3 ms·

Can't they just gain access to the account and call it a day? No need to transfer the funds elsewhere, really...

• ChrisClark 13y ago
  And then the owner can just have someone else transfer them to a different address. Suddenly they aren't seized any more. ;)
• A1kmm 13y ago
  It would be difficult to be sure that there is only one person with the key. If the defendant has a co-collaborator who also has access to the keys and is outside the reach of the seizing authority (or unknown to them), they could just transfer the Bitcoins to another new address and out of seizure. The seizing authority in general has no way to tell in advance if such a co-collaborator exists, and assuming the transfer is to a new address with no historical transactions, it would be extremely difficult to identify who the collaborator was after the fact.
• maaku 13y ago
  What is this concept of a bitcoin "account" you speak of?
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• opminion 13y ago
  "Seizing" is: 1. Taking control of them 2. Removing control of them from anyone else The second point is specific to a digital asset which can be duplicated (in this case we are also talking about any passwords). Bitcoin, by definition, allows the second point, but requires a transaction. So the FBI should have made a transaction immediately (or have the means of invalidating any transaction of those bitcoin). This is novel and critical to the story, but the Guardian article seemed to tangentially miss it.