3 ms·

>and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically holding them was good enough, then that is an invaluable lesson they just

>and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically holding them was good enough, then that is an invaluable lesson they just The prosecutor didn't make that assumption. The prosecutor was unable to move the bitcoin because the prosecutor didn't know the PIN.

bigiain 4y ago
So they'd seized a safe that contained a note saying where the money/Bitcoin were hidden, but they didn't have the combination to the safe, and they didn't know if anybody else had a copy of the note. Calling those "seized bitcoins" is definitely stretching the truth in my opinion. And the Government,ent/prosecution knew this - from the article: "As a backup, Trezor hardware wallets can generate a “seed phrase,” a combination of as many as 24 words that can re-create those private keys on another device. In essence, anyone who knows the magic words and an additional PIN can take control of the Bitcoin. Unplugging the wallet device and physically locking it away is no protection. Brown warned that Larry could remotely take Bitcoin and that the government would be powerless to stop it. “Until we can secure them and transfer them to a government wallet, those are available for him or his family members to transfer,” he said in court. US District Judge Beryl Howell granted bail anyway." Having said that, the brother was an idiot for ever thinking he'd get away with it. Unless he was going to torch his houde and fly to Belieze before the cops caught up with him, he was bound to get caught. As the article posts out: "An informant told them Gary had asked his advice on Bitcoin gambling services, records show. The source believed Gary wanted to use them to mix Bitcoin he took from Larry. Gary is “not the sharpest tool in the shed and did not think through the consequences for his brother” before he moved the Bitcoin, the informant said."
- ArnoVW 4y ago
  Seizing is a legal construct. It's not "I'm grabbing hold" seizing. It's the "I've had a judge validate that legally I am now the owner" variant.
  - throw101010 4y ago
    Seems like this legal construct is very inefficient at "seizing" bitcoins. Bitcoin is a bearer asset like no other. A house, cash, your gold stash, etc., when "seized", can be used by the state without consulting you once you are put in a hole (rightfully or not). The state has to adapt to this kind of new asset. The closest that existed before was burying your tangible assets somewhere without anybody knowing about it. But this is just not feasible for many assets obviously, and still very cumbersome when you want to use them. With Bitcoin you just need to generate private keys offline properly to achieve the same purpose.
    - slavik81 4y ago
      The state will eventually just require that exchanges check the history of any bitcoins they touch against a list of seized coins. There's not much you can do with a big pile of illicit cash if everyone you'd want to transact with is checking the serial numbers.
  - bigiain 4y ago
    Yeah, it's like "We don't actually have the money/bitcoin in our posession, but as soon as Gary started spending the sequentially numbered bills and/or moving the permanently trackable by design Bitcoins, we can show up and arrest him for having stolen them from us." Like the informant said, Gary is not the sharpest tool in the box.

bigiain 4y ago

So they'd seized a safe that contained a note saying where the money/Bitcoin were hidden, but they didn't have the combination to the safe, and they didn't know if anybody else had a copy of the note. Calling those "seized bitcoins" is definitely stretching the truth in my opinion. And the Government,ent/prosecution knew this - from the article: "As a backup, Trezor hardware wallets can generate a “seed phrase,” a combination of as many as 24 words that can re-create those private keys on another device. In essence, anyone who knows the magic words and an additional PIN can take control of the Bitcoin. Unplugging the wallet device and physically locking it away is no protection. Brown warned that Larry could remotely take Bitcoin and that the government would be powerless to stop it. “Until we can secure them and transfer them to a government wallet, those are available for him or his family members to transfer,” he said in court. US District Judge Beryl Howell granted bail anyway." Having said that, the brother was an idiot for ever thinking he'd get away with it. Unless he was going to torch his houde and fly to Belieze before the cops caught up with him, he was bound to get caught. As the article posts out: "An informant told them Gary had asked his advice on Bitcoin gambling services, records show. The source believed Gary wanted to use them to mix Bitcoin he took from Larry. Gary is “not the sharpest tool in the shed and did not think through the consequences for his brother” before he moved the Bitcoin, the informant said."

ArnoVW 4y ago
Seizing is a legal construct. It's not "I'm grabbing hold" seizing. It's the "I've had a judge validate that legally I am now the owner" variant.
- throw101010 4y ago
  Seems like this legal construct is very inefficient at "seizing" bitcoins. Bitcoin is a bearer asset like no other. A house, cash, your gold stash, etc., when "seized", can be used by the state without consulting you once you are put in a hole (rightfully or not). The state has to adapt to this kind of new asset. The closest that existed before was burying your tangible assets somewhere without anybody knowing about it. But this is just not feasible for many assets obviously, and still very cumbersome when you want to use them. With Bitcoin you just need to generate private keys offline properly to achieve the same purpose.
  - slavik81 4y ago
    The state will eventually just require that exchanges check the history of any bitcoins they touch against a list of seized coins. There's not much you can do with a big pile of illicit cash if everyone you'd want to transact with is checking the serial numbers.
- bigiain 4y ago
  Yeah, it's like "We don't actually have the money/bitcoin in our posession, but as soon as Gary started spending the sequentially numbered bills and/or moving the permanently trackable by design Bitcoins, we can show up and arrest him for having stolen them from us." Like the informant said, Gary is not the sharpest tool in the box.