4 ms·

Were you at the first Bitcoin conference in 2013? We had a booth there. I’m curious about the context of Bitcoin in this divorce proceeding. What was at dispu

Were you at the first Bitcoin conference in 2013? We had a booth there. I’m curious about the context of Bitcoin in this divorce proceeding. What was at dispute?

adastra22 3y ago
Yes I was in San Jose in 2013, if that’s the one you’re talking about (technically there was one conference earlier in Thailand, but nobody remembers that one). I was on a panel at the SJ conference. The case I was consulted for was pretty bog standard “guy claims he lost his bitcoin in a hard drive reformat X years ago; wife claims BS and wants half of peak market value as of the highest historical price.” Without getting into identifying details, I was able to use blockchain data to independently verify the guy’s claims. Traced transactions, found watermarking features tying them to specific wallet versions. Can’t actually prove that the keys were destroyed of course, but I did show the coins were being spent like crazy from one wallet on one machine, then all activity stopped right around when he claims he reformatted the computer, and the coins sit there on those same wallet outputs to this day, even with multiple market peaks in the intervening years, and many years between then and when he became aware of his wife’s intent to divorce. That’s the way things go in court cases. Us software developers like to think that the law is a highly rational, proof based system. But in reality it basically comes down to “which story seems more believable” in the end, and being able to point to technical proof is the exception.
- razeh 3y ago
  I was on the jury for a resisting arrest case and ended up as an alternate. The judge pulled us into chambers and we talked for about an hour. One of the things that he said that stuck with me was “Everybody thinks it is CSI in here. It’s not. People come here and they tell you [the jurors] stories and then you have to decide which are true.”
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Yeah, all the lawyers and judges I've talked to hate CSI (the show) for what it has done to people's expectations. The legal system does not operate like it is portrayed on TV. It really does come down to "what story is more believable?" Sometimes a story is more believable because there is incontrovertible physical evidence. Normally in those circumstances it'd never go to the court room though -- plea deal in criminal cases, settlement in civil.
- jjfoooo10 3y ago
  It's possible that can’t actually prove that the keys were destroyed was the only legally relevant part of your testimony.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    I can’t prove that you’re not DB Cooper. Does that mean you’re guilty?

Were you at the first Bitcoin conference in 2013? We had a booth there. I’m curious about the context of Bitcoin in this divorce proceeding. What was at dispute?

adastra22 3y ago

Yes I was in San Jose in 2013, if that’s the one you’re talking about (technically there was one conference earlier in Thailand, but nobody remembers that one). I was on a panel at the SJ conference. The case I was consulted for was pretty bog standard “guy claims he lost his bitcoin in a hard drive reformat X years ago; wife claims BS and wants half of peak market value as of the highest historical price.” Without getting into identifying details, I was able to use blockchain data to independently verify the guy’s claims. Traced transactions, found watermarking features tying them to specific wallet versions. Can’t actually prove that the keys were destroyed of course, but I did show the coins were being spent like crazy from one wallet on one machine, then all activity stopped right around when he claims he reformatted the computer, and the coins sit there on those same wallet outputs to this day, even with multiple market peaks in the intervening years, and many years between then and when he became aware of his wife’s intent to divorce. That’s the way things go in court cases. Us software developers like to think that the law is a highly rational, proof based system. But in reality it basically comes down to “which story seems more believable” in the end, and being able to point to technical proof is the exception.

razeh 3y ago
I was on the jury for a resisting arrest case and ended up as an alternate. The judge pulled us into chambers and we talked for about an hour. One of the things that he said that stuck with me was “Everybody thinks it is CSI in here. It’s not. People come here and they tell you [the jurors] stories and then you have to decide which are true.”
- adastra22 3y ago
  Yeah, all the lawyers and judges I've talked to hate CSI (the show) for what it has done to people's expectations. The legal system does not operate like it is portrayed on TV. It really does come down to "what story is more believable?" Sometimes a story is more believable because there is incontrovertible physical evidence. Normally in those circumstances it'd never go to the court room though -- plea deal in criminal cases, settlement in civil.
jjfoooo10 3y ago
It's possible that can’t actually prove that the keys were destroyed was the only legally relevant part of your testimony.
- adastra22 3y ago
  I can’t prove that you’re not DB Cooper. Does that mean you’re guilty?