers started with 88 unique bitcoin addresses from Tor hidden services, and then searched 5 billion tweets and 1 million pages on the Bitcoin Talk forum -- ultimately linking 125 unique users to 20 Tor hidden services. "Bitcoin addresses should always be considered exploitable," the researchers conclude, "as they can be used to deanonymize users retroactively."

Their paper is titled "When a Small Leak Sinks a Great Ship: Deanonymizing Tor Hidden Service Users Through Bitcoin Transactions Analysis," and Wired summarizes one of their conclusions. "Even deleting profile information that includes bitcoin addresses may not be enough if a post has been cached or captured by services like the Internet Archive, they point out. 'If you're vulnerable now, you're vulnerable in the future.'"

106 comments

  1. Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, Bitcoin seems very valuable as an anonymous payment system which is later linked to your real identity and publicized.

    I'd happily trade $20,000 for one of these newfangled bitcoins, especially given the elevated risk of theft from the poorly secured bitcoin exchanges.

    1. Re:Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use an exchange you fucking faggot. Everybody knows you ALWAYS KEEP YOUR OWN PRIVATE KEYS. IDIOTS.

    2. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autism is a sad thing.

    3. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin...you fucking IDIOT.

      Can we make this a meme, at least for a little while, please please???

    4. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!

    5. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like old pappy did with his life savings in mattress. You know until it caught a virus and he lost everything.

    6. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald?

    7. Re: Revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that meme has been done to death.

  2. Schadenfreude by Petersko · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHA

    1. Re: Schadenfreude by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      haunt me again bitcoin...my banker calls me weekly with good news.

    2. Re: Schadenfreude by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      haunt me again bitcoin...my banker calls me weekly with good news.

      Of course he or she does. We all believe you.

    3. Re: Schadenfreude by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yes, my doctor told me during a house call, while I was getting a coal delivery. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get some carbon paper for my typewriter.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just assume someone's gender? Off to the gulag with you.

    5. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in hell do you permute "he or she" into a presumption of gender?

    6. Re: Schadenfreude by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I already made 10 times and still have some left. Poor me.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Pft, like anyone would trust a woman banker. She'd just spend it on cunny rags, chocolate and a black guy to nail her.

    8. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And single women on Ashley Madison tell you what a stud you are and send you invites every week, too.

    9. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it assumes the person is one of the 99.87% of the population that identifies as he or she and not one of the 45 other totally real gender options.

      How cis-hetero-normative of you... And you are only making it worse for yourself. Enjoy your time at the gulag.

    10. Re: Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarah?

  3. one-time-use addresses by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    FWIW you can easily choose a one-time-use bitcoin address to deal with this problem. Some people advocate using a different address for each transaction (for example, if you are selling a lot of things, give each customer a different address, that way you can tell who has paid you).

    OTOH bitcoin transactions are inherently traceable, so even if there's no known way to determine who you are at this moment, in the future someone might figure out a way.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:one-time-use addresses by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This stopped working in the current state of Bitcoin, because you pay a fee for the amount of data you use on the blockchain, and the more addresses you accumulate, the more horrible the fees become.

      Fees have got so high that addresses with a small balance (somewhere around $15-ish last time I checked, which is crazy) are effectively lost, because the fee is higher than the amount stored in the address.

      The problem compounts for paying people. If I want to send you $15, I may have to spend somewhere around $15 in fees to do so, costing me a total of $30. At the end of this you will have an address with $15 worth on it, but which can't be actually spent, so I paid you, but you have effectively nothing anyway. At this point either you bump your prices, or try to consolidate your accounts through a very low fee transaction that might or not get processed, and that may take a week or so.

      TL;DR: The modern bitcoin is completely useless as a payment system, and only remains of interest to people who hoard it and hope the price will rise. I expect it to crash and burn eventually as the realization sets in that it's not good for anything anymore except as a kind of gambling system.

      Those people interested in something that approximates a currency can go with Bitcoin Cash, which is a fork that's far more in line with what Bitcoin used to be, or something else like Ethereum.

    2. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X bitcoins from wallet A into new/clean wallet B, X bitcoins then transferred from wallet B to wallet C. Wallet B never used again. Not too hard to connect the dots.

    3. Re: one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody really use bitcoin to buy stuff anymore. You need to be moving large amounts of money.... like investing or speculating.... or money laundering in which case the money lost is well worth it.

