Well, he was caught because early on, he advertised for developers using his real-name email address. I know on the Internet people aren't terribly good at being people, but where I'm from it's considered bad form to celebrate anyone being imprisoned. Let's try not to celebrate someone's life being ruined. On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:42 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

Good. That'll remove one mayor anti-bitcoin argument. Plus it shows that even with anonymous transactions people can still be caught doing illegal things, making it less important to have exclusively publicly knowable transactions.

Huzzah.

2013/10/2 Trigger Happy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/10/silk-road-founder-arrested/

- -- Trigger Happy jabber: triggerhappy@jabber.ccc.de

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSTEH1AAoJEEtm9wC9fGLFLSMQAL3 +e2tChE1Z3zAf2lRadpPX rVz6MbiZsXismiOXPwOFZGjXBAD0GnbM6ZwlBtvHLvDnnsxd +N6kwKpvaXv2S/sS UOZeFl7m2G1BfhxYIN +GxemYho7TnmwoEQp8e4cdoXF9PqYQylcxg7Q4e5HHXhDm 92Nsj8EbRscAsK+ibQslmXKCqgwsQYEElgx1Va +C/KU/rvzIcv9MC1g8Jaq2TTND 0Taz0M9e9s8S9hHAnbUU9dIQKSGB43iegY8UD/E6Q/vyS +qKgs6sKySkKfKw5MLN eOPuCOGw9btm/Qvh4ckAAztefzovEEsPKIEQo502WyeaOvSMot/RqlwEwK4LREOL IXKk2m3AOMwnMpeW8FQo4mb9XNV6HKZFSK//P3hQE3ao6PpyY2Nm6m68CSaDpsDB 2XjKs0xZyplit85BEsz496yNe5UTM2eUQTDoorCj6RHl7Y2lm44R3eW1/BcvMKO4 JyEo9PbYs57NRQLoyBaWU0NJFm9GlxrtqsnazOgX/i2ugqoy9f +qArOhRS7dEPvk PlJxKeAIe/qb7P+jOLHYKnl1gxa +2kP59XJ2VlOAmqrdIIvAeaGSK4tqFTi6ziD4 AV0WguqN7q9OXTrN0ybKOfjlsLdjCBchvmpOnDC/T3yMZOEktZM/Mih8N8YV6OJb fwGhM48wWoNaJlNck5ej =t7fB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Sent from Ubuntu

To be fair, he was being blackmailed. That's self defense, right? On Wednesday, October 2, 2013, Al Billings wrote:

You mean like the guy he paid someone $150,000 to murder?

-- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Ted Smith wrote:

I know on the Internet people aren't terribly good at being people, but where I'm from it's considered bad form to celebrate anyone being imprisoned. Let's try not to celebrate someone's life being ruined.

I'm subscribed to the cpunks list, there's no need to CC me. Lots of people do bad things, but especially if those bad things have already happened and there's nothing we can do about them, it makes more sense to try to build a better world where people don't do bad things, than it does to be very angry at the people who do bad things, and to be happy when other people do bad things to them. I suppose if you very strongly believe that drugs are bad, you can point to any drug-related prosecution and say that it functions as an incentive. But there are people on this list who have been the targets of federal investigations, and I feel it's bad taste and contrary to cypherpunk culture to be celebratory of them. On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 10:50 -0700, Al Billings wrote:

If your name is Walter White.

-- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Loofbourrow wrote:

...

To be fair, he was being blackmailed. That's self defense, right?

-- Sent from Ubuntu

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 22:31 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

If you say anarchy is part of cypherpunkism (if that's a thing) I simply disagree with you.

You're wrong as a matter of historic fact. Are you one of the people that was too afraid to be on the al-qaeda list or something?

And you tell me it is unethical to celebrate?

Want to ask Jim Bell how he feels about it? -- Sent from Ubuntu

Ted

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 22:31 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

If you say anarchy is part of cypherpunkism (if that's a thing) I simply disagree with you. You're wrong as a matter of historic fact. Are you one of the people that was too afraid to be on the al-qaeda list or something?

