It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal?
Depends on how you stole it. In general stealing someone's wallet will probably require some sort of fraud or intrusion. If you just run a 51% attack then it's totally legal.
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
Stealing anything is illegal, not just money.
Also the method you used to steal it would probably also be illegal, i.e. fraud/hacking/physical tresspas etc.
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal?
For tax purposes I believe the IRS said that it is a commodity, so you report gains and losses from buying/selling.
It is a digital good, which is still an asset and illegal to steal. It's not quite like stealing movies/music since those are just copies, while a bitcoin is a one of a kind digital item that can't be copied/spent more than once unless you're in the real edge cases of 51% attacks.
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
Its illegal to steal anything. Its illegal to take by fraud. A 51% attack requires fraudulently inserting or removing transactions from the ledger.
So yea, its illegal. No matter how you do it its illegal.
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
Its illegal to steal anything. Its illegal to take by fraud. A 51% attack requires fraudulently inserting or removing transactions from the ledger.
So yea, its illegal. No matter how you do it its illegal.
51% is perfectly legal. You publish your own chain longer than the 49% have. That's how bitcoin is designed to work. It's your own fault if you relied on a particular transaction being included in the chain - should have paid more to persuade miners to include it.
Yeah, the way the system works is NOT "if you have a bitcoin, it's yours," rather it's "if you have a bitcoin, it's only yours for as long as a majority of parties agree that it's yours."
And thus why we all agreed a central authoritative system is better rather than half of us agreeing not to accept schrutebucks even though we just paid all our debt off with it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
Its illegal to steal anything. Its illegal to take by fraud. A 51% attack requires fraudulently inserting or removing transactions from the ledger.
So yea, its illegal. No matter how you do it its illegal.
51% is perfectly legal. You publish your own chain longer than the 49% have. That's how bitcoin is designed to work. It's your own fault if you relied on a particular transaction being included in the chain - should have paid more to persuade miners to include it.
No. That is not how the law works... i mean unless you don't actually do the attack in order to double spend... but if you do do the attack its fraud and its illegal.
If you don't think it is then tell you what you go ahead and get one together and perform the attack and then tell the US government what you did and where the proof is and where you currently are and we can time how long it takes before you're convicted.
Using the features of a system to make people think you're making payment you aren't, have assets you don't, are due payment you aren't, haven't received payment you have, or etc etc is basically the definition of fraud.
The people doing a 51% attack aren't forcing everyone else to accept their replacement chain. There's nothing stopping the 49% from just completely ignoring the attack and continuing as usual on their own chain, other than all of the clients being designed to accept those types of attacks without questioning them.
Using the features of a system to make people think you're making payment you aren't, have assets you don't, are due payment you aren't, haven't received payment you have, or etc etc is basically the definition of fraud.
The system is what defines who has what assets. Transactions processed via a 51+ attack aren't really any less legit than any other.
Using the features of a system to make people think you're making payment you aren't, have assets you don't, are due payment you aren't, haven't received payment you have, or etc etc is basically the definition of fraud.
The system is what defines who has what assets. Transactions processed via a 51+ attack aren't really any less legit than any other.
Using the features of a system to make people think you're making payment you aren't, have assets you don't, are due payment you aren't, haven't received payment you have, or etc etc is basically the definition of fraud.
The system is what defines who has what assets. Transactions processed via a 51+ attack aren't really any less legit than any other.
The law doesnt care. Its still fraud
Hasn't been tested. There are similar tactics (buying lots of stock, then shenanigans) that are legal.
Using the features of a system to make people think you're making payment you aren't, have assets you don't, are due payment you aren't, haven't received payment you have, or etc etc is basically the definition of fraud.
The system is what defines who has what assets. Transactions processed via a 51+ attack aren't really any less legit than any other.
The law doesnt care. Its still fraud
If someone has been found guilty of fraud for organizing a 51% attack I'd be very interested in seeing the reference.
The only difference between a 51% attack and someone solving a block is that someone else says, "That was a 51% attack!"
In both cases you have a block that gets solved. It's only the content of the block that differs and neither block is obviously fraudulent. Which block is the fraud in a double spend? Neither was 'first' because, by definition, neither block had been added to the chain.