      Lil Kim can directly launder money and really doesnâ(TM)t care if he is identified because.... his account canâ(TM)t be frozen. Itâ(TM)s great for known bad actors since you can expose them but canâ(TM)t do shit about it. Itâ(TM)s just bad for the smaller fishes.

    4. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Bitcoin is not designed for anonymous payment, just for pseudonymous payment. That is something else entirely. All these people thinking Bitcoin is anonymous have either not bothered finding out any facts or are just kidding themselves. This has basically been known since Bitcoin exists and no expert is the least bit surprised by research results such as this one.

      Anonymity must be a primary design goal in a communicating system or it will not be there. Sure, the effort for identifying a person will vary, but it will be possible.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Bitcoin, and I look forward to seeing its proponents lose everything, but I feel the need help you understand the technology.]

      You seem to be confused about what's actually stored in a Bitcoin wallet. (Hint: It's not US dollars.) The changing relative value of Bitcoins to US dollars does not alter the cost of the "fee" for a Bitcoin transaction relative to the value of what's stored in the wallet. In other words, the break-even point is constant number of bitcoins, and there is no magic value in US dollars that causes a wallet to suddenly become worthless.

      (TL;DR: The FUD about fees in your post reads like all those idiots who are afraid of getting a raise because they think they'll lose money for being in the next tax bracket.)

    6. Re:one-time-use addresses by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin isn't really designed for payments full stop. The design lends itself more as an investment avenue as you can't realistically have a transaction system that takes minutes (or more realistically at the moment hours or days to confirm) and costs significant amounts of money for the privilege of a transaction slower than any of the traditional transfer mechanisms

    7. Re:one-time-use addresses by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, bitcoin is a transaction system, not a money laundering system.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      TL;DR: The modern bitcoin is completely useless as a payment system, and only remains of interest to people who hoard it and hope the price will rise. I expect it to crash and burn eventually as the realization sets in that it's not good for anything anymore except as a kind of gambling system.

      This. I hope it crashes soon, I need a new graphics card and the market is either dry or you pay insane prices. This madness has to stop.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPU's can't mine bitcoin, so btc crash won't impact prices at all. But you're a faggot, so you won't understand this.

    10. Re:one-time-use addresses by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      True, but that only makes the problem worse. The people and companies that accept BTC as payment don't use it as an independent system unrelated to everything else, but as something that converts to USD.

      So if the minimum fee is 0.001 BTC, at $1/BTC that amounts to nothing, and at $10K/btc it's now $10 USD.

      Bitcoin has a 1MB block size limit, which means people are also competing to get their transactions accepted by the network. The more competition there is, the higher the minimum fee rises.

      Bitcoin also has a supply that grows at a fixed rate, and the more people get interested in it, the more competition there is for that supply, therefore the more the price rises, and with it so does the value of the minimum fee.

      The two problems together add up to a complete clusterfuck that means that the more interest there is in BTC, the worse it actually it performs at being a curency.

    11. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mad, bro?

    12. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible that the crash of bitcoin will lead holders of other cryptocurrencies to realize their own investments are probably going to crash soon too, so btc crashing may impact prices indirectly after all.

      But you're a faggot, so you won't understand this.

    13. Re:one-time-use addresses by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If Bitcoin crashes and Monero takes its place, then you haven't even seen what high GPU prices look like yet.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he is, but the GPU guy is a total idiot. I thought people on slashdot were smarter.

    15. Re:one-time-use addresses by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Those people interested in something that approximates a currency can go with Bitcoin Cash

      Yes, let's go with something owned entirely by Chinese miners. No chance of a 51% attack by the Chinese government there.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go play with your right hand. You're a 5 digit ./er playing video games still? You must be the 50 year old virgin.

    17. Re:one-time-use addresses by borcharc · · Score: 1

      LOL brand new 6 stat/byte tx's ($0.0069) are getting included in the next block. fees are the lowest they have been for some time now that the spam attack has stopped. Your post demonstrated absolutely zero domain knowledge.

    18. Re:one-time-use addresses by borcharc · · Score: 1

      But thankfully the minimum fee has never been 0.001 BTC. Some crappy services have charged this, but that isnt what the miners charge unless you have a very edge case UTXO. Take a look at the mempool, its empty. 6 stat/B transactions are getting included in the next block. The fee competition was the result of spam attack. Bitcoin transaction volume hasn't collapsed but the fees did as soon as the spam ended.