At first I frowned and wondered why. Then I thought it was likely a joke and if it wasn't then what's the problem with al-qaeda? Also a distinct lack of right-to-left garbage spewing at me. Of course putting things into the people's hands (truly and irrevocably) is something that's very cypherpunk. In that sense it's also very anarchist, as permission from anyone is not required to take that power. Yet I'd maintain that laws a very much part of every *software *ever written. Bitcoin is a system mired in laws really, the amount of restriction on what you can and what you can't is precise and unforgiving. There's no space for seperatists as the blockchain forces the richest (iow: the biggest miner) to win any contest of what set of rules is *the* set of rules. As it has been stated "The code is the law". Yet the code is to be agreed upon, lest splintering of code recreates law differences as it does in nations. 2013/10/2 Juan Garofalo

I think you need to research the ABC of political theory before saying anything about anarchy. Your belief that anarchy is chaos is as unfounded as it is laughable.

Anarchy as a word does not mean a thing. It's the people in it that shape it. This is as much as risk as it is a feature. From chaos men makes shapes, structures. These structures must, by the very absence of it, reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of course the extends and all will depend upon the people. Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible. Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that ease makes it have a good return. So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite chaotic, as no real leaders are permitted to arise. Of course it's possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos. Now if you'd be so kind to tell me why your tone was so insulting and the reasons for thinking the way you do, then perhaps this can become an interesting conversation.

Al-qaeda.net still works. May want to use ALQ comsec for surefire inescapable gravity of the galaxy's ravenous spy black dwarves. Ref: Inspire magazine 2010: http://cryptome.org/2013/09/al-qaeda-comsec.htm

At first I frowned and wondered why. Then I thought it was likely a

...

joke and if it wasn't then what's the problem with al-qaeda? Also a distinct lack of right-to-left garbage spewing at me.

(to clarify, this list used to have the address cyperpunks@al-qaeda.net, until liberals afraid of their own shadow forced it into more neutral territory. Many people joined at that point, somewhat diluting the existing radicalism.)

...

Of course putting things into the people's hands (truly and irrevocably) is something that's very cypherpunk. In that sense it's also very anarchist, as permission from anyone is not required to take that power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptoanarchism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

Additionally Silk Road has been *the one *example of "bad things with Bitcoin" so as a news message this is good news for those that own Bitcoin, and Bitcoins image of legitimacy. This is the fact I am celibrating. The actual arrest and takedown are sad results of society and the fact that the owner wasn't hardcore paranoid enough, and I see no reason to celebrate that.

The FBI agents involved should be taken before a Grand Jury seeking an indictment for kidnapping. If indicted, and found guilty by a jury of their peers, they should be hanged. There was no crime here, other than the kidnapping. The man sold vegetables to people who wanted them. -Bill

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Al Billings wrote:

Paying someone $150,000 to kill someone isn't a crime in your country?

That's the single charge on the complaint that might have some merit, but apparently they have no body, nor any evidence that the victim even exists, other than electronic messages. And, he was being blackmailed, in an environment where he couldn't go to the authorities, since they would arrest HIM, not the blackmailer. Another situation in which the drug war causes unintended (or maybe not) consequences. -Bill

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:47:51AM -0700, Al Billings wrote:

Paying someone $150,000 to kill someone isn't a crime in your country?

All assuming it's not all lies.

2013/10/3 coderman

currently this is considered "not a crime"...

I don't believe there's been a public ruling of a judge, which would make you think makes it unclear. There's however provisions for secret rulings that are still in effect. This law was passed legally and in accordance with earlier safeguards and with no revolt from the people. I'd say that if there's agreement on these things being okay, then it must be "not a crime". Of course it's not "extra-judicial" either. What we think about it personally, well, that's just not the same question, is it? Although it's a good answer. Maybe "sometimes it's legal" would be more direct. "someone" isn't a specific enough target. "Paying someone $150,000 for an illlegal murder isn't a crime in your country?" would be a better question, but you can see how it answers itself. "Is paying $150,00 ever legal in your country?" -"Yes" would be the perfect question. Anyone think this is annoying? Me too. Use clear language and answer people's actual goddamn questions.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bill St. Clair wrote:

There was no crime here, other than the kidnapping. The man sold vegetables to people who wanted them.

