CEO of Crypto Company...
1) Takes time off to build orphanage in region noted for fake deaths.
2) Subsequently dies unexpectedly.
3) Is immediately cremated.
4) Wife waits a month before saying "oh by the way he is dead"
5) Wife claims all keys on encrypted laptop
6) World watches as wallets mysteriously empty
7) Experts crack laptop
8) All wallets turn up in fact empty
9) $140 million disappears into the ether
Another thing you could work into the plot is $9m appears to be with WB21 "Banking Redefined" which claimed a million users but was discovered to only have 135 downloads of its app (now removed), is run by a convicted fraudster and was awarded "Global Banker Award 2018" in a black tie ceremony that they seem to have set up themselves to give themselves the award (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbKMdhpwbaw). They are still going I think if you are looking for a safe place to put your money. https://amycastor.com/2019/03/01/diving-into-wb21-the-compan...
It was like you were watching his fantasy of what people would say about him if he was a productive member of society instead of a criminal and fraud.
 Curries favor with the awardees, creates an 'in group' etc...
>epaulets, uniform, position: it has nothing to do with something intrinsic of that person.
I’m sure he went to bed proud pulling all that off. It still looks like a lot of work.
OMG that trophy is indistinguishable from any other tacky chunk of lucite that, say, a particularly motivated carpet distributor might earn as a sales award.
Not to insult carpet distributors, whose work with tangible goods is worth at minimum 500x more than what any fintech slob contributes to the world.
I think it would be best done with the production values of "Catch Me If You Can."
I wonder what all the white paper consultants are doing now that their profession is over?
Probably working on a cannabis company.
A search of synopses and/or other elements might produce something closer to the original request, though I'm not aware of a good resource for this.
The fact that there are multiple extant and in-production projects does suggest some general interest, though.
10) The CEO was really an actor... hired by the "wife", who masterminded the whole thing
Alternative plot twist:
10b) Both the CEO and wife are hired actors. The head of the orphanage was the mastermind
Deeds for properties she bought in 2016 show she was once known as Jennifer Forgeron. On Dec. 1, 2016, Nova Scotia's Royal Gazette announced she was changing her name from Jennifer Kathleen Margaret Griffith to her current name, Jennifer Kathleen Margaret Robertson."
The orphans are the mastermind. The headmaster was nothing more than two kids in a suit. They're all on a beach sipping capri sun playing nintendo switch.
There is a place that is known for this specifically? Where can I read more about this?
I don't understand how that becomes a reference point for any region being known for fake deaths. The search results in fact make it look like someone used his death to slander a whole region.
I mean WOW. In just a few words you manage to describe one of the biggest problem we have today. Luckily Most of the HN crowds are not interested in the "Answer", but why it is the answer. And whether the why was plausible.
There are companies that have stocks of decades or century-old paper that they use to forge aged government documents.
I can't find a link to a story at the moment :-(
What is the average life expectancy there?
That will be a much less exciting scene in the movie. Itll be some dramatized "people around a computer watching traceroute"
I missed this. Are there transactions showing the money moving from the cold storage address(es) after his (alleged) death?
This is also what happened at MtGox, except that at MtGox they 'lost' wel over a million BTC.
Edit: relevant listening: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/9/
If EY (or anyone else serious about this) 'follows the money' then that would be a very interesting report to read.
But that's a feature, not a bug, at least according to the crypto people. But, so far, all they have managed to do is rediscover lessons about the need for regulation, oversight and accountability that the financial industry has learnt decades or even centuries ago.
> But that's a feature, not a bug, at least according to the crypto people. But, so far, all they have managed to do is rediscover lessons about the need for regulation, oversight and accountability that the financial industry has learnt decades or even centuries ago.
I feel this is only true for people who have not truly embraced the decentralized aspect of cryptocurrency. For example, many people leave all of their money in one wallet. Centralization. Many people use only one exchange for converting fiat to crypto. Centralization. The harder you look, the more you will find that the only people upset about the state of cryptocurrencies are those that did not diversify and instead reverted to a concept squarely against the cryptocurrency ethos.
