21 ms·

So according to the following, Vinnik was aware of the origin of bitcoins that were sold on BTC-e: > Some of the funds moved to BTC-e seem to have moved straig

by buryat 9y ago

So according to the following, Vinnik was aware of the origin of bitcoins that were sold on BTC-e: > Some of the funds moved to BTC-e seem to have moved straight to internal storage rather than customer deposit addresses, hinting at a relationship between Vinnik and BTC-e. and he was stupid enough to deposit them back to his account on MtGox: > Moving coins back onto MtGox was what let us identify Vinnik, as the MtGox accounts he used could be linked to his online identity "WME" http://archive.is/6cFcY http://archive.is/6cFcY All in all, there a strong suggestion that he participated in money laundering and was involved in the whole scheme. I wonder, if BTC-e somehow artificially pumped the bitcoin valuation leveraging the huge amount of bitcoins they put hands on, same as what MtGox did. Also, it looks like that Mark Karpeles wasn't involved in the whole scheme, and the hack was that simple thanks to the low or no security and engineering culture at MtGox: > In September 2011, the MtGox hot wallet private keys were stolen, in a case of a simple copied wallet.dat file. > the shared keypool of the wallet.dat file lead to address reuse, which confused MtGox's systems into mistakenly interpreting some of the thief's spending as deposits, crediting multiple user accounts with large sums of BTC and causing MtGox's numbers to go further out of balance by about 40,000 BTC. None of these users seem to have reported their "sudden luck".

ryanlol 9y ago
>All in all, there a strong suggestion that he participated in money laundering and was involved in the whole scheme. Well duh, anyone involved in the Bitcoin community was very well aware of this. BTC-e has been flagrantly disregarding AML and KYC laws for it's entire existence.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Lots of people in Bitcoin hate KYC and AML laws, and consider them invasive. I am one of these people. In itself, it's not an indicator of wrongdoing.
  - xg15 9y ago
    Except potentially breaking the law.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    I don't know what you're getting at here? We're not discussing wrongdoings, but violations of the law. BTC-e was operating illegally for a very long time and everyone knew this. If your dislike of KYC and AML laws led you to believe that BTC-e was on solid legal ground, then you're simply stupid.
  - empath75 9y ago
    Breaking the law is an indicator of criminal behavior, whether you like the law or not.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Hating KYC/AML law may not be a strong indicator of legal wrongdoing; breaking it, OTOH, is not merely an indicator of legal wrongdoing, but is itself such wrongdoing.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 9y ago
    Yes it is. The laws were legitimately passed; agree or not, citizens have a duty to follow them, or else protest them directly if they find them onerous enough.
- alfon 9y ago
  Btc-e is currently under 'unplanned maintenance' [1], does anyone know if it has something to do with this?. [1] https://btc-e.com/ https://btc-e.com/
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    Almost certainly. BTC-e always describes any and all issues as "maintenance".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - r721 9y ago
    >A Russian national arrested in Greece on Wednesday on suspicion of laundering criminal funds by switching them into bitcoins is a key person behind the BTC-e crypto-currency exchange, two sources close to the exchange told Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-bitcoin-idUSKBN1AB27W http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-bitco...
- someonewhocar3s 9y ago
  "Flagrantly disregarding" That BITCOIN IS NOT MONEY - so KYC IS NOT LEGALLY MANDATE At least not in civil countries. I also disagree that Money Laundering is the root of all evil. The crime is the problem, fighting the symptoms of crime (it's pay) harder than the source is, eh, ludicrous. But when you realise you actually sacrifice freedom of speech for it, that's when it gets /really/ icky. (US Supreme Court named financial transactions speech, as without donating to your cause your cause is f-kd. So it should be private & anonymous, or you give away the freedom of spending, which equals the freedom of speech) So, do I want to increase my attack surface (=being named and known to the USGOV or whomever wrt buying/trading cryptocurrency and spending it where I will), or will I use BTC-e, which respects that freedom? Hmmm. BTC-e always had a criminal vibe to it, so that might alter your choice. Regardless the vibe, you suggest self-censorship, ID'ing yourself and confessing wherever you spend, because..? You're afraid of Money Laundering? Check the Panama Papers - you're barking up the wrong tree. I think you're doing it because you're afraid of the panopticon seeing you hide yourself. It's inhumane how effective this mechanism already is.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmix 9y ago
> All in all, there a strong suggestion that he participated in money laundering and was involved in the whole scheme. I don't see how this proves he had direct involvement in the scheme instead of just running a laundering service for people. This blog post mentioned he was connected to other thefts as well: >> The stolen MtGox coins were not the only stolen coins handled by Vinnik; coins stolen from Bitcoinica, Bitfloor and several other thefts from back in 2011 and 2012 were all laundered through the same wallets. Not much solid evidence here of direct involvement in the hacks despite the bold claims, but it does look like there is some connection to the crime at the post-hack stage...
- vesinisa 9y ago
  In the archived BitcoinTalk post (http://archive.is/6cFcY http://archive.is/6cFcY) he makes several references to that he is working and handling the frozen funds for a "client". (He also happens to reveal his full legal name.) Supports him working as a money launder or front man for someone else.
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  If he ran BTC-e and some of the stolen Mt Gox coins were transferred directly from the Gox wallet to BTC-e's internal wallet (bypassing the BTC-e customer deposit wallets), doesn't that necessarily mean he was involved?
zapt02 9y ago
I find the tidbit that he moved the coins back to MtGox to be hilarious, and that being his downfall oddly poetic. It's like robbing a bank, just to waltz in with their money the following week and deposit it into that same bank.