See, there's your mistake right there. You think you're talking about government and a system of laws which values personal freedom and free trade. In the US since Wickard v Filburn if not before, the federal government has had the power to tell you what commercial activities you may not participate in. -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 20:21 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

On Oct 2, 2013 7:19 PM, "Ted Smith" wrote:

...

I know on the Internet people aren't terribly good at being people, but where I'm from it's considered bad form to celebrate anyone being imprisoned. Let's try not to celebrate someone's life being ruined.

I think this is an interesting notion. Yet you misunderstand my apathy for dislike. I simply don't care for this man. Not at all. I think law is served the way it should be, although later than it should be. This law the citizens of America mostly agree with (hard to believe but true nonetheless) and he will likely be prosecuted fairly.

It's miraculous that this man didn't decide to build up an existence in Russia or somesuch country, where he'd be safe from such prosecution. Why he didn't do the ultimate best he could to simply disappear.

Additionally Silk Road has been the one example of "bad things with Bitcoin" so as a news message this is good news for those that own Bitcoin, and Bitcoins image of legitimacy. This is the fact I am celibrating. The actual arrest and takedown are sad results of society and the fact that the owner wasn't hardcore paranoid enough, and I see no reason to celebrate that.

I hear there are non-profits that work to advance the "legitimacy" of bitcoin. There are plenty of companies that are trying to do the same, so they can make money. But we're neither bitcoin-related nonprofits, or bitcoin-related startups. This is the cypherpunks list. Legitimacy shouldn't be our concern. I think it's sad that so many people had no better option (indeed, the Silk Road was usually the best option for finding substances that weren't dangerously adulterated) than to send their money to a man who did violent things, and supported other people that did violent and utterly reprehensible things. I also think it's sad that this particular man is almost certainly going to have a shit life from now on. I also think this adds nothing to any argument over Bitcoin, because again, he got caught by being dumb. Bitcoin+Tor still seems pretty ironclad as a hosting platform for illegal activities. -- Sent from Ubuntu

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:31 +0200, Adam Back wrote:

...

I also think this adds nothing to any argument over Bitcoin, because again, he got caught by being dumb. Bitcoin+Tor still seems pretty ironclad as a hosting platform for illegal activities.

Well not so fast there, without slip by operator being reported, that guy in Ireland operating a ToR focussed mini-ISP got identified, and/or his clients did and it spilled over on to him, or whatever happened. (That one based on some browser bug and jscript attack inserted by law enforcement somehow). High grade security is not for the careless - need to follow advise, eg ToR browser bundle and scripts off or such?

The "slip" in this case is that the services were hacked. Tor (neither TOR, nor ToR) wasn't compromised. Notice that without tools like Tor, organized cybercriminals have been doing things like hosting child pornography for decades now. They do it with tradecraft and occasionally botnets. What does that say about this thread of argument (predicating the "legitimacy" of bitcoin on its ability to be compromised)? -- Sent from Ubuntu

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 17:32 -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:

...

The "slip" in this case is that the services were hacked. Tor (neither TOR, nor ToR) wasn't compromised.

And the source for that claim is...?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/ -- Sent from Ubuntu

At 12:37 PM 10/2/2013, Ted Smith wrote:

The "slip" in this case is that the services were hacked. Tor (neither TOR, nor ToR) wasn't compromised.

