If someone makes an air-gapped new address that is used only once, then you send money to it, then the owner sends it yo a known address, who sent it to the known address, you or someone else?
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.
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.
Pseudo anonymous, unless you use a mixer which I think fincen made illegal to offer their service to Americans.
If someone makes an air-gapped new address that is used only once, then you send money to it, then the owner sends it yo a known address, who sent it to the known address, you or someone else?
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/
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.