A double spend by 51% works by replacing already written blocks with new blocks because the 51% chain is now the longest. It is obviously fraudulent on its face.
Having 51% of the hashrate isn't illegal but doing anything illegal with that 51% hash rate is. Anything like taking control of other peoples assets without their permission, spending currency twice... etc... is. Its illegal.
Its very obviously illegal. The only reason people haven't gone to jail as a result of these attacks is that they have not been caught.
Edit: To be more explicitly clear. It does not matter how you do it. If you take something that is owned by someone else without their consent its theft. If you take something that is owned by someone else by misrepresenting a transaction that will take place then its fraud. A double spend is fraud even if you do it using literal fucking magic.
If you set up a 51% attack, then you will have set up a double-spend, otherwise there's not much point in the attack itself.
The double-spend's intent will be to obtain something from your coin from someone else before the chain is rendered invalid.
This is obviously fraud, as you're obtaining something from someone else whilst having no intent of ever paying or trading for the thing.
But this also leads to long transaction resolution times with Bitcoin; the rule I've heard it's if you want to be safe, then you wait until the Bitcoin transaction is 6 blocks deep in the chain before releasing the goods.
That way it becomes far less likely that any longer chain or 51% attack will invalidate the transaction after you've otherwise completed the trade.
The crime that Coinbase is likely trying to combat with the acquisition of Neutrino is money-laundering though, and compliance with Know Your Customer laws.
US law enforcement has arrested Konstantin Ignatov over a fraud charge relating to OneCoin, the cryptocurrency he helped found. Ignatov, his sister Ruja Ignatova (also charged, but hiding) and others allegedly orchestrated a "multibillion-dollar pyramid scheme" where people received commissions for persuading people to buy OneCoin packages that themselves were junk. OneCoin reportedly rigged prices, sold people non-existent coins and didn't even have a true blockchain to manage the currency.
Hmm.
Sounds like a hard job; I can't tell how OneCoin was different to a legitimate blockcoin exchange.
Exactly.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That's more regular fraud, just with cryptos as the medium you are using to steal other people's money. It isn't actually taking over a blockchain to do with what you will. Which is probably fraud, maybe?
Four suspects with what police describe as "in-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology" are accused of defrauding the bitcoin company of nearly $200,000 through "double spend attacks."
Those attacks involve withdrawing money from a bitcoin kiosk and remotely canceling the transaction before the company can process the withdrawal.
+21
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Four suspects with what police describe as "in-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology" are accused of defrauding the bitcoin company of nearly $200,000 through "double spend attacks."
Those attacks involve withdrawing money from a bitcoin kiosk and remotely canceling the transaction before the company can process the withdrawal.
I've seen a couple of those bitcoin ATM things and wondered, "How can that possibly be profitable for whomever owns that thing?" even without considering the transaction delay problem.
Is it fraud though if the Bitcoin kiosk doesn't pay enough of a per transaction fee to miners, and so the Bitcoin transaction is never added to the block?
How long should the machine's user wait before double-spending that coin becomes the machine operator's problem?
Four suspects with what police describe as "in-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology" are accused of defrauding the bitcoin company of nearly $200,000 through "double spend attacks."
Those attacks involve withdrawing money from a bitcoin kiosk and remotely canceling the transaction before the company can process the withdrawal.
I've seen a couple of those bitcoin ATM things and wondered, "How can that possibly be profitable for whomever owns that thing?" even without considering the transaction delay problem.
Pretty sure the only way it works is if the coin in question is continually increasing in "value" on the exchanges. So somebody pulls out their $20 and next week it's worth $25 or whatever. If the coin is in decline there is basically no way to make money from such a thing unless you are doing the exchange at way under the listed exchange value. But yeah if the coin in question is climbing in valuation you could make money in theory, but also anybody withdrawing would be foolish to do so. With the volatility of bitcoin and friends, this is one of those rare situations where basically everybody loses.
Four suspects with what police describe as "in-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology" are accused of defrauding the bitcoin company of nearly $200,000 through "double spend attacks."