A surprising number of things *were* compromised, not even counting the known FBI malware attacks on the Tor network. If you read the indictment, there are a lot of email messages between DPR and various other people, implying either that DPR's mailbox has been seized (and that he saved a lot of messages that would be really dumb to save) or that many of the participants were actually Feds or informants (boy, would that be a surprise :-) or that the Feds have been monitoring communications on Silk Road's email for a while that I'd expect to have been private, in addition to monitoring open communications (drug ads, etc.), which says they've either compromised Silk Road or Tor. Also, somebody had said that the alleged hit on the extortionist competitor wasn't in the indictment, just the press release; that's incorrect. It's described in a fair bit of detail (including the Somewhere, BC police saying that there weren't actually any dead bodies lying around), in ways that sound almost like the extortionist and hit men were really cops; it wouldn't be a bad strategy for finding DPR if they'd wanted to do it, but you'd think they'd need to report that in the indictment if they had. Alternatively, the email systems were hopelessly compromised, to an extent that I'm glad I didn't try to buy any "research chemicals" in Silk Road. ------------- Events have superseded my travel to a working Wifi hotspot :-) http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/02/the-silk-road-to-federal-prosecution-the-c... Ken at Popehat explains that there are two indictments, one in NY and one in MD, and at least the MD one indicates that the alleged hit was against a Federal witness, so it's possible that they've got some of the data directly from a participant; there's also speculation that the whole "witness" thing may have been a scam by an ex-employee. -------------- (On a side note, it's kind of frustrating that the correct capitalization of Tor is "Tor"; makes it hard to distinguish cypherpunks mail from mail about Tor Books, the science fiction oriented publishing company :-)

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 17:38 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:

It's described in a fair bit of detail (including the Somewhere, BC police saying that there weren't actually any dead bodies lying around), in ways that sound almost like the extortionist and hit men were really cops;

The hitmen were the extortionists. This is roughly how the exchange went according to the FBI complaint out of NY: * extortionist: Give me 500k. * DPR: Why? * E: I owe people money. * DPR: Put them on the line. * People to whom the extortionist owes money (TOTALLY NOT THE EXTORTIONIST'S OTHER EMAIL ADDRESS NO WAY THATS CRAZY TALK): Hello. * DPR: Kill the extortionist. * D: That'll be 150k. * DPR: I've had people killed for 80k. But sure. * D: Okay, transfer bitcoins to this address. * DPR: Here you are. * D: Have a nice day! The point of the "murder solicitation" is for DPR to indicate that he's willing and able to have people whacked if they piss him off too much. Then the extortionist and DPR both get to solve their mutual problems without losing face. -- Sent from Ubuntu

But the jscript malware was installed via remote compromise onto the Tor hidden web server. Being behind Tor does not particularly add any protection to your server, in terms of remote hacking. Probably static content is safer in general even if it doesnt make flashy cursor hover boxes and client-side form pre-validation. Ie instal and turn on noscript - 99% of jscript is of no particular use other than making your browser blink and show animated ads ;) Ideally you need Tor to be in a routing box, not your computer so that there is no way for your computer to connect to the non Tor network, so your computer doesnt even know its physical IP and has no power to disclose it. Or simulate that setup in software you need Tor on the main machine, and a VM that has access to and knowledge only of Tor network for connectivity. Do not put ANY identifying information inside the vm. That rules out vmware because they leak in your disk serial number as a result of a microsoft law suit. (Microsoft accused them of making it easy for people to share windows serial numbers, because the "is this the same machine" calculation based on various HW serial numbers always comes up with the same answer in a virtual machine at that level.) Similarly the VM must not know your physical network card MAC addresses etc. Thats the way to do it properly on the client side. There are Tor focused distros that let you boot into Tor only OS. For my taste the Tor connection and code and physical device identifiers (physical MAC addr, HD serial etc) should be OUTSIDE of a VM and all client software should be inside the VM. The VM should be open so you know they are not leaking physical MAC addr/serial into the the client in the name of copy-protection. (It was microsoft's fault, not vmware). Adam On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:16:52AM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:38:36PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:

...

At 12:37 PM 10/2/2013, Ted Smith wrote:

...

