$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by alcover on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @05:10PM (#26813136)

  ATMs might already be recording serial numbers

I've been wondering about this forever.

Say John gets bills from the ATM then pays dealer Dylan for weed. Dylan then buys a beer at a bar.

If Dylan gets convicted, and banks collaborate with the police, then John gets subjected to - at least - parallel reconstruction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by o-__-o on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @06:38PM (#26813972)

Plausible deniability wrecks that entire thesis (someone existing between John and Dylan such as a gas station)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by alcover on Thursday April 15, 2021 @03:00AM (#26816980)

Gas station isn't someone. It's an endpoint, as the bar in my story. If the gas station cashier takes from the register to get a bier, you're right. If not, my thesis still holds I think.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by miskin on Thursday April 15, 2021 @03:53AM (#26817391)

What if I pay with 100 Euro bank note and get back "tainted" 50 Euro note and then pay in bar? Bank notes are not just collected and sent back to bank.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by alcover on Thursday April 15, 2021 @04:22AM (#26817604)

You're right but the higher the denomination, the smaller the chance it'll serve as change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$7.5B In Stolen Bitcoin from 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just ... by o-__-o on Thursday April 15, 2021 @08:25AM (#26819571)

Doesn’t matter, plausible deniability means a reasonable person might spend it. Without knowing who’s next, you may have circumstantial evidence but that’s not enough to hold up in court.

You don’t punish someone based on chance.

[ Parent | on HN ]