1052
Comments (30)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Jewsacky 1 point ago +1 / -0

The burden of proof would be on a prosecutor as to who owns the crypto. In this scenario it would have been sent from someone else. However one of the a main elements of blockchains is to record every transaction. Using previous metadata or kyc info a company like I’ve linked below would help make a case for the chain of custody.

https://demo.chainalysis.com/request-a-demo/

1
Bilabrin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, but the prosecutors burden means they would have to establish the owner of the intermediary wallet. In an air-gapped address that was used once there is no KYC and no metadata to analyze if the owner of the second wallet used a vpn tunnel, onion server or sock puppeted the wallet hosted online.

1
Jewsacky 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol. The kyc is the first wallet and presumably the last wallets transaction. What I’m pointing out is there is an audit trail. That’s why privacy coins are so hot.

1
Bilabrin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right, that's my point. I legitimately traded some bitcoin to a guy I met in a Cafe who had a bitcoin sticker on his laptop. He sold me a guitar for it. We talked for awhile and then he left. Nice guy. I think he was somewhere between 4'10" and 7'3" with lightish dark skin and hair.

Wait...you're not telling me he used bitcoin for a criminal purpose are you?