You do not own your address. You own the tokens that are held in an address. Bitcoin firewalls identity that it does not remove the need for identity. You cannot sign anonymously. There is no such thing. Pseudonymous signatures can be linked to a non-public identity. Identity cannot be transferred. There is no such thing as the ability to transfer identity. It is not a technical problem, it doesn’t exist. It is not something that needs to be solved, it is a definitional condition. You cannot sell or transfer identity.
This is where Antonopoulos and others went wrong on the Silk Road case. Making up the Dread Pirate Roberts defence was asinine. If multiple people use the same key, this does not change identity but rather links each individual vicariously. You don’t remove liability cover add extra people to the liability. In criminal law, where multiple people are involved in a crime, all of those people are guilty.
There have been provisions for many years that mean that in certain crimes, every single individual that has anything to do with the crime is equally guilty.
Consequently, you do not remove guilt by saying you bought the key. You are just as guilty if you did that. If you receive someone else’s key, and you do this willingly, you are willingly attaching yourself to all of the liability that goes with that key. You cannot assume identity but you can take other people’s guilt and share it. This does not mean that another person would get off but rather makes both people equally guilty. Criminal prosecution is not a zero-sum game. If two individuals are involved the total length of prison time just doubles.
When we are talking about small transactions, anything under £1000 or so, then the levels of protections and controls can remain limited. There are different provisions for cash then there are four large transactions. This does not change because you’re using bitcoin.
These are the people who are opposed to recovery of BTC
Arrest =/= charged =/= conviction
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477
This is where Antonopoulos and others went wrong on the Silk Road case. Making up the Dread Pirate Roberts defence was asinine. If multiple people use the same key, this does not change identity but rather links each individual vicariously. You don’t remove liability cover add extra people to the liability. In criminal law, where multiple people are involved in a crime, all of those people are guilty.
There have been provisions for many years that mean that in certain crimes, every single individual that has anything to do with the crime is equally guilty.
Consequently, you do not remove guilt by saying you bought the key. You are just as guilty if you did that. If you receive someone else’s key, and you do this willingly, you are willingly attaching yourself to all of the liability that goes with that key. You cannot assume identity but you can take other people’s guilt and share it. This does not mean that another person would get off but rather makes both people equally guilty. Criminal prosecution is not a zero-sum game. If two individuals are involved the total length of prison time just doubles.
When we are talking about small transactions, anything under £1000 or so, then the levels of protections and controls can remain limited. There are different provisions for cash then there are four large transactions. This does not change because you’re using bitcoin.
These are the people who are opposed to recovery of BTC
Arrest =/= charged =/= conviction
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment