3 ms·

I think the explanation is simple: the person who wrote the article doesn't seem to understand how bitcoin works. For all the police knows, the encrypted secre

I think the explanation is simple: the person who wrote the article doesn't seem to understand how bitcoin works. For all the police knows, the encrypted secret key could be backed up in a gazillion places (cloud, tape, paper wallet, hidden CD-ROM, USB key buried in garden, memorized 12 word seed, etc...). For a properly prepared Bitcoin owner, there is no such thing as "preventing someone from accessing their Bitcoin" other than holding them in a jail cell with no internet access for the rest of their natural lives.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
buran77 6y ago
They will also monitor the wallet and the moment it's accessed in any way more indictments follow. The money officially belong to the authorities now so touching them is theft. He can't claim it was hacked, there's no reasonable way to hack a wallet, and if there was there are far more valuable wallets to target. He'll also never be able to report it if he's ever robbed of that money.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  Sure. It remains unclear that anything is preventing him from going to a different country without extradition once his sentence is completed and withdrawing the coins there.
- lazide 6y ago
  Depends. He might be able to sell the keys to a third party (who those authorities have no access to), for a discount in say cash or something where the transaction isn’t logged, and then be obviously not touching it when transactions or moves occurs - perhaps in court talking to a judge, or something similar. It’s hard to separate something like that from someone finding an old key/seed backup or the like, which I don’t think anyone would consider a proper prosecution. There is also a plausible scenario like a gov’t or court appointee actually getting or cracking the password somehow and stealing it themselves, like what happened with a significant Bitcoin balance related to Silk Road that got seized and then stolen from under the gov’ts nose by a secret service agent.
  - est31 6y ago
    Germany has recently passed a law which allows the government to seize property where the source of the money is not clear. This was done originally to prevent arabic clans from buying rental properties around the country, but I can imagine it applying to whatever money he's got from that sale as well.
    - lazide 6y ago
      Which would require finding it, or it being within a jurisdiction they control, etc.
      - est31 6y ago
        With internet crime becoming more international, and increased globalism, I expect nations to collaborate more on these issues in the future.
        lazide 6y ago
        I'm wondering if we're starting to see a shift towards more closed off/nationalized internet actually - with COVID, borders closing, fights over 'fake news' and how to do something about it (with approaches as varied as Poland, US, China, Australia), it seems like globalization is unravelling in a bunch of angry yelling between Governments.
  - buran77 6y ago
    > He might be able to sell the keys to a third party He might but it would certainly be illegal. The keys are to a wallet he does not own legally anymore, it belongs to the authorities. And selling the wallet might be difficult when every buyer could have made a deal with the authorities. His best bet is to go far from the reach of German authorities and hope nobody broadcasts his location and the fact that he has access to $60M that he can't report stolen.
est31 6y ago
My suspicion is that he was not properly prepared and only had that single copy of the key. Usually when police raids you they take all your physical storage media. IF he were properly prepared, he could just leave the country, and access the money from there. Maybe he doesn't do it because he fears the police take his backup away, no idea. So most likely, both police and him are in a situation where collaboration by both is needed to get access to the bitcoins.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
  > My suspicion is that he was not properly prepared and only had that single copy of the key. Which, if I was in his situation, is exactly what I would tell the police regardless of reality.
  - Proven 6y ago
    Valid point but if the coins get moved they would know he lied.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

buran77 6y ago

They will also monitor the wallet and the moment it's accessed in any way more indictments follow. The money officially belong to the authorities now so touching them is theft. He can't claim it was hacked, there's no reasonable way to hack a wallet, and if there was there are far more valuable wallets to target. He'll also never be able to report it if he's ever robbed of that money.

anonymousab 6y ago
Sure. It remains unclear that anything is preventing him from going to a different country without extradition once his sentence is completed and withdrawing the coins there.
lazide 6y ago
Depends. He might be able to sell the keys to a third party (who those authorities have no access to), for a discount in say cash or something where the transaction isn’t logged, and then be obviously not touching it when transactions or moves occurs - perhaps in court talking to a judge, or something similar. It’s hard to separate something like that from someone finding an old key/seed backup or the like, which I don’t think anyone would consider a proper prosecution. There is also a plausible scenario like a gov’t or court appointee actually getting or cracking the password somehow and stealing it themselves, like what happened with a significant Bitcoin balance related to Silk Road that got seized and then stolen from under the gov’ts nose by a secret service agent.
- est31 6y ago
  Germany has recently passed a law which allows the government to seize property where the source of the money is not clear. This was done originally to prevent arabic clans from buying rental properties around the country, but I can imagine it applying to whatever money he's got from that sale as well.
  - lazide 6y ago
    Which would require finding it, or it being within a jurisdiction they control, etc.
    - est31 6y ago
      With internet crime becoming more international, and increased globalism, I expect nations to collaborate more on these issues in the future.
      - lazide 6y ago
        I'm wondering if we're starting to see a shift towards more closed off/nationalized internet actually - with COVID, borders closing, fights over 'fake news' and how to do something about it (with approaches as varied as Poland, US, China, Australia), it seems like globalization is unravelling in a bunch of angry yelling between Governments.
- buran77 6y ago
  > He might be able to sell the keys to a third party He might but it would certainly be illegal. The keys are to a wallet he does not own legally anymore, it belongs to the authorities. And selling the wallet might be difficult when every buyer could have made a deal with the authorities. His best bet is to go far from the reach of German authorities and hope nobody broadcasts his location and the fact that he has access to $60M that he can't report stolen.

est31 6y ago

My suspicion is that he was not properly prepared and only had that single copy of the key. Usually when police raids you they take all your physical storage media. IF he were properly prepared, he could just leave the country, and access the money from there. Maybe he doesn't do it because he fears the police take his backup away, no idea. So most likely, both police and him are in a situation where collaboration by both is needed to get access to the bitcoins.

AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
> My suspicion is that he was not properly prepared and only had that single copy of the key. Which, if I was in his situation, is exactly what I would tell the police regardless of reality.
- Proven 6y ago
  Valid point but if the coins get moved they would know he lied.