The "slip" in this case is that the services were hacked. Tor (neither TOR, nor ToR) wasn't compromised.

A surprising number of things *were* compromised, not even counting the known FBI malware attacks on the Tor network.

The FBI malware didn't attack the Tor network, it just caused vulnerable endpoints to connect (outside of Tor) to a tattle-tale network server.

...

If you read the indictment, there are a lot of email messages

Not email, but rather, private messages on the Silk Road platform. Which apparently stored more or less all messages, forever.

-andy

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:16:48PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

My understanding is that they found a bunch of Tor machines, installed malware by means of rubber hoses, and thus located the Silk Road hidden web server.

Why would they even need to use rubber hoses? They could just compel Amazon. How many Tor nodes are on EC2 these days, again? --mlp

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:40:38PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:

Seems to me if people care about anonymous publication security and robustness they need static content, distributed, encrypted and integrity protected. eg like say tahoeLAFS over Tor or something like that.

Thanks for mentioning Tahoe-LAFS, Adam. I think combining Tahoe-LAFS with Tor is a good idea. It is already almost there. It is usable, but it doesn't yet protect your anonymity correctly. There is a recent burst of work to improve usability, security, and performance, and we need help. Also, below, I'll talk about the different, but complementary idea of "decentralized web apps" (i.e. Javascript apps hosted on Tahoe-LAFS). But before we get into decentralized web apps, here's the status of Tahoe-LAFS+Tor: it is currently working, by using a socks proxy that routes through Tor and configuring your Tahoe-LAFS instance to use it. Here are some open issue tickets about tweaks to the Tahoe-LAFS software or documentation which are needed: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1010# use only 127.0.0.1 as local address https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1349# Improve docs about Tahoe-LAFS+Tor https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/517# make tahoe Tor- and I2P-friendly Note that some of these tickets refer to I2P, which is another re-routing network sort of like Tor, but the ones I mentioned above are just as applicable to Tor as to I2P. The tickets mention I2P because I2P developers, in addition to Tor developers, are contributing bug reports and patches. There is a recent move to a better approach which doesn't require the user to configure a socks proxy. That approach is to switch Tahoe-LAFS to using a new network abstraction provided by the "Twisted" library which Tahoe-LAFS uses. That abstraction is named "Endpoints". The idea is to switch Tahoe-LAFS from IPv4 to "Endpoints", and then implement Tor and I2P routing as implementations of the "Endpoints" abstraction. This approach would also probably work with a cjdns transport, too. (Also it would help Tahoe-LAFS work over IPv6.) This approach would also allow other Twisted-based applications (besides Tahoe-LAFS) to use those interesting new transport layers. We could use help! If you know Python, please do code-review of these patches: http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/203# switch to using Endpoints How to review patches: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/PatchReviewProcess By the way, we LAFS hackers are well aware that anonymity is very hard. In fact, low-latency anonymity against a modern "global surveillance" threat model may be impossible. But even the anonymity properties that *are* possible, and the ones that are currently provided by Tor, might get ruined by some mistake that Tahoe-LAFS makes, so I wouldn't rely on the Tahoe-LAFS+Tor for anonymity until it has had a lot more study and testing. (Which we need help with!)

Of course not as jscript, form, click etc but thats just asking to be hacked anyway.

I don't quite follow this sentence. You can write code that uses Tahoe-LAFS from Javascript if you want. I think that is a *great* idea, and I think that it is inevitable that in the future "decentralized web apps" will be written in either Javascript + LAFS, or else Javascript + some-other-decentralized- storage-system. However, if you are not ready to accept the inevitable and start running Javascript in your web browser, you can also poke at Tahoe-LAFS from plain old HTML forms, or use Tahoe-LAFS from code (written in any programming language) running on your local machine.

As I recall Zooko mentioned you can actually do that - back a web server in LAFS, then the webserver is nothing but a read-only consumer of LAFS data. Presumably someone can figure out how to route encrypted, authenticated change sets or form submussions back to the underlying LAFS over Tor.

