Not sure about the right mind but the BTC core developer who "lost" 216 BTC a few days back apparently tried asking FBI for help[1].

[1] https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1609630432546406404#m

As long as you were going to pay taxes and weren’t actually defrauding people, might as well file a report in case anything comes of it.

It’s worth noting that Luke would be a prime target for nation state hackers from DPRK and the likes.

What happened here was likely a failed attempt to slip a backdoor into bitcoin core, attackers pulled out and took his bitcoins as a consolation price after he realised his server had been compromised.

The FBI should absolutely be jumping on this, not because of bitcoin, but because of the likely perpetrators.

Luke had his wallet sitting on a server that he knew to be compromised for months. There is no reason to expect a nation state actor, his loss was 100% his own poor security. It also says a lot about the "wisdom" of hosting your own wallet. Can't trust the exchanges, and you can't trust your own wallet.

> Luke had his wallet sitting on a server that he knew to be compromised for months

How do you know this? Luke has denied this over and over again. It seems like you've invented this in order to defame him.

He twitted it himself in November:

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1593227756841578496

He then only "purged the backdoors" which suggests very poor approach to security. If anything, he publicly discredited himself.

Well, he can now take a $3000 capital loss deduction for the next 1223 years.

He's a liar. I'm guessing that he's figured out some way to launder them and this is just tax fraud.

I default to pro-privacy, on principle, but are you talking about a more specific threat?

A threat that outweighs the benefits of: possibly increasing the likelihood/degree of takedown of an alleged scammer, and also possibly being more likely to be compensated for losses?

The FBI maintains databases of individuals that they consider potential terrorism with such weak definitions that anyone who uses a blockchain application would qualify[1]. When you are put on the list, they will never confirm or deny whether you are on the list. However you will find yourself losing rights to internationally travel freely without harassment, may have computing devices compromised by agents, may have wiretaps or microphones placed in your residence, and more.

I will admit that they do target US citizens less than others, but most hashflare victims are not US citizens and do not get those protections.

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/tsc

If you're not a US national, you've no reason to appeal to the FBI anyway; speak to your local authorities.

Yeah! Don’t trust the man! The man is only interested in … something! There must be an ulterior motive in trying to bring scammers to book!

Just think for a second. If someone has been scammed out of millions, you think they’re not going to talk to law enforcement about it? They wouldn’t only if they were perpetrating their own scam.

At some point privacy nuts on HN have to really stop and think before typing.

I'm not exactly sure what the FBI would gain here, and it may be nothing, but distrusting them by default seems rational given their long history of corruption.

Again, this communication from the FBI is specifically targeted at victims of a particular scam. The victims have already lost more than what the FBI could hypothetically maybe do to them.

Unless we live in Scooby Doo-verse and the FBI agent removes his mask to reveal that he was the IRS all along and this was all a ploy to get people to pay their taxes.

I guess if you used crypto to trade in heroin you could lose quite a bit more.

Do you get to write off rug pulls like any other capital loss?

For that matter, what are the tax implications of getting mugged?

Losses from theft are generally tax deductible.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515

I think the real fear is that you never know what the FBI really wants. So unless you feel confident that you've covered all of the possible angles that an intelligence agency with 10000x the information you have could only be seeking exactly what they claim to be seeking, then sure, answering their call is fine.

But the general rule is to never ever talk with them unless you have a lawyer present. You have no clue whether you're the target of an investigation. You have no clue whether the FBI knows some percentage of their targets were victims of this scam, and are using it to get an in with them (you). You just don't know anything going on behind the scenes.

By corruption I assume you mean "a 100yr history doing nasty things that benefit the agency and/or the political goals of specific agency leaders and/or the political goals of specific people close to those leaders in direct or near direct contradiction of the organization's mandate and/or law.

Basically they're evil, not corrupt.

Their long history of corruption compared to all the non-corrupt things they have done?

When considering which corporate bodies to trust, I consider their public statements and policies, their historical behaviors, and reports from other users of their services. The FBI’s official policy is to harasses individuals they place on secret watchlists. Historically, the agency has been one of the most corrupt from the beginning, especially the Hoover era, and has never gone through a period of substantive reform to resolve these issues. Additionally, multiple victims of crimes who have reported their situation to the FBI have either seen no positive actions or have even been harassed themselves by FBI employees. Currently there’s a severe shortage of reputable cybercrime security providers that also have enough capabilities to enforce the result of investigations, but the FBI is such a poor organization that it would be foolish to even consider requesting their services.

"Historically, the agency has been one of the most corrupt from the beginning,"

What proof do you that the FBI is more corrupt than other government agencies?

Most USG agencies did not have programs similar to COINTELPRO. The FBI is the USG secret police and as such share they same set of problems other secret police have in other countries - since secret police suppress internal dissent with tactics veiled in secrecy, they are able to violate human rights much more easily than agencies that have more openness and less political valence.

" they are able to violate human rights much more easily than agencies that have more openness and less political valence."

I asked you to show evidence for this statement ""Historically, the agency has been one of the most corrupt from the beginning". Not if it's easier for them to violate human rights.

"Most USG agencies did not have programs similar to COINTELPRO."

COINTELPRO is a secret surveillance program. There's been similar secret surveillance programs from the CIA and NSA, many discussed here regarding internet surveillance. [1][2]

You also claim the FBI is the US secret police, similar to other countries secret police. What makes them like other countries secret police? What makes them more secret than the NSA or CIA?

"since secret police suppress internal dissent with tactics veiled in secrecy,"

How is the FBI suppressing internal dissent?

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-... [2]https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

>How is the FBI suppressing internal dissent? COINTELPRO was more than just a surveillance program, unlike the other agencies you mention. It involved disrupting perceived communists many of whom were not in fact communist but did dissent against the various elites within the USG’s domestic regions. This was a stated goal of Hoover. Today these practices continue with known evidence of FBI activity purposed towards suppressing dissent. within both right and left wing activists. I would agree that the CIA has an even more miserable track record than the FBI, but putting the NSA in the same category is strange. The NSA did not, as far as is publicly known, plant agents with the intent to disrupt dissenting groups or spread pro state ideology. Instead they seem to have mostly passed illegally collected info to other agencies to act on. While that is wrong, it is not as wrong as what activities the FBI (and of course the CIA) have. To take your logic a step further, it’s unlikely that agencies such as the US Department of Energy are planting agents to disrupt dissent.

Give the Minneapolis FBI whistleblower account a read and then think for a second

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/magazine/fbi-terrorism-te...

Thank you for sharing this.