Those attacks involve withdrawing money from a bitcoin kiosk and remotely canceling the transaction before the company can process the withdrawal.
I've seen a couple of those bitcoin ATM things and wondered, "How can that possibly be profitable for whomever owns that thing?" even without considering the transaction delay problem.
Traditionally, I expect they'd run those transaction delay attacks on themselves, driving the company to bankruptcy while pocketing all of the money personally.
Four suspects with what police describe as "in-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology" are accused of defrauding the bitcoin company of nearly $200,000 through "double spend attacks."
Those attacks involve withdrawing money from a bitcoin kiosk and remotely canceling the transaction before the company can process the withdrawal.
I've seen a couple of those bitcoin ATM things and wondered, "How can that possibly be profitable for whomever owns that thing?" even without considering the transaction delay problem.
Is it fraud though if the Bitcoin kiosk doesn't pay enough of a per transaction fee to miners, and so the Bitcoin transaction is never added to the block?
How long should the machine's user wait before double-spending that coin becomes the machine operator's problem?
Checks generally have a time limit, after which the bank won't honor them anymore. However I don't think that's actually a matter of law because as I've changed institutions over my life I've seen varying times from thirty days to six months. Also, a check timing out only means that check is no longer good, not that the person you paid is no longer entitled to payment. That IS a matter of law.
It's certainly going to be awkward telling the judge why you're so keen on payment but couldn't be fucked to cash a check in a timely manner, but as somebody who had a doctor come back for payment after finding a two year old check in a drawer, awkward questions don't necessarily mean the gavel falls against you.
A check timing out isn't fraud, though, because there's no action on your part, only inaction by the payee. Writing a check and then emptying your account before they can cash it is fraud. Scheduling a payment to keep Charter from turning off your internet, then cancelling your credit card before it posts is fraud. Buying your groceries by check and then stopping payment on it is fraud. All of those have some analogy to what they're doing. Pretty sure what they were doing is exactly fraud.
Also relevant to the, "A 51% attack isn't fraud" argument a couple days back. If somebody argues, "It's not technically fraud if..." or asks, "Is it technically fraud if..." it's pretty much fraud.
The whole concept of fraud basically exists in its modern form as a catch-all for cheating the system to get money or stuff because people cheat the system to get money or stuff.
I work for a bank, a smaller bank, and theres lots of talk about Bitcoin and Block Chains and thankfully all the tech people here (myself included) have convinced various members of management they are a bad idea and to stay away. Its just too volatile of a market to get into. I guess unless your Chase
I work for a bank, a smaller bank, and theres lots of talk about Bitcoin and Block Chains and thankfully all the tech people here (myself included) have convinced various members of management they are a bad idea and to stay away. Its just too volatile of a market to get into. I guess unless your Chase
like
the time to get into bitcoin and cryptocurrency was 7 years ago
not now, not ever again
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Today a member of the Flux party was handing out fliers in the city as I walked to work. A group of, I think, 3 women and a guy walked out of nearby walkthrough area and he tried to hand them a pamphlet saying "blockchain based voting for Australia!"
They all immediately burst into laughter.
And I walked on convinced I'd witnessed peak something, but I don't know what but it was amazing.
I work for a bank, a smaller bank, and theres lots of talk about Bitcoin and Block Chains and thankfully all the tech people here (myself included) have convinced various members of management they are a bad idea and to stay away. Its just too volatile of a market to get into. I guess unless your Chase
like
the time to get into bitcoin and cryptocurrency was 7 years ago
not now, not ever again
There are some... Older folks I work with who are IT adjacent. I haven't found the polite way to tell them that the very definition of when it's too late and something is a post fad is explicitly when they discover it and wonder if they should get involved.
I work for a bank, a smaller bank, and theres lots of talk about Bitcoin and Block Chains and thankfully all the tech people here (myself included) have convinced various members of management they are a bad idea and to stay away. Its just too volatile of a market to get into. I guess unless your Chase
like
the time to get into bitcoin and cryptocurrency was 7 years ago
not now, not ever again
There are some... Older folks I work with who are IT adjacent. I haven't found the polite way to tell them that the very definition of when it's too late and something is a post fad is explicitly when they discover it and wonder if they should get involved.