Here's a live demo of a "decentralized web app" in which all storage in an encrypted, decentralized, fault-tolerant storage network, and all computation is in the client -- in fact in the web browser. The demo is my blog: https://zooko.com/uri/URI:DIR2-MDMF-RO:jf3sqg535zufb43iafx7fpmszq:7icvjsf6lt... That link gives you read-only access to my blog. If you interact with it, for example by clicking on "Tags" or using the search box, then you're interacting with Javascript running in your web browser. When *I* interact with it (I have read-write access to my blog), for example by creating new entries or editing existing entries, then I too am interacting Javascript running in my browser. There is no server anywhere that has code for the functionality of my blog. All code that implements functionalit is in the client. The storage server does nothing but store ciphertext to which it doesn't have the decryption key. Now, there's a subtlety here that will probably confuse some people. To be truly *decentralized*, the URL you put into your browser has to start with "http://localhost/", rather than with "http://someone-elses-domain.com/", right? So when you look at the URL above, you aren't actually *using* a decentralized web app, you're looking at a demo of a decentralized web app. To put it another way, when *I* use https://zooko.com, I'm using a decentralized web app, because I control my own node in the network. When I allow *you* to use https://zooko.com, then you are not controlling your own node in the network -- you are relying on me and on my node. But if you install Tahoe-LAFS yourself and connect to the Public Test Grid, then you can join us in playing with true decentralized web apps. :-) Start with the newest version of TiddlyWiki, which comes with a Tahoe-LAFS plugin: https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/plugins/tiddlywiki/taho... (The demo above -- my blog -- is a much older and more kludgey combination of TiddlyWiki and Tahoe-LAFS.) Regards, Zooko

On 2013-10-05 04:49, Andy Isaacson wrote:

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:16:48PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

...

Two security failures: The feds were able to find the Tor hidden web server, and, having found it, there was information on the web server that should not have been there.

Note that this thread has meandered around, discussed several different security failures, and you seem to be returning to the Silk Road one.

...

My understanding is that they found a bunch of Tor machines,

I don't see any evidence or claim that the investigation touched, investigated, or influenced any Tor relays in the published documents about the Silk Road arrest. Do you have any basis for this understanding?

(BTW, it's *very* easy to "find a bunch of Tor machines", most of the Tor relays' IPs are listed in the public "consensus".)

...

installed malware by means of rubber hoses,

Again, I see no published claim that any malware was used in this investigation, nor that the investigators had to lean on anyone (much less torture them, as the phrase "rubber hose" indicates) to install malware.

Freedom hosting was forced to install malware on servers, which attacked the browsers used by tor clients. This attack did not itself directly expose Silk Road, but Silk Road was successfully attacked at about the same time, so, possibly part of the same operation. Silk Road was directly attacked by malware - they issued numerous complaints about this, and were repeatedly taken down by malware. This happened at about the same time as the Freedom Hosting malware, though there is no direct evidence of a direct connection, other than timing and modus operandi. Simply generating huge amounts of spam and firing it off at Silk Road from time to time would enable a correlation attack. We know, however, that Silk Road was attacked both by huge amounts of spam, and malware.

[forwarded for the 5th paragraph] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24495029 The "dark web" services used by criminals will continue to evolve in an attempt to evade authorities, the UK's cybercrime boss has warned. Last week, notorious drugs market place the Silk Road was shut down after a lengthy investigation. Andy Archibald, interim head of the National Cyber Crime Unit (NCCU), said officers identified individuals who were using the site. But he said new methods were needed to keep up with the threat. "[Online anonymity service] Tor evolves, and will resecure itself," Mr Archibald told the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones. "The success we've had may not necessarily mean that by the same routes and same approaches we can get into other criminal forums. "We have to continually probe and identify those forums and then seek to infiltrate them and use other tools. "It's not simply a case of because we were able to infiltrate Tor on this occasion that we'll be able to do it next time around as well." Mr Archibald's comments came as the NCCU announced its first conviction. Twenty-seven-year-old Olukunle Babatunde received a five years and six month prison sentence. The man, from Croydon, south London, pleaded guilty to using "phishing" scams in an attempt to defraud banks, financial institutions and their customers.