by buryat 9y ago

ryanlol 9y ago

>All in all, there a strong suggestion that he participated in money laundering and was involved in the whole scheme. Well duh, anyone involved in the Bitcoin community was very well aware of this. BTC-e has been flagrantly disregarding AML and KYC laws for it's entire existence.

jstanley 9y ago
Lots of people in Bitcoin hate KYC and AML laws, and consider them invasive. I am one of these people. In itself, it's not an indicator of wrongdoing.
- xg15 9y ago
  Except potentially breaking the law.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  I don't know what you're getting at here? We're not discussing wrongdoings, but violations of the law. BTC-e was operating illegally for a very long time and everyone knew this. If your dislike of KYC and AML laws led you to believe that BTC-e was on solid legal ground, then you're simply stupid.
- empath75 9y ago
  Breaking the law is an indicator of criminal behavior, whether you like the law or not.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Hating KYC/AML law may not be a strong indicator of legal wrongdoing; breaking it, OTOH, is not merely an indicator of legal wrongdoing, but is itself such wrongdoing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 9y ago
  Yes it is. The laws were legitimately passed; agree or not, citizens have a duty to follow them, or else protest them directly if they find them onerous enough.
alfon 9y ago
Btc-e is currently under 'unplanned maintenance' [1], does anyone know if it has something to do with this?. [1] https://btc-e.com/ https://btc-e.com/
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Almost certainly. BTC-e always describes any and all issues as "maintenance".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- r721 9y ago
  >A Russian national arrested in Greece on Wednesday on suspicion of laundering criminal funds by switching them into bitcoins is a key person behind the BTC-e crypto-currency exchange, two sources close to the exchange told Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-bitcoin-idUSKBN1AB27W http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-bitco...
someonewhocar3s 9y ago
"Flagrantly disregarding" That BITCOIN IS NOT MONEY - so KYC IS NOT LEGALLY MANDATE At least not in civil countries. I also disagree that Money Laundering is the root of all evil. The crime is the problem, fighting the symptoms of crime (it's pay) harder than the source is, eh, ludicrous. But when you realise you actually sacrifice freedom of speech for it, that's when it gets /really/ icky. (US Supreme Court named financial transactions speech, as without donating to your cause your cause is f-kd. So it should be private & anonymous, or you give away the freedom of spending, which equals the freedom of speech) So, do I want to increase my attack surface (=being named and known to the USGOV or whomever wrt buying/trading cryptocurrency and spending it where I will), or will I use BTC-e, which respects that freedom? Hmmm. BTC-e always had a criminal vibe to it, so that might alter your choice. Regardless the vibe, you suggest self-censorship, ID'ing yourself and confessing wherever you spend, because..? You're afraid of Money Laundering? Check the Panama Papers - you're barking up the wrong tree. I think you're doing it because you're afraid of the panopticon seeing you hide yourself. It's inhumane how effective this mechanism already is.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dmix 9y ago

> All in all, there a strong suggestion that he participated in money laundering and was involved in the whole scheme. I don't see how this proves he had direct involvement in the scheme instead of just running a laundering service for people. This blog post mentioned he was connected to other thefts as well: >> The stolen MtGox coins were not the only stolen coins handled by Vinnik; coins stolen from Bitcoinica, Bitfloor and several other thefts from back in 2011 and 2012 were all laundered through the same wallets. Not much solid evidence here of direct involvement in the hacks despite the bold claims, but it does look like there is some connection to the crime at the post-hack stage...

vesinisa 9y ago
In the archived BitcoinTalk post (http://archive.is/6cFcY http://archive.is/6cFcY) he makes several references to that he is working and handling the frozen funds for a "client". (He also happens to reveal his full legal name.) Supports him working as a money launder or front man for someone else.
mikeyouse 9y ago
If he ran BTC-e and some of the stolen Mt Gox coins were transferred directly from the Gox wallet to BTC-e's internal wallet (bypassing the BTC-e customer deposit wallets), doesn't that necessarily mean he was involved?

zapt02 9y ago

I find the tidbit that he moved the coins back to MtGox to be hilarious, and that being his downfall oddly poetic. It's like robbing a bank, just to waltz in with their money the following week and deposit it into that same bank.