Only because the criminal hasn't yet tried to use that bitcoin to buy something in the real world.

If they try to convert to fiat via an exchange, they can be identified the same way the husband was. If they try to buy products directly without using fiat then it is harder for law enforcement to get the records they need, but still quite possible.

They will probably be safe if they never touch the bitcoin, but that entirely defeats the purpose of using it

> Only because the criminal hasn't yet tried to use that bitcoin to buy something in the real world.

An asumption you're making and likely untrue. There are many ways to convert to fiat or skip that step and luander through the dark web

Don't need darkweb for that if you're very careful with how you execute trades on https://localbitcoins.com/ (a service that I believe predates coinbase, circle et al)

Usually, one'd use a coin like Monero instead, the project's wretched history notwithstanding.

What is wretched about Monero's history?

What is wretched in there?

As with any "anonymity" tech (like Tor and the Dark Web), Monero is linked with all sorts of things. I, personally, feel uneasy investing in / using Monero because of that, especially since it isn't also a stable coin.

I can see a lot of value in it though, just like how I see value in Freenet, I2P, Tor and other such overlay networks.

Bitcoin is more traceable than cash, but surely creative criminals have worked out a way to launder it?

People doing nafarious things don't cash out using exchanges. They use things like localbitcoins to make a trade in person (or through an intermediary), and obviously lose a percent of the value in doing so. At that point it basically becomes a cash transaction.

And if they run it through a coin washer?

https://bitcoinlaundry.online/en/index.htm

Most of the big exchanges don't allow cashing out of coins run through those anymore.

What about tumblers/mixers?

I wonder if the hitman is the one who notified the BBC. Seems like a better way to make some money than actually, you know, doing the job.

(not implying that the bbc gave him any money)

To me, it sounds like BBC knows more then they let on. Could BBC have been running a undercover investigative story? It just seems too unlikely they could get the hitmans bitcoin address without being somehow involved.

Unless the hitman has decided to retire, it's probably only a matter of time before they catch him using good old fashioned detective work. For instance, investigators might be able to catch the hitman in a sting operation, if they know what marketplace the hitman sells his services on.

I feel like you rather overestimate the prowess of law enforcements ability to solve murders, especially non-slam-dunk ones with a witness and an obvious connection between the murderer and victim.

Maybe so, you could be right. But if this man is taking contracts from the general public, I think that must be a good lead.