IT dudes in general seem to fall into the trap very easy because of a dunning-kruger effect since they feel like, as IT dudes, they know a lot about computer systems and crypto is just a type of computerized system.
I had to tell my buddy recently, after he remarked that he had 8 old AMD GPUs laying about, that GPU mining hasn't been profitable in nearly 7 years for bitcoin and that he was going to waste so much money just to power the fucking things on because they're AMD GPUs let alone trying to recoup those energy costs at all with mining.
Older people are also a lot easier to scam because of similar reasons too. "I know what I'm doing because I've been doing it for X years"
Edit: even reading the bitcoin spec/design you would have a really rough idea that late adopters get fucking hosed because of its forced rarity and deflationary effect on the system. These people just jump on board without doing the slightest bit of research because some goober on the television told them it's the next hot thing (after they'd already invested of course).
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Yes, this is why a fundamental of the technology is a perfect immutable ledger.
More correctly its the input that was anonymous. Its hardish to track who owns what wallets not who has what or sent what to whom.
It's not a currency, it's not a commodity, it's not a physical asset...
It's like stealing someone's Monopoly money except the Monopoly money is imaginary.
Edit: This isn't even making fun of crypto. How is it illegal? It's obviously illegal to steal dollars represented in an exchange... the actual coin markers though?
Depends on how you stole it. In general stealing someone's wallet will probably require some sort of fraud or intrusion. If you just run a 51% attack then it's totally legal.
Stealing anything is illegal, not just money.
Also the method you used to steal it would probably also be illegal, i.e. fraud/hacking/physical tresspas etc.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
For tax purposes I believe the IRS said that it is a commodity, so you report gains and losses from buying/selling.
It is a digital good, which is still an asset and illegal to steal. It's not quite like stealing movies/music since those are just copies, while a bitcoin is a one of a kind digital item that can't be copied/spent more than once unless you're in the real edge cases of 51% attacks.
Its illegal to steal anything. Its illegal to take by fraud. A 51% attack requires fraudulently inserting or removing transactions from the ledger.
So yea, its illegal. No matter how you do it its illegal.
The other things, yes, those are illegal.
51% is perfectly legal. You publish your own chain longer than the 49% have. That's how bitcoin is designed to work. It's your own fault if you relied on a particular transaction being included in the chain - should have paid more to persuade miners to include it.
No. That is not how the law works... i mean unless you don't actually do the attack in order to double spend... but if you do do the attack its fraud and its illegal.
If you don't think it is then tell you what you go ahead and get one together and perform the attack and then tell the US government what you did and where the proof is and where you currently are and we can time how long it takes before you're convicted.
The system is what defines who has what assets. Transactions processed via a 51+ attack aren't really any less legit than any other.
The law doesnt care. Its still fraud
Hasn't been tested. There are similar tactics (buying lots of stock, then shenanigans) that are legal.
If someone has been found guilty of fraud for organizing a 51% attack I'd be very interested in seeing the reference.
The only difference between a 51% attack and someone solving a block is that someone else says, "That was a 51% attack!"
In both cases you have a block that gets solved. It's only the content of the block that differs and neither block is obviously fraudulent. Which block is the fraud in a double spend? Neither was 'first' because, by definition, neither block had been added to the chain.
Having 51% of the hashrate isn't illegal but doing anything illegal with that 51% hash rate is. Anything like taking control of other peoples assets without their permission, spending currency twice... etc... is. Its illegal.
Its very obviously illegal. The only reason people haven't gone to jail as a result of these attacks is that they have not been caught.
Edit: To be more explicitly clear. It does not matter how you do it. If you take something that is owned by someone else without their consent its theft. If you take something that is owned by someone else by misrepresenting a transaction that will take place then its fraud. A double spend is fraud even if you do it using literal fucking magic.
The double-spend's intent will be to obtain something from your coin from someone else before the chain is rendered invalid.
This is obviously fraud, as you're obtaining something from someone else whilst having no intent of ever paying or trading for the thing.