Thus is human nature. Who wants to manage 30,000 wallets each containing only a few dollars? The supporting tooling is not there (or is not easy enough to use) and thus we see this recurrent user pattern.
If 99.9% of people are using a technology "wrong", then I would suggest it's bad technology. If we aren't making a technology with actual users in mind, then we're just doing some sort of high-concept performance art.
It can be done but there is a meeting in the middle from many sides.
I believe it centers around the simple laws of thermodynamics, the path of least resistance will be taken.
Tools are coming out to make development easier, tools are coming out to make consumption easier.
Think about computing and how much has changed, been misunderstood, and misstated, and flipped on its head in the past thirty years. The ease and accessibility is still being pushed.
This will too.
I hope people who do this have either a great memory or a great filing system.
The spreadsheets, math tables, the manual toil...you aren't looking at it realistically. Things don't just pop into existence perfectly but iterate into a local and idealistically global minimum from the reality of what people want and need, not what devs and larger organizations think they want and need.
Confined to only three dimensions? Pfft.
Get on my level kid...
Have you met any of those people? Do they actually exist or are you imagining them?
That sort of system will collapse, but not necessarily the banks.
There is no law of nature that says we have to use free to fuck anybody capitalism run rampant over all. It is a choice.
I think it is time we made a different choice!
> even in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.
Shorter: we create an economic policy to cheat workers out of the take home value of their earnings to make management easier and post favorable employment metrics for political leaders.
That "growth at all costs" policy, which, by the way is not inherently a free market policy, exists to short shrift the labor class by means of a compounding treadmill that most will fall off.
High inflation does not imply that real wages shrink on average.
Certainly not! Inflation is great for the privileged, because it forces the hoi polloi into investment schemes to protect their assets from inflation, which disproportionately help finance the business adventures of the privileged (e.g. stocks, bonds).
Thus the average real wage will get higher as a few select individuals get huge astronomical wages.
//edit - looks like they were by the UK and NL governments.
I think Enron actually had more transparency, and did more good in the world than the failed cryptocurrency companies. I've worked on two pieces of software that originated in Enron, which I believe are still used in production today. I think Enron participated in the invention of weather derivatives.
(No, I have never worked for Enron.)
I think the most important societal issue is that it damages investor and consumer confidence.
As a parallel, consider food regulation. When I go into a store or restaurant, the food I buy is very likely to be safe, because there are a lot of regulators making sure it happens. If they weren't operating, then I'd have to exert a lot more effort to make sure that each thing I eat is safe. Not only would this be a giant waste of effort, but it would significantly reduce the opportunity for innovation and cost reduction, because people would be reluctant to try new products and new restaurants.
Market confidence is even more important for finance, because it's much harder for individuals to know if a given company is really working. It would be a huge problem for society if everybody went back to keeping their money in mattresses and physically moving it everywhere.
You shouldn't have to pay a penny, the industry should be taxed so that the regulation is self-funded.
We can't legislate about "rational actors," but we CAN and SHOULD legislate about "perfect information." Any information hiding is essentially fraud or theft from the rest of the market, because it creates an information asymmetry distortion.
We could for example say that registered companies don't get company benefits (protection of owners from bankruptcy and protection of board from personal liability and such) unless they continually and regularly publish the full (even unaudited) books, not just the occasional brief filings we require now. That would benefit everybody in the market, except those who thrive on fraud and information asymmetry.
The risks of not using your own cold storage is real. The ability to store your own is outlined by numerous tutorials, explanations.
Nobody is crying for those who sent money to the nigerian prince, I don't think we should cry for anyone here either.
These player are smart enough to know most folks are uneducated on the topic and can be readily swindled by players looking and talking the part.
This happens every day in so many realms outside of blockchain; the opportunity for transparency, the lack of sympathy or control to help those with a lack of understanding, there are certain elements here that can change an environment that is so aggressively finance driven. This is the hope, something different.