    19. Re: one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brada do you know de wae

    20. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I see the Bitcoin morons are getting more butt-hurt and even more stupid. Excellent. Please continue. And I do hope you never recover economically.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is also the little problem that manufacturing BC mining-ASICs takes production capacity away from other things and that does affect gfx-card prices and availability. But I expect that argument will fly right over the hollow heads that drive this madness.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    22. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      An AC that is desperately envious? Hehehehehehe. You fucked up your life, but I did not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      manufacturing BC mining-ASICs takes production capacity away from other things and that does affect gfx-card prices and availability

      That's true, but I suspect magically eliminating that opportunity cost wouldn't affect GPU prices/availability as much as the collapse of the cryptocurrency bubble.

      I agree with you, and also hope it crashes soon (late 2018). I would really like an AMD Navi without having to pay $1k for a $300 graphics card.

    24. Re:one-time-use addresses by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So back when one BTC would buy a Big Mac, you suggest we should still pay one BTC for a Big Mac? That, by pricing something in BTC, you've "severed" it's connection to real-world currencies?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. I'm the AC who responded to the butt-hurt guy from 4chan (if his use of "faggot" is any indicator). Probably an indicator of what /.'s become.

      I don't think they're morons so much as they're caught with their pants down -- it's obviously a bubble, something's going to happen very soon, but they will look even stupider if they admit they made an idiotic decision to invest in overpriced GPUs or ASICs. They probably know you're correct, but try to save face by saying "gweihir is a fag", as opposed to making a solid argument that doesn't resort to ad hominem.

      It's probably about as useful to argue with these people as it is to argue with flat earth creationists. Except that in this case, the market will persuade them far better than some guy on /. making reasonable, logical arguments. I'd rather watch the show on /. after the bubble pops; it would be a lot more entertaining when everyone can see they were idiots who refused to admit it.

    26. Re:one-time-use addresses by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And I play LBreakout. Daily.

      Deal with it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re:one-time-use addresses by mentil · · Score: 1

      I heard the miners caused the 'spam' in order to drive up the fees and thus their own profits. What's preventing this from happening again?

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    28. Re: one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dew no de wae!

    29. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said I was envious? Are you another SJW democrat that puts words into people's mouths?

      Take your own advice

      I usually ignore AC's. There are too many self-important cretins hiding behind it.

      Ignore me and go slink back in to your basement with the lovers at the ends of your arms.

    30. Re:one-time-use addresses by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      I used 0.001 BTC as a round value to illustrate the problem. Currently I'm getting a suggestion of a $4 fee to send $10. Just slightly less insane than it used to be.

      The mempool is sure as heck not empty, and hasn't been in a long time: https://blockchain.info/en/cha...

      Bitcoin volume can't collapse in the current state because the blocks are always full. There's more people wanting to use the network than resources the network has, so a reduction in interest still results in full usage of what there is.

      The whole spam argument is complete bullshit. The fees are high enough that it would cost insane amounts of money to send enough transactions to affect the network, and even if somebody did, guess what? Sending transactions is what the network exists for in the first place. If it can be defeated so trivially, it's just a bad design that should be replaced with something better.

    31. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What country are you buying the Big Mac in?

    32. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because bitcoin ASICs are fabbed on 16nm and 12nm like Nvidia's Maxwell and Volta arches. Sure, buddy, sure.

      Idiot.

    33. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on all points, except that in order to be caught with your pants down in this way in the first place, you usually have to be pretty stupid and greedy. This was just an opportunity to insult them that I found myself unable to resist. Happen sometimes. And I will definitely watch the show when it all goes down in flames.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    34. Re:one-time-use addresses by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Who said I was envious?

      I said it, because it was absolutely obvious. And you know it is true. Gotcha.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    35. Re:one-time-use addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethereum is also completely useless, flawed economy system, and prone to core-devs rage quit-resetting the currency when people exploit their bugs.

      Everything is public on Ethereum, there's no contract or data that can really be hidden, and everything that runs must be run on every node, so you have to game the system to pay for more fuel (their gas economy) to have your shit process, but isn't guaranteed because they have safeguards in place to try to make it fair, but never is, so transactions take forever.

      The only thing they have on their side is a bunch of convincing math in white papers that maybe 1% of people even read, and even less understood.

      There's no value in placing data on that network to avoid the problems they claim to try to solve, such as identity theft and what not. Why would you want that data of yours out in the open, and even if it was to say that you are who you say you are - you need organizations to buy in and use it as part of their web of trust of information, which is a huge leap for governments and organizations that deal with people's information -- I don't see it happening.

