7 ms·

This is a good explanation of how the defense totally screwed up: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fai

by comex 12y ago

This is a good explanation of how the defense totally screwed up: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbric... Basically, the evidence was massively damning, so their only serious hope of winning was by challenging the curiously nonspecific way the FBI found the Silk Road server; but they gave up their ability to do so for some dubious benefits.

kasamm 12y ago
Ars Technica has consistently had the best coverage throughout the trial. Every other news source seems to be glossing over small details. (For example, this Bloomberg article still uses the FBI estimate of $1.2 billion in transactions even though the analysis by the prosecution's witness found $213.8 million after examining Silk Road records.)
- apaprocki 12y ago
  Keep in mind that isn't necessarily how news works. If the FBI estimated $1.2 billion, that is a news-worthy fact in of itself. If an expert witness tallied a lower number it would never "replace" the FBI number unless the FBI amended their estimate publicly.
- hurin 12y ago
  FBI's way of estimating "1.2 billion" involved pricing the net turn-over in Bitcoin (over the course of silk roads existence) at it's highest values in order to give the news a sensational effect. Silkroad is a joke compared for example to some 300% increase in heroin production that Afghanistan saw after America invaded - it's just the later isn't favorable to publicize. Notice - Even wikipedia blatantly quotes the misinformation published in the document in it's article: It noted that, "From February 6, 2011 to July 23, 2013... The total revenue generated from these sales was 9,519,664 Bitcoins, and the total commissions collected by Silk Road from the sales amounted to 614,305 Bitcoins. These figures are equivalent to roughly $1.2 billion in revenue and $79.8 million in commissions. But - for the bitcoins to amount to 1.2 billion dollars they would have to be priced at a relatively high 2013 mark at least 100 magnitudes above 2011 prices (from which their estimate begins). For the record the world-drug market is estimated at around $400 billion, so if silkroad over the course of 2.5 years had a turn over of 213 million, that would place it as accounting for .02% of the drug trade. Not the staggering blackmarket the FBI and US media have made it out to be.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    You're really stretching the truth here. 1.2b/10m = $120. That's a reasonable value. Instead of simply saying that, you say "it's highest values" and "they would have to be priced at July 2013 high on MT. Gox." Just so we're clear.. July 2013 was in the midst of the Mt Gox scandal, and the price had just recently tanked from $220 in april, down to $66 in early july. In June Mt Gox had suspended withdrawls. http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/05/bitcoin-operator-mt-gox-resumes-withdrawals/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/05/bitcoin-operator-m...
    - hurin 12y ago
      (that was a typo) > You're really stretching the truth here It's a huge stretch of the truth to estimate all values over 2.5 years in real time. They are retroactively estimating the number of bitcoins that passed through from February 2011 (when bitcoin was worth some $0.10 or something near there) but pricing the net total over 2.5 years as of the 2013 value. (That's already a magnitude of 100, so the difference between 200-130 there is quite little). You're right I didn't give accurate pricing numbers, I'll double check next time before I specify months and values, but my main point still stands. (Actually prior to Feburary 2013 Bitcoin was under $10 - so again their estimate is several magnitudes off.)
      - rgbrenner 12y ago
        Where are you getting these prices from? Bitcoin definitely was not $0.10 at any time during the operation of Silk Road. Here's a chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=all&sho... Most of the time, it seems to be around $10. Of course, if he kept his earnings in Bitcoins (which he did), then they would fluctuate with the market price.. to about $120, which was about the market price when he was arrested. And the truth is, Bitcoin's price was above that amount for most of 2013, and all of 2014, and today it stands above that price. So he could have sold his Bitcoins for even more than $120.
- downandout 12y ago
  As far as the potential sentence, the difference between $213 million and $1.2 billion is exactly nothing. The maximum sentence for drug conspiracy kicks in at levels less than 1% of either of these numbers worth of drugs.
ikeboy 12y ago
The problem with the article is that it calls the finding of the server "blatantly illegal", when that hasn't come to trial. The government says https://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.75.0.pdf https://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.4... >In any event, even if the FBI had somehow “hacked” into the SR Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise. See United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 86 (2d Cir. 2013) (Fourth Amendment warrant requirement does not apply extraterritorially); In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). At most, any search of the SR Server needed only to be “reasonable” – that is, justified by “legitimate governmental interests.” Vilar, 729 F.3d at 86. Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to “hack” into it in order to search it, as any such “hack” would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary. which seems reasonable.
- tptacek 12y ago
  It probably wouldn't have mattered, because the overwhelming majority of the evidence in the trial came from Ulbricht's laptop, which the USG searched both under a warrant and incident to Ulbricht's arrest --- an arrest for which they had some probable cause prior to the SR server search. There's also a doctrine of "inevitable discovery" with implications here as well. The prevailing wisdom about this case seems correct: what shattered Ulbricht's legal defense was his utterly slipshod OPSEC.
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    But they only found Ulbricht because of the server AFAIK. What was their probable cause before the server search?
    - tptacek 12y ago
shit_parade 12y ago
They could of also gone for jury nullification.