The regulation, the trickery, etc it all gets sorted in time to a level we choose to accept. The question is if the potential for change is worth putting up with it until then.
Yeah, these institutions are antithetical to the whole cryptocurrency model. Regulation isn't necessary, education would suffice. The public is not yet ready for this paradigm, and perhaps never will be, but I'm hopeful.
It seems the problems may have started with a software screw up, leaving the "0x" off the ether address. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6ettq5/statement_...
which lost them I think 67,317 ETH permanently. Ah the wonders of cryptocurrency. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6er78h/warning_do...
They were supposed to use 0x notation for a particular hex value, but the software always worked without it.
Then some tiny x.x.1 patch upgrade changed the functionality, now requiring the 0x, without documenting the change.
The initial report was 850 000 lost BTC which later was brought down to 650 000. Scroll to the end of https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140320-btc-announce.pdf
Apparently Karpeles also found a 'forgotten' wallet of 200k BTC, which he still seems to own. It's a mess.
Doesn't make us whole of course, but it is nice.
It's a forum organized by creditors who together pay for a lawyer and an activist to represent us in the bankruptcy.
That didn't mean there wasn't some funds left over. But when someone is the position where they've taken someone's money and only have some left, leaving with the rest inherently looks better than staying and being broke and guilty.
Adds an extra nuance to "wake up, time to die"
Dhanani is very much alive, and is known to have been involved in money laundering schemes. If I were an investigator in this case, that is the first door I would go knocking at.
I wonder if there's anything to be learned from this? Perhaps deregulating markets driven by greed, margin, and leverage is a bad idea? LeT tHe FrEe mArKeT DeciDe?
But believed to be a minority shareholder, not majority.
If he's got the cash, he's probably not spending it or acting like he's got it to the point that it ruled him out as a suspect.
The article cites the latest monitor report, but the only paragraph I can find with the word laptop just implies the monitor has possession and success with some devices.
As noted in the First Report, known devices of Mr. Gerry Cotten have been secured by the Monitor including, Mr. Cotten’s laptops, cellphones, USB keys and home computer. The Monitor understands that prior to the commencement of the CCAA Proceedings, the Applicants together with their initial outside expert, attempted to access the devices and were successful in respect of certain devices. The Monitor will work with the Applicants and Representative Counsel to determine next steps to access any information and data which may be located on the devices and report back to the Court with respect to those efforts.
There’s no evidence that a cold wallet with much of anything even exists.
But the devices may hold some records of external accounts (eg: deposits on other exchanges).
New SaaS idea: Skin Lotus 1-2-3 and sell it as a "decentralized on-premise bookkeeping solution for your blockchain"
you made my day
Here is the tracking by Ernst & Young (court-appointed) providing all the public information about these developments. The latest report on 1 March 2019 mentions nothing about a cracked laptop.
Per the company and prior news reporting, those cold storage wallets discussed in the March Report were only stored on the owner's laptop, which was previously inaccessible due to various security mechanisms. (Reports suggested that the laptop was "locked" but did not indicate whether it was boot-locked or locked via the Windows mechanisms.) The fact that they were able to access those wallets means they "cracked" the security measures on that laptop.
Incorrect. Experts were able to trace funds back to the cold storage wallets addresses using analysis. But the private keys have not been located and no, the laptop has not been "cracked".
"a copy of the Order on www.reddit.com/r/quadrigacx"
i thought it's interesting how a third party, reddit, is used in such an official way. the other two channels to be posted on are E&Ys website and quadriga website
Six empty cold wallet addresses were disclosed by Quadriga, and for the most part they look to have been unused for the last year. EY is investigating some other potential addresses which are also empty.
So make sure that they don't!
And maybe someone knows that Mirimir is meatspace me.
But Mirimir is only a semi-anonymous persona. And I don't count on being anonymous as Mirimir.
However, I've had thousands of other personas, over the years. Mostly all using some mix of nested VPN chains and Tor. Some using Mixmaster remailers as well. Many I only used for a few days, or maybe for a month.