      Waste of people's time and resources. Solve other problems.

    36. Re:one-time-use addresses by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      This [one-time-use addresses] stopped working in the current state of Bitcoin, because you pay a fee for the amount of data you use on the blockchain, and the more addresses you accumulate, the more horrible the fees become.

      It makes no difference whether you use the same address or a different address. The fee is relative to the transaction size (in bytes); transaction size depends mainly on the number of inputs and outputs; and each time you receive funds, whether to an existing address or a new one, it creates a new output which requires a separate input in the spending transaction. If you make a payment using funds received in five previous transactions to the same address you pay exactly the same fees as you would if it had been five transactions to five different single-use addresses.

      Also, your information on fees is outdated. Current fees are around $5 for a typical transaction, less if you use the new SegWit protocol. Not $15.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. so, uh, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    how come no one can catch these supposed hackers who make off with millions of dollars of coin?

    on the other hand i always knew this kind of shit was going to happen so i never used it. only the paranoid survive as andy grove said.

    1. Re: so, uh, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody stole the coin. The exchange owners just transfer into a wallet and then delete it.
      Presto, that much less money they have to worry about paying back to the Ponzi victims.

    2. Re: so, uh, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody stole the coin. The exchange owners just transfer into a wallet and then delete it.
      Presto, that much less money they have to worry about paying back to the Ponzi victims.

      There's no mechanism in Bitcoin that requires holders to pay the victims who buy late. What makes it like a Ponzi scheme is that those latecomers pay the early adopters to buy into Bitcoin in the hopes of finding the Greater Fool later. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to risk criminal activity to gain -coin in order to simply delete it.

    3. Re: so, uh, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Suppose you send me cash to buy 100 bitcoins. OK, I set the "amount of bitcoins" variable on your user interface to "100". Then I take the cash and buy hookers and blow. Oh, you want to cash out your coins now? Sorry, just got hacked!

    4. Re: so, uh, ... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      But there are mechanisms in the law where the exchanges are, which require the exchange to pay out to people who hold accounts. The exchange doesn't need to perform any criminal activity to gain BTC - they already have it. They just don't want to pay out. When they delete it, they don't have to.

    5. Re: so, uh, ... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Wait, there's a flaw in your reasoning... what about the theme park and blackjack?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  5. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is excellent. It should make it a lot easier to hunt down ransomware authors and identity thieves. I support deanonymizing those individuals and then allowing vigilante justice to occur.

    1. Re:Excellent by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      .. vigilante justice ...

      Like swatting?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you think most of them live in trigger-happy-cop America? That's cute.

    3. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worse. They probably live somewhere where the state police kidnap and murder you leaving no trace behind.

    4. Re:Excellent by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      At least some of them live in countries where some upright citizen can tip off the authorities about their anti-government activities, and they just might not ever be heard from again.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  6. It's almost like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. keep a permanent record of all transactions allows this to happen. It's why Bitcoin is stupid. Why would you ever keep a 'hard' copy of everyone's financial transactions forever? It's worse than any other fiat money!

  7. So all this time the NSA could have done that? by Babel-17 · · Score: 1

    And totally coincidentally it's served as a great tool for the NSA to get the international underworld, and terrorist rings, to identify themselves? Though it's inconceivable that anyone could have anticipated this so as to use it as a financial honey trap. It would take oodles of time, lots of resources, and a disregard for cost. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:So all this time the NSA could have done that? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes but tracking is more interesting than telling people how they are been tracked and what to stop doing to avoid been tracked.
      US law enforcement considers cyber as one big information only report. Everything is been tracked but no lawyer, human rights group, FOIA is going to find out collect it all methods.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. Monero by Plugh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Monero is where the darknet markets are moving to, away from Bitcoin. The blockchain is itself encrypted, and soon it will be integrated with I2P

    1. Re:Monero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means if you use Monero and are suspected of anything, you will be arrested and tortured.

    2. Re:Monero by BabyAndTheButterfly · · Score: 0

      lol, where are you from? do they torture if they find fiat or gold? you a moron a bit?

  9. A have to be reading this wrong. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 4, Informative

    But is it saying they just searched for idiots that publicly posted their bitcoin address under their real name? Wouldn't that be like tracking down a phone number to it's owner because they stupidly posted it publicly somewhere on the web?

    It can't be that simple if it's called research, can it?

