zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
Seems like a win to me. The government had to physically go to their house and arrest them to get to their funds, whereas normally all they had to do was call up their bank and had their money frozen. Not to mention, this threat could have been easily mitigated by keeping your funds in a multsig wallet, with the keys distributed in multiple redundant locations.

>>gruez+G6
> Not to mention, this threat could have been easily mitigated by keeping your funds in a multsig wallet, with the keys distributed in multiple redundant locations.

And if you're released from prison and recover your Bitcoin, you will be arrested again for contempt of court or a similar charge.

>>mschus+Rj
Why anyone would use BTC and not some privacy coin for this kind of scenario escapes me.

>>notch6+Tk
If you read the original DOJ filing, they actually did that. They used :

> anonymity-enhanced virtual currency (AEC), in a practice known as “chain hopping”; and using U.S.-based business accounts to legitimize their banking activity.

Their problem was that they "closed" the money circle by sending it to real bank accounts. That's how they caught their trace. It seems that laundering billions of dollars is not as easy as they thought haha.

>>xtract+1r
Someone was saying they could have moved to South America and laundered $1000 at a time, but you'd think that the US government could've easily tracked that down as well.. "Hmm, it appears someone is living off this stolen 3 billion dollars in South America"