[4oh9do]

> This is a public blockchain analytics service that has nothing to do with Coinbase's other services.

Are you familiar with the concept of parallel construction? It's a tactic LEOs use when they don't want to reveal how they actually obtained information. For instance, if they obtain information using method A, but want to conceal method A, they state that they actually obtained the information using method B (because the information actually is, after the fact, obtainable via method B as well, once you know what to look for).

In Coinbase's case the way this would work is Coinbase sources data from their internal databases (method A), and then after the fact they do let's say a Google search or some other public search for the names or whatever they found in their internal databases, and state that all data is sourced from online, publicly available data (method B).

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

> In Coinbase's case the way this would work ...

Since the article is already based on a leak (or something that is presented as one), one would expect that if this was the case, there would at least be an anonymous source claiming so.

Given that all the article is mentioning is "they're selling blockchain analysis software", it's very plausible that that's what they're selling. When the feds want specific info on a specific address/account, they're going to get a subpoena and get KYC data and logs anyways.

[TameAntelope]

You have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and as such you should not make it.

This is how disinformation is spread; not through some conspiratorial plot to confuse, but from fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

[4oh9do]

I am not making a claim, I am laying out how the process could hypothetically occur, hence the use of "would" in my post.

I'm curious, however, why did you not make a similar post to the parent comment...in that the parent comment has presented no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Coinbase is only using publicly-available information, and therefore by your own reasoning the parent poster should not make the claim.

[TameAntelope]

> Coinbase Tracer allows clients, in both government and the private sector, to trace transactions through the blockchain, a distributed ledger of transactions integral to cryptocurrency use.

Because both the parent comment and I have read the article, so we both have evidence to support the claim that Coinbase is only using publicly-available information, as that's how Coinbase Tracer, the license to which was reported as sold to ICE for $29,000, works.

[braingenious]

I think the person you’re talking to is theorizing about the possibility that Coinbase may not be completely honest in their statement about the nature of the service they provide to ICE. The article does not provide proof aside from repeating Coinbase’s statement.

If your standard of proof is “somebody wrote something online,” then GP provided you with proof that it’s possible that Coinbase lied.

[TameAntelope]

> If your standard of proof is “somebody wrote something online,” then GP provided you with proof that it’s possible that Coinbase lied.

I literally cannot parse this sentence, can you rephrase?

[braingenious]

I’m not sure how this is unclear. If Coinbase wrote a paragraph about their practices and that paragraph is “proof” of their practices, why wouldn’t another party writing a paragraph constitute “proof” of their position?

The topic of this sentence is “the definition of proof.”

[forgetfulness]

Privacy is important because these hypotheticals are enabled by the lack of it, you don't need to ask if, to give a more extreme example, unrestricted backdoor access to your account login to law enforcement agencies has been used for arbitrary surveillance, you demand that these things not be done so you don't have to find out years later.

[uoaei]

A lovely display of ideology-borne bias! Thanks for the potent demonstration!

[seoaeu]

You have absolutely zero evidence the parent comment is disinformation, and as such you should not have made the claim

[TameAntelope]

The author outright admitted what he wrote was speculative and not factual. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I do have evidence.

[jamiek88]

Speculation does not equal fud

[TameAntelope]

I didn't say it does generally.