    1. Re: A have to be reading this wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wondered this myself. It sounds like people simply tweeted out their wallet address and we're identified through that, but maybe I'm missing something.

    2. Re:A have to be reading this wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that couldn't be it; certainly not from Slashdot, the same site that claimed Bitcoin users were 'blaming the moon' for falling prices, when the summary was about the Chinese New Year (which is based on a lunisolar calendar)
      Nope, slashdot isn't pushing insultingly deceptive FUD, not at all...

    3. Re:A have to be reading this wrong. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Indeed, but some times the best research is simple research.

      But what I took away from the article isn't that they could look up a bunch of idiots that used easy track able information in their transactions. But that if they could do this with little effort, what could a government agency do if they put their mind to it.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:A have to be reading this wrong. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what it said. "If you bragged about a transaction amount or address on Twitter or on a Bitcoin forum, we can link you." Wow. However did you do that?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re: A have to be reading this wrong. by slashrio · · Score: 1

      How can we be identified through other people tweeting their wallet addresses?
      I guess I'm the one missing here something.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    6. Re:A have to be reading this wrong. by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, the researchers were able to us normal investigative techniques to recover real names. It'd hardly be news if someone's ID was determined because they told the world, would it?

      I've long thought most Bitcoin users are naively confident that Bitcoin by itself protects their identity. This is typical in tech -- people rely too much on the properties of the technology to keep them safe and don't put enough thought into how they use the tech. Even if Bitcoin were technically perfect, every place where your transactions interface with the real world is a loose thread that law enforcement could pull -- and at the other end of that thread is your identity.

      Bitcoin only has marginal value in protecting privacy. To someone already taking extraordinary steps to protect themselves it has some value. But to someone who thinks it will magically shield them from law enforcement, I'd be surprised if it has any value at all. If you convert Bitcoins to dollars and vice versa, you'd better have laundered them first. And if you have contraband shipped, you'd better have it shipped to a neighbor and then grab it off his porch.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. Asking for a friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only transaction that would appear is the Bitcoin going to a darkweb market, right? There is nothing inherently illegal in transferring money to a market. The transaction, if any, within the market would be invisible? Asking for a friend.

  11. or even gave money to wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems strange to equate this with buying drugs and other illicit activity. Would many of you consider giving money to wikileaks a negative thing? Something that a person should hide? I'm just curious.

    1. Re: or even gave money to wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's negative. You're providing material support to an organization which is bent on pissing off almost every government on the planet.

      Keep in mind that Assange publicly declared he was using Wikileaks to damage the USA in particular. So you're one secret FISA warrant from being nailed with Treason.

    2. Re: or even gave money to wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's negative. You're providing material support to an organization which is bent on pissing off almost every government on the planet.

      You mean, attempting to make every government more accountable for their actions and as transparent as they like to claim they are.

      Such an evil negative cause.

    3. Re: or even gave money to wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Williams is bullshit.

      It's just some front for some government agency somewhere to offload PR hits on other countries without having to be directly accountable for it.

      My guess would be the sources are primarily from Russia or China, but theoretically it could be anyone who finds its effects useful, including the US.

      If you support wikileaks you're a sucker buying yet another narrative.

  12. Yup, those are two things I conflate all the time by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    1) Buying illegal narcotics on the Silk Road
    2) Giving money to Wikileaks

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. No shit: it was only ever pseudo anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are linked to the f*cking address of course you will be deanonymized. That doesn't mean those who weren't idiots have been deanonymized. Bitcoin was more about who was in control rather than anonymity. Newer crypto currencies have focused on the anonymity problem. Zen Cash and pretty much anything that adopts the Zero Coin protocol should be secure. Everything else was more or less mixing money to make it harder to trace in a more traditional money laundering sense. If you are going to claim anonymity you better show me the math and then the users are *still* going to have to not be stupid when it comes to use. If you post your address on a public form no amount of anonymity nor Tor is going to protect you.

  14. Captain Obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin is not, and was never intended to be, anonymous. It has always been pretty easy to associate a wallet with a person. Every transaction you make is public record on the Bitcoin blockchain.

  15. Inaccurate Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They did not deanonymize *TOR*, the onion router network for anonymizing web traffic. They deanonymized Bitcoin transactions.

    Tor != Bitcoin.

  16. classy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you used bitcoin to buy an underage sex slave, or even gave money to Wikileaks...

  17. BITCOIN IS ****NOT**** ANONYMOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we really have to go through this again?