But this also leads to long transaction resolution times with Bitcoin; the rule I've heard it's if you want to be safe, then you wait until the Bitcoin transaction is 6 blocks deep in the chain before releasing the goods.
That way it becomes far less likely that any longer chain or 51% attack will invalidate the transaction after you've otherwise completed the trade.
The fun part is that OneCoin is still going.
Sounds like a hard job; I can't tell how OneCoin was different to a legitimate blockcoin exchange.
Exactly.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-bitcoin-fraud-investigation-canada-wide-suspects-1.5053195
I've seen a couple of those bitcoin ATM things and wondered, "How can that possibly be profitable for whomever owns that thing?" even without considering the transaction delay problem.
How long should the machine's user wait before double-spending that coin becomes the machine operator's problem?
Pretty sure the only way it works is if the coin in question is continually increasing in "value" on the exchanges. So somebody pulls out their $20 and next week it's worth $25 or whatever. If the coin is in decline there is basically no way to make money from such a thing unless you are doing the exchange at way under the listed exchange value. But yeah if the coin in question is climbing in valuation you could make money in theory, but also anybody withdrawing would be foolish to do so. With the volatility of bitcoin and friends, this is one of those rare situations where basically everybody loses.
Traditionally, I expect they'd run those transaction delay attacks on themselves, driving the company to bankruptcy while pocketing all of the money personally.
Loads of transaction fees.
Checks generally have a time limit, after which the bank won't honor them anymore. However I don't think that's actually a matter of law because as I've changed institutions over my life I've seen varying times from thirty days to six months. Also, a check timing out only means that check is no longer good, not that the person you paid is no longer entitled to payment. That IS a matter of law.
It's certainly going to be awkward telling the judge why you're so keen on payment but couldn't be fucked to cash a check in a timely manner, but as somebody who had a doctor come back for payment after finding a two year old check in a drawer, awkward questions don't necessarily mean the gavel falls against you.
A check timing out isn't fraud, though, because there's no action on your part, only inaction by the payee. Writing a check and then emptying your account before they can cash it is fraud. Scheduling a payment to keep Charter from turning off your internet, then cancelling your credit card before it posts is fraud. Buying your groceries by check and then stopping payment on it is fraud. All of those have some analogy to what they're doing. Pretty sure what they were doing is exactly fraud.
Relevant
Also relevant to the, "A 51% attack isn't fraud" argument a couple days back. If somebody argues, "It's not technically fraud if..." or asks, "Is it technically fraud if..." it's pretty much fraud.
The whole concept of fraud basically exists in its modern form as a catch-all for cheating the system to get money or stuff because people cheat the system to get money or stuff.
like
the time to get into bitcoin and cryptocurrency was 7 years ago
not now, not ever again
Today a member of the Flux party was handing out fliers in the city as I walked to work. A group of, I think, 3 women and a guy walked out of nearby walkthrough area and he tried to hand them a pamphlet saying "blockchain based voting for Australia!"
They all immediately burst into laughter.
And I walked on convinced I'd witnessed peak something, but I don't know what but it was amazing.
There are some... Older folks I work with who are IT adjacent. I haven't found the polite way to tell them that the very definition of when it's too late and something is a post fad is explicitly when they discover it and wonder if they should get involved.
IT dudes in general seem to fall into the trap very easy because of a dunning-kruger effect since they feel like, as IT dudes, they know a lot about computer systems and crypto is just a type of computerized system.
I had to tell my buddy recently, after he remarked that he had 8 old AMD GPUs laying about, that GPU mining hasn't been profitable in nearly 7 years for bitcoin and that he was going to waste so much money just to power the fucking things on because they're AMD GPUs let alone trying to recoup those energy costs at all with mining.
Older people are also a lot easier to scam because of similar reasons too. "I know what I'm doing because I've been doing it for X years"
Edit: even reading the bitcoin spec/design you would have a really rough idea that late adopters get fucking hosed because of its forced rarity and deflationary effect on the system. These people just jump on board without doing the slightest bit of research because some goober on the television told them it's the next hot thing (after they'd already invested of course).