10 ms·

A private key is not needed if the funds are on an exchange. Apparently there is a warrant to seize property on Northern California so I guess it might be Coinb

A private key is not needed if the funds are on an exchange. Apparently there is a warrant to seize property on Northern California so I guess it might be Coinbase. And yeah... if the crackers sent the funds to an exchange they were comically dumb.

vesinisa 5y ago
The press release specifically mentions that the cryptocurrency was seized through FBI having posession of the private key.
- lhorie 5y ago
  It's not an either/or thing though, right? IMHO, it seems plausible for the FBI to get a private key from a cooperating exchange?
- ulzeraj 5y ago
  Did the crackers surrendered the private keys? And if so why was a warrant issued? https://www.elliptic.co/hs-fs/hubfs/Screenshot%202021-06-07%20at%2022.13.19.png?width=1188&height=620&name=Screenshot%202021-06-07%20at%2022.13.19.png https://www.elliptic.co/hs-fs/hubfs/Screenshot%202021-06-07%...
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  To the previous poster's point: it didn't say which private key. There can be multiple with cloud storage.
- sneak 5y ago
  As someone who has been on the receiving end of federal seizure orders for cryptocurrency private keys, they were in my case satisfied by publishing a transfer (signature) to a USG address, not actual disclosure of private key material, despite that being explicitly stated in the order.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    This indicates a level of US Fed LEO technical sophistication I’m somewhat pleased to hear exists.
    - sneak 5y ago
      Either that or they just approached it like a bank account and simply wanted the money and didn’t care about the cryptographic specifics whatsoever.
    - acruns 5y ago
      More likely their work with an outside consultant/firm.
    - walrus01 5y ago
      I have heard that they have been developing an in-house technical capability and department for this since at least the time period of the Ulbrich arrest and the "first" Silk Road.
  - csomar 5y ago
    What's a USG address?
    - belltaco 5y ago
      USG =US Govt.
- psychlops 5y ago
  From the press release, the scare quotes could mean anything, but they likely had the rough equivalent part: for which the FBI has the “private key,” or the rough equivalent of a password needed to access assets accessible from the specific Bitcoin address.
koheripbal 5y ago
The warrant does not imply that the coins were on an exchange. The warrant only indicates that they needed legal authority to seize coins, wherever they are. It seem more likely that the FBI/NSA had and gained some access to the gang's infrastructure and seized the money. Transmitting ransom money to an exchange without any type of tumbler or atomic swapping, that it's not a realistic scenario. Maybe they tried to use an ineffective tumbler?
- vmception 5y ago
  The warrant is for a location in Northern California and they needed a warrant to get it. Use your head man, this means they literally went to a Federal Judge and said "hey we have probable cause that this address is on Coinbase" and the Judge was like "wow that is pretty probable" and then they took the warrant to Coinbase who was like "oh damn that's legit ..... can we squirm out of dealing with this .... no ... oh wow that is our address too, okay here is the private key" and then the FBI transferred it
  - nojito 5y ago
    >The warrant is for a location in Northern California and they needed a warrant to get it. Not neccessarily. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1402056/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1402056/downl... The FBI in Northern California simply needed permission to use the Private Key they already had to access the bitcoin address. The court that has jurisdiction over these types of crimes is in Northern California.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The warrant is for a location in Northern California No, its not. Its for a particular Bitcoin address for which the FBI had the primary key. The FBI can’t legally seize coins just because it has a private key any more than it can seize physical property because it has a key to a house. It needs a warrant to use the key, which will only be issued with probable cause that the material is subject to seizure. > Use your head man, this means they literally went to a Federal Judge and said "hey we have probable cause that this address is on Coinbase" They literally did not; the warrant and supporting affidavit are public (with some redactions), and that is not, even remotely, what they say.
paulpauper 5y ago
the prefix ix bc1. coinbase does not use this https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qq2euq8pw950klpjcawuy4uj39ym43hs6cfsegq https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qq2euq8pw950klpjca...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vesinisa 5y ago

The press release specifically mentions that the cryptocurrency was seized through FBI having posession of the private key.

lhorie 5y ago
It's not an either/or thing though, right? IMHO, it seems plausible for the FBI to get a private key from a cooperating exchange?
ulzeraj 5y ago
Did the crackers surrendered the private keys? And if so why was a warrant issued? https://www.elliptic.co/hs-fs/hubfs/Screenshot%202021-06-07%20at%2022.13.19.png?width=1188&height=620&name=Screenshot%202021-06-07%20at%2022.13.19.png https://www.elliptic.co/hs-fs/hubfs/Screenshot%202021-06-07%...
SavantIdiot 5y ago
To the previous poster's point: it didn't say which private key. There can be multiple with cloud storage.
sneak 5y ago
As someone who has been on the receiving end of federal seizure orders for cryptocurrency private keys, they were in my case satisfied by publishing a transfer (signature) to a USG address, not actual disclosure of private key material, despite that being explicitly stated in the order.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  This indicates a level of US Fed LEO technical sophistication I’m somewhat pleased to hear exists.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Either that or they just approached it like a bank account and simply wanted the money and didn’t care about the cryptographic specifics whatsoever.
  - acruns 5y ago
    More likely their work with an outside consultant/firm.
  - walrus01 5y ago
    I have heard that they have been developing an in-house technical capability and department for this since at least the time period of the Ulbrich arrest and the "first" Silk Road.
- csomar 5y ago
  What's a USG address?
  - belltaco 5y ago
    USG =US Govt.
psychlops 5y ago
From the press release, the scare quotes could mean anything, but they likely had the rough equivalent part: for which the FBI has the “private key,” or the rough equivalent of a password needed to access assets accessible from the specific Bitcoin address.

koheripbal 5y ago

The warrant does not imply that the coins were on an exchange. The warrant only indicates that they needed legal authority to seize coins, wherever they are. It seem more likely that the FBI/NSA had and gained some access to the gang's infrastructure and seized the money. Transmitting ransom money to an exchange without any type of tumbler or atomic swapping, that it's not a realistic scenario. Maybe they tried to use an ineffective tumbler?

vmception 5y ago
The warrant is for a location in Northern California and they needed a warrant to get it. Use your head man, this means they literally went to a Federal Judge and said "hey we have probable cause that this address is on Coinbase" and the Judge was like "wow that is pretty probable" and then they took the warrant to Coinbase who was like "oh damn that's legit ..... can we squirm out of dealing with this .... no ... oh wow that is our address too, okay here is the private key" and then the FBI transferred it
- nojito 5y ago
  >The warrant is for a location in Northern California and they needed a warrant to get it. Not neccessarily. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1402056/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1402056/downl... The FBI in Northern California simply needed permission to use the Private Key they already had to access the bitcoin address. The court that has jurisdiction over these types of crimes is in Northern California.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The warrant is for a location in Northern California No, its not. Its for a particular Bitcoin address for which the FBI had the primary key. The FBI can’t legally seize coins just because it has a private key any more than it can seize physical property because it has a key to a house. It needs a warrant to use the key, which will only be issued with probable cause that the material is subject to seizure. > Use your head man, this means they literally went to a Federal Judge and said "hey we have probable cause that this address is on Coinbase" They literally did not; the warrant and supporting affidavit are public (with some redactions), and that is not, even remotely, what they say.

paulpauper 5y ago

the prefix ix bc1. coinbase does not use this https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qq2euq8pw950klpjcawuy4uj39ym43hs6cfsegq https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qq2euq8pw950klpjca...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]