    Bitcoin is NOT anonymous!

    If you want anonymity, the upcoming Bitcoin Private coin is for you... it's forking from another coin... ZClassic I think... that uses a zero knowledge proof to obscure the addresses involved in the transaction so that specific transactions cannot be tied to specific wallets or people.

    I think the fork is supposed to happen in February some time.

  18. Qatari Mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buying heroin and donating to Wikileaks are morally equivalent.

  19. Re:Yup, those are two things I conflate all the ti by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

    It's a reasonably standard English idiom, and extremely common in Slashdot writeups, to use constructions of this form: If [bad thing], or even if [fairly innocent thing], then [bad consequence either way].

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  20. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't expect anonymity when you associate the address with your identity. How is this news?

  21. commentsubject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >being a sufficient tool to facetweet reddiblrgram
    >using easily-searched matchups on a bitcoin forum
    >if not outright identical username on bitcoin forum (jesus christ)

    Keep rationalizing your socnets, folks.

  22. Purple Haze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's comin' to get choo...

  23. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are stupid, people and merchants stopped using Bitcoin that's why it's less congested.

    The moment people start using Bitcoin again the fee will go up again.

    Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin used to be before Blockstream fucked it up.

    Bitcoin Cash, always 0.0001 fee, always fast, always included in the next block.

    1. Re:Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      0.0001 what? BTC(C?) If Bitcoin Cash (or any other currency) becomes successful, it will inherently become a victim of its own value. It's like trying to use gold as cash when the supply is fluctuating faster than people can calculate the value.

      The problem with cryptocoins is that they inherently represent value proportional to the amount of work they took to create. They are *always* valued (or worthless) based fundamentally on their intrinsic properties, and that makes them an asset, not a currency.

      There's a reason societies around the world switched to fiat currency: The only things that make good currencies are things that are otherwise without any utility or intrinsic value, like cash, or imaginary cash inside of an imaginary vault. As soon as the representation of worth becomes itself worth something, it stops being useful as a currency. See also: coin collecting.

      , whereas cash is only tied to work or value through mutual agreement in the exchange for goods or services.

  24. If you deanonymized yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can be deanonymized.

    good to know

  25. XSPEC... by D,Petkow · · Score: 1

    with native obfs4 implementation and TOR integration. BOOM!

  26. It's still stealing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're still making up imaginary wealth, to devalue the wealth of everybody else (via inflation), and haven't worked a fucking second for it!
    No, the work of sneaking in and stuffing shit into a bag does not qualify. Nor does the work of telling others to do your work for you.

    Meanwhile, we here... the normal people, have actually made something of worth for our money. I created toys that allow children with disabilities to do the exercises that cure them while having a lot of fun and staying motivated. Your average Joe next door built the shit that you use, keeps it from breaking down, or even invents and engineers things that permanently improve the world.
    You just found a moron to give imaginary glass beads to for more money than you paid for them when you were being the moron.

    And for the record: There's nothing wrong with the concept of money, nor the concept of crypto-currencies per se. They're quite nice concepts.
    The problems start, when it becomes something representing actual work, and hence actual worth, for some, while being something made up without working, and hence without worth, for others.
    Yes, this includes "mining", "management", re-selling, trading, "intellectual property", interest, and any other way banks are allowed to make up money.

    The only things of *actual* worth, are natural real resources, like spacetime/-energy/-entropy, and work.
    (When you buy a chair, you pay the work of making it, plus the natural resources it was made out of.)

    1. Re:It's still stealing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you pay for the adulation of everyone who sees what a fucking awesome sexy chair you have.
      And then they all want on too.
      Profit.

  27. Cash me outside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cash me outside, BitCoin... Cash me outside...

  28. Okay??? by cshark · · Score: 1

    So... what's the takeaway here?
    If you're a criminal, don't advertise on the overnet with the same address you're using for crime?
    Duh.

    I mean, that should be obvious.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  29. Show of hands by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Okay, let's have a show of hands- who didn't see this coming?

    Anytime anyone claims something is "anonymous" or "untrackable", bet on them being wrong.

    There's nothing that's truly "anonymous" or "untrackable" and yet people keep falling for these absurd claims.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  30. D'oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How was this not obvious from the start? Every Bitcoin has an ID of the miner to verify is was created, and the blockchain records every transaction, so the current holder of each coin is known. So once there is an intersection of your wallet with a traceable ID, your cover is blown.