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:21:39PM +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

Additionally Silk Road has been the one example of "bad things with Bitcoin" so as a news message this is good news for those that own Bitcoin, and Bitcoins image of legitimacy. This is the fact I am celibrating. The actual arrest and takedown are sad results of society and the fact that the owner wasn't hardcore paranoid enough, and I see no reason to celebrate that.

There are many alternative tor hidden drug-free markets portals that work well and use bitcoins/litecoins, Silk Road Market was just the biggest one. Regarding "Bitcoin image" vs. Silk Road, BTC is falling down significantly because of Silk Road market shutdown. From this point of view as a bitcoin owner, I am just loosing a lot of money :( (and this is the second time why I am loosing my money because of FBI/CIA actions, the first time it was because of megaupload.com shutdown, of course I had paid my megaupload lifetime subscription). -- _______________________________________________________________ [wilder@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678]

On 10/02/13 21:23, Jim Bell wrote:

I can think of another "bad thing with Bitcoin" that hasn't yet been implemented. So, I don't think this is "good news for those that own Bitcoin", quite the opposite. If this prosecution is considered legitimate, could the next step be the prosecution of any persons who have anything to do with Bitcoin? Buy it, go to jail. Mine it, go to jail. Keep it, go to jail. Offer it, go to jail. Spend it, go to jail. Receive it, go to jail. If this guy is being prosecuted, even in part, because others are using Bitcoin for illegal purposes, why aren't 'you' (term used generically) who own even one BTC, guilty of the same 'conspiracy'? What is needed here is a mechanism to very strongly deter any such anti-bitcoin prosecutions. (You can imagine what I'm thinking of...). Separately, and somewhat less controversially, would be a mechanism to implement a 'denial of service attack' on court systems. What if, for example, the Feds were no longer able to prosecute 70,000 people per year (the current figure, approximately), but instead were limited to, say, 5,000 per year? Jim Bell

I'm not so worried. From the Criminal Complaint PDF I get the feeling that the charges are on the narcotics, and the running of the shop where others can sell those narcotics. ie. the normal witch hunt on drugs. I get the impression that the use of bitcoin to hide identities is the problem. Not the bitcoin itself. There are references at paragraph 12b: use of a Bitcoin "tumbler" to hide origins of individual transactions. In paragraph 15: "Ulbricht has required ... Bitcoins, an electronic currency designed to be as anonymous as cash". The good news: The FBI-author even states that "Bitcoins are not illegal in and of themselves and have known legitimate uses. (Para 21.v) In fact, they have been declared legal in Germany. You need to pay tax on them, over there.... So, the biggest challenge is to make sure the general public gets to know this fact. Regards, Guido.

If he were the REAL Dread Pirate Roberts, this would be his method for selling his ship to the next holder of the Dread Pirate Roberts franchise. (Ok, probably not.) At 10:19 AM 10/2/2013, Ted Smith wrote:

Well, he was caught because early on, he advertised for developers using his real-name email address.

Dumb.

On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:42 +0200, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Good. That'll remove one mayor anti-bitcoin argument. Plus it shows that even with anonymous transactions people can still be caught doing illegal things, making it less important to have exclusively publicly knowable transactions.

I thought Silk Road was one of the major pro-bitcoin arguments. But there are competing services as well, according to some news article I saw that tried three of them (but since they were a Reputable Journalism Channel, the reporter didn't get to actually smoke the dope he bought.)

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Trigger Happy wrote:

... http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/10/silk-road-founder-arrested/

also, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/02/feds-arrest-the... "The government shuttered the site and seized approximately 26,000 Bitcoins worth approximately $3.6 million..." i would be interested to know what coin addresses were seized, and how they are used going forward (if it all?). _that_ would be an interesting taint analysis... *grin*