Oh my god, stop being ridiculous. Parallel construction is not fabricating evidence. It is constructing a case that uses only evidence obtained through criminal warrants so that no classified information is leaked in the process of prosecuting the case, even if the main tip came from classified sources. This is not the same thing as fabricating evidence. It is obtaining legitimate evidence through other, less sensitive means.

Second, Shamir's paper has nothing to do with legal evidence that can be used in a court room. The burden of proof in a courtroom is still very high. If anything Shamir helped future defendants by casting reasonable doubt on any linkage derived from an analysis of the blockchain.

I'd say it's more akin to gathering information or evidence without a warrant in order to guarantee that a warrant will find the evidence necessary to clinch a conviction from the case.

"Parallel construction" is a deceptive euphemism for using extralegal(illegal?)means to guarantee a perfect legal case. It's a complete undermining of the justice/legal system.

As far as the author's claims go, I think they're quite far fetched. It's not reasonable to say that because some people use dollars for illegal things, using dollars yourself for legal applications makes you vulnerable to prosecution for those illegal things.

So your average judge or jury wouldn't be fooled if faced by something like Shamir's paper? I find your faith in the judical system amusing :)

If the defense is worth his or her salt he could have a witness who talks about Shamir's paper and how even thorough analyses of the BlockChain have been inconclusive and error-prone, thus casting doubt on whatever the state's witness says.

The judicial system is far from perfect but in the great majority of cases it manages to reach the correct conclusion about the violation of the law.

The key fact here is that Ron and Shamir's paper got nuked by an amateur on Reddit within minutes of it's publication. Turns out the public ledger makes it tough to fabricate anything - even when you're sponsored by Citi Foundation, the charity arm of Citi Group, one of the world's largest banks, as was the case with Ron and Shamir.

I'd rather buy BTC than USD because it seems easier to prove my innocence if I have nothing to hide.

That's not a very persuasive argument. If the government is willing to fabricate evidence, what use is avoiding the Bitcoin network? If they want to take you down, it's not like they're going to say "crap, he's never used Bitcoin, so we can't touch him."

I generally am pro a little bit of wariness, but I feel like this article is devoid of any real meat and is basically just fear-mongering.

Shamir's paper was a very cautiously formulated guess at a connection he thought he had made. It was anything but a legal argument that would hold any water in court.

This blog post is pure FUD nonsense. How it ended up on the HN front page is a mystery to me. Flagged.

Since it's so trivial for authorities to fabricate evidence, using a system with a public ledger is actually preferred if you're afraid you might become a victim of evidence tampering. It's so much harder to plant unquestionable evidence in a public ledger.

Because the currency with an ill-defined largely private ledger (serial numbers on bills and transaction records from banks) is so much less likely to be used to create a link between you and organized crime.

Don't upvote this. It's 3 alinea's, 2 sentences each and it's pure nonsense. As if there aren't any public ledgers of your actions available to DA's now.