6 ms·

Hardly cashing out directly. The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount. Maybe even just

Hardly cashing out directly. The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount. Maybe even just 10% of its crypto value. The thief gets paid, doesn't need to worry about cashing it out, and the outfit that has experience in laundering can just go to work and get a massive payday.

hiccuphippo 3y ago
Can't the addresses with the money be marked as obsolete or something like that so no miner accepts transactions from them? Only 50%+1 need to agree on this, right?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  two different concepts to explains separately but ultimately there are many roadblocks to that ever happening, which is something people find valuable about those kind of systems
- Drakim 3y ago
  Decentralization not only means that you need 50%+1 of miners to accept, but also that there isn't a centralized driving authority to kick-start banning initiatives like that.
- ezconnect 3y ago
  That's one of the main reason crypto is being promoted, freedom from central control.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  It can be labeled, but this does not stop the thief from moving it. Otherwise, the network would need to fork, which will never happen for somethign like this. Even if it did fork, he would still be left with pre-forked coins, which would be worth something. In the case of the Ethereum Dao hacker, the thief still got Ethereum Classic coins worth millions.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Hardly cashing out directly. [...] The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount. That's the thief cashing out directly. (Maybe for less than the apparent value, but still cashing out.)
- someotherperson 3y ago
  With this model, the thief has already cashed out and washed their hands from this. It's now the secondary (or third) buyers of the crypto cashing out.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Ah, misunderstood the claim being made; that makes sense as a potential explanation.
yieldcrv 3y ago
yeah, pretty easy to retain 90% or more just got to use the dirty address with dirty funds to pump an asset you already own in a separate clean address that you bought with clean KYC’d money. you just sell the asset your dirty money pumped and now you’re just another lucky speculator that bought a random meme coin early with some capital gains tax to pay. if you get ambitious maybe other people keep pumping the asset and your dirty address can sell the asset at even higher prices again to them. rinse repeat.
paulpauper 3y ago
This is crypto, not artwork, jewelry, or coins. the thief should have no problem getting market value. part of the attraction of crypto from the criminal perspective is the liquidity and fungibility compared to other types of heists. large volumes can be moved at close to spot price.

hiccuphippo 3y ago

Can't the addresses with the money be marked as obsolete or something like that so no miner accepts transactions from them? Only 50%+1 need to agree on this, right?

yieldcrv 3y ago
two different concepts to explains separately but ultimately there are many roadblocks to that ever happening, which is something people find valuable about those kind of systems
Drakim 3y ago
Decentralization not only means that you need 50%+1 of miners to accept, but also that there isn't a centralized driving authority to kick-start banning initiatives like that.
ezconnect 3y ago
That's one of the main reason crypto is being promoted, freedom from central control.
paulpauper 3y ago
It can be labeled, but this does not stop the thief from moving it. Otherwise, the network would need to fork, which will never happen for somethign like this. Even if it did fork, he would still be left with pre-forked coins, which would be worth something. In the case of the Ethereum Dao hacker, the thief still got Ethereum Classic coins worth millions.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Hardly cashing out directly. [...] The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount. That's the thief cashing out directly. (Maybe for less than the apparent value, but still cashing out.)

someotherperson 3y ago
With this model, the thief has already cashed out and washed their hands from this. It's now the secondary (or third) buyers of the crypto cashing out.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Ah, misunderstood the claim being made; that makes sense as a potential explanation.

yieldcrv 3y ago

yeah, pretty easy to retain 90% or more just got to use the dirty address with dirty funds to pump an asset you already own in a separate clean address that you bought with clean KYC’d money. you just sell the asset your dirty money pumped and now you’re just another lucky speculator that bought a random meme coin early with some capital gains tax to pay. if you get ambitious maybe other people keep pumping the asset and your dirty address can sell the asset at even higher prices again to them. rinse repeat.

paulpauper 3y ago

This is crypto, not artwork, jewelry, or coins. the thief should have no problem getting market value. part of the attraction of crypto from the criminal perspective is the liquidity and fungibility compared to other types of heists. large volumes can be moved at close to spot price.