Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yieldcrv 1140 days ago
because the clawbacks are easier to track through multiple hops, even when the initial recipient had already done other things with the funds
2 comments

What does that have to do with decentralized consensus?

You know, the core differentiating feature of cryptocurrency.

it doesn’t and that wasn't the premise of why we can acknowledge that using that payment network saved everyone time in the clawbacks, despite the shaken confidence that the exact same event caused into that payment network

the main distinction involved here is that not knowing who to subpeona for records slows down everything, whereas with the blockchains used most of the participants consolidate funds into KYC’d exchanges and we know which ones they went to, speeding up requests for records and subsequent action

In other words, blockchains make it easier to track what we are doing with our money, without the justice system being involved, and that’s somehow good.
the blockchains that were used, as I wrote with high intention and precision because there are other blockchains that don't offer that transparency

and then it comes to how they were used to leverage that capability, because people were not seeking to obfuscate or hide anything

if that's your actual goalpost, then don't worry, "they were holding it wrong" and you can hold it correctly to fit your needs

Wait, we recovered almost all of Madoff's money too?

Traditional finance has plenty of clawback mechanisms.

You're completely straw-manning a world in which traditional finance isn't also mostly done on KYC'ed exchanges.

I actually think Madoff is a great example of comparison, and didn't mention that because I felt someone else would call that a strawman, ironically, or at least choose to say something about the difference in the size of those frauds.

The main difference is the time, you're choosing to ignore that. 8 months versus .... how many years for Madoff? A decade?

>But the biggest sum has been in “category A crypto” tokens with large and liquid markets. FTX now has more than $4bn of crypto assets under its control, a total that has been bolstered by a sharp recovery in cryptocurrency prices.

>Bitcoin, which had dropped below $20,000 after FTX’s collapse, this week broke $30,000 for the first time since June 2022 , with other cryptocurrencies including ethereum charting a similar course.

This seems to go against your claims. - the existing assets just became more valuable in USD terms. Actual recoveries:

>Recovery efforts have more than doubled that figure so far, court filings show, including $800m in recovered cash and a further $600m in “settlements and investments receivable”.

What do you mean clawbacks? Blockchain transactions are irreversible, right?
Sure but a court can order you to do a future transaction that effectively reverses the original. (Akin to how almost every single reversed transaction _actually_ works).

And if you refuse, they can order your local (or not so local) PD to jail you until you comply.

Blockchain still exists in the real world with its very real rules.

Well, of course... but if they're relying on court orders how is exactly blockchain technology helping in this process?
Because bitcoin's is on a very public blockchain so one can easily lookup what wallets received the transfers, notice that they belong to an exchange, court order that exchange to freeze/transfer the coins.

If it was done with wire transfers and etc they'd have to do many requests to learn what transfers existed while with bitcoin all transactions are public so its just faster. Imagine having to walk down to the local PD every time to approve your web search vs just doing them without that.

I think the problem is that knowing the wallets that have received transfers isn't enough. They also need to identify the parties that control the wallets. As far as I know blockchains don't do KYC, so I'm having a hard time believing that blockchains make the process of recovering stolen funds any easier or indeed faster, quite the contrary.
The blockchain itself doesn't do KYC; many individuals/companies interacting with the blockchain do.

Sure, for some transfers just knowing the wallets won't tell you who it is. The problem (for criminals) is that often they ultimately transfer the money to an exchange and that wallet is known. This is where the blockchain ends up coming in clutch. If you did a wire transfer of money to say Wells Fargo; the USG is going to have no idea it happened so they can't even think of freezing the money. However, each of yours (and everybody else's) bitcoin transfers are recorded to a public ledger so the second they notice a series of transactions starting from the theft to a known wallet they can immediately request the money to be frozen.

At this point USG can require the exchange to return the stolen money as well as whatever information they have on the account holder.

---

Can one steal bitcoins and get away with it? Yes!

Its just that the public ledger is not your friend in this instances and you'll need to account for it while this fact is not the case with many non-bitcoin thefts. If you commit wire fraud and then cash it out into physically currency and then re-deposit that currency into several banks there is no public way to link those two actions. (Privately one could track the serial numbers; but again private not public).