by comex 12y ago

kasamm 12y ago

Ars Technica has consistently had the best coverage throughout the trial. Every other news source seems to be glossing over small details. (For example, this Bloomberg article still uses the FBI estimate of $1.2 billion in transactions even though the analysis by the prosecution's witness found $213.8 million after examining Silk Road records.)

apaprocki 12y ago
Keep in mind that isn't necessarily how news works. If the FBI estimated $1.2 billion, that is a news-worthy fact in of itself. If an expert witness tallied a lower number it would never "replace" the FBI number unless the FBI amended their estimate publicly.
hurin 12y ago
FBI's way of estimating "1.2 billion" involved pricing the net turn-over in Bitcoin (over the course of silk roads existence) at it's highest values in order to give the news a sensational effect. Silkroad is a joke compared for example to some 300% increase in heroin production that Afghanistan saw after America invaded - it's just the later isn't favorable to publicize. Notice - Even wikipedia blatantly quotes the misinformation published in the document in it's article: It noted that, "From February 6, 2011 to July 23, 2013... The total revenue generated from these sales was 9,519,664 Bitcoins, and the total commissions collected by Silk Road from the sales amounted to 614,305 Bitcoins. These figures are equivalent to roughly $1.2 billion in revenue and $79.8 million in commissions. But - for the bitcoins to amount to 1.2 billion dollars they would have to be priced at a relatively high 2013 mark at least 100 magnitudes above 2011 prices (from which their estimate begins). For the record the world-drug market is estimated at around $400 billion, so if silkroad over the course of 2.5 years had a turn over of 213 million, that would place it as accounting for .02% of the drug trade. Not the staggering blackmarket the FBI and US media have made it out to be.
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  You're really stretching the truth here. 1.2b/10m = $120. That's a reasonable value. Instead of simply saying that, you say "it's highest values" and "they would have to be priced at July 2013 high on MT. Gox." Just so we're clear.. July 2013 was in the midst of the Mt Gox scandal, and the price had just recently tanked from $220 in april, down to $66 in early july. In June Mt Gox had suspended withdrawls. http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/05/bitcoin-operator-mt-gox-resumes-withdrawals/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/05/bitcoin-operator-m...
  - hurin 12y ago
    (that was a typo) > You're really stretching the truth here It's a huge stretch of the truth to estimate all values over 2.5 years in real time. They are retroactively estimating the number of bitcoins that passed through from February 2011 (when bitcoin was worth some $0.10 or something near there) but pricing the net total over 2.5 years as of the 2013 value. (That's already a magnitude of 100, so the difference between 200-130 there is quite little). You're right I didn't give accurate pricing numbers, I'll double check next time before I specify months and values, but my main point still stands. (Actually prior to Feburary 2013 Bitcoin was under $10 - so again their estimate is several magnitudes off.)
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      Where are you getting these prices from? Bitcoin definitely was not $0.10 at any time during the operation of Silk Road. Here's a chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price?timespan=all&sho... Most of the time, it seems to be around $10. Of course, if he kept his earnings in Bitcoins (which he did), then they would fluctuate with the market price.. to about $120, which was about the market price when he was arrested. And the truth is, Bitcoin's price was above that amount for most of 2013, and all of 2014, and today it stands above that price. So he could have sold his Bitcoins for even more than $120.
downandout 12y ago
As far as the potential sentence, the difference between $213 million and $1.2 billion is exactly nothing. The maximum sentence for drug conspiracy kicks in at levels less than 1% of either of these numbers worth of drugs.

ikeboy 12y ago

The problem with the article is that it calls the finding of the server "blatantly illegal", when that hasn't come to trial. The government says https://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.75.0.pdf https://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.4... >In any event, even if the FBI had somehow “hacked” into the SR Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise. See United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 86 (2d Cir. 2013) (Fourth Amendment warrant requirement does not apply extraterritorially); In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). At most, any search of the SR Server needed only to be “reasonable” – that is, justified by “legitimate governmental interests.” Vilar, 729 F.3d at 86. Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to “hack” into it in order to search it, as any such “hack” would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary. which seems reasonable.

tptacek 12y ago
It probably wouldn't have mattered, because the overwhelming majority of the evidence in the trial came from Ulbricht's laptop, which the USG searched both under a warrant and incident to Ulbricht's arrest --- an arrest for which they had some probable cause prior to the SR server search. There's also a doctrine of "inevitable discovery" with implications here as well. The prevailing wisdom about this case seems correct: what shattered Ulbricht's legal defense was his utterly slipshod OPSEC.
- ikeboy 12y ago
  But they only found Ulbricht because of the server AFAIK. What was their probable cause before the server search?
  - tptacek 12y ago

shit_parade 12y ago

They could of also gone for jury nullification.