I doubt that anyone knows all of the connections. Or even enough to trouble me substantially.
This is how banks deal with the potential for loosing money too, except they have a mixture of private insurance, SROs insurance and state insurance. These things added confidence to their market, centralized crypto services do this too. QuadrigaCX did not.
This should have been easily found by analyzing user deposits and withdrawals, but so far, nada.
You don’t need to steal a wallet if you can update your account balance and then do formal withdrawals through the front-end.
Some other accounts on that exchange were set up "outside process", and it's not sure who owns those accounts.
If somebody know wallet ids of money before they were stolen, you can trace transactions to see what wallet ids they are in now.
If they say "stolen", it means that they found transactions when money were transferred from victim's wallet. And if they know transactions, then they know source and destination wallet ids.
Plenty of coin movements in an exchange aren't going to make it onto the chain. If I sell on Coinbase and someone else on Coinbase buys it, there's no reason for Coinbase to incur fees to publish that to everyone; they can just shuffle money around on paper.
Often people in the same family(cousins etc) would invest. Always in a fashion, where one of them owed money to the fund, and the other was owed.
If the fund went underwater, they would just go to the chit fund office, and do what was called book adjustment. Basically the fund would not give anything or take anything. On paper it would appear as fund gave money to one cousin, and took from another. In reality the cousin who was supposed to get money from the fund, would get the money from his cousin. And the fund, would mark in his ledger as the debt was paid.
This way people didn't make losses.
That's surprising and sad to hear. I have a close friend with Crohn's who is always very stoic even when he's obviously feeling miserable. But I can't imagine people downplaying such a dreadful disease.
Invisible illness is terrible.
I do agree with this part:
> It's clear there's a massive fraud
But that doesn't mean he's alive or that there was a coverup in his death.
A will being created right before the trip also adds to the suspicions.
Basically they try to hide the transaction among the huge volume of transactions going on, kinda like a VPN or Tor?
2. Safely tumbling large quantities of coins is especially difficult. At this scale I would wager twenty dollars that blockchain analysis should be able to trace at least some of the coins with high confidence.
3. It is rumored that many tumblers are run by law enforcement.
Washing crypto would seem even more difficult because transactions are all accounted for. So I'd assume a cleaner would need to have random time variance in redistribution so collisions aren't found. But also, money has to be spent or converted, so that's a big way you could uncover it. Money is harder because cash is still a thing.
1) See that money is transferred from account to washer (instant flag)
2) Search for accounts associated with initial fraud and watch for extraction.
The lack of an auditable cold wallet was a huge red flag. So was their multimillion ether loss (how would they cover that!?!?).
But even with public cold wallets, the public doesn’t know how much crypto or fiat is owed to users.
It was my basically uninformed impression that the bitcoin blockchain consists of a series of transaction records that look like this:
- Address xxxxx1x sends 10 bitcoins to address xxxxx2x; address xxxxx7x mints 25 bitcoins
That is to say, the records show that balances increase and decrease, but there is no actual concept of a uniquely identifiable bitcoin (with, say, a serial number) -- there are only balances held by accounts. On this model, it isn't possible to say that other people's coins end up in your destination wallets. Is that not accurate?
(The fact that you can divide one bitcoin into 100,000,000 satoshi also suggests that there's no such thing as an individual bitcoin...)
Hopefully that makes it a bit more clear. The word "chunk" is my own -- if you start using it in other discussions, nobody will know what you are talking about ;-) However, the main thing is that the wallets do not contain balances, but lists of transactions that ended up giving them coins. While there is no such thing as a "coin", it's discrete amounts rather than flowing in and out like water.
Also, what you are describing is the so called 'account' model -- used by Ethereum, EOS, etc. Bitcoin is a 'utxo' model, which allows specific inputs/outputs to be traced.
(The fact that you can divide one bitcoin into 100,000,000 satoshi
also suggests that there's no such thing as an individual bitcoin...)
T0885: 100 Satoshi from T0002 to address xxxxx0x # 1 wallet, 2 Satoshi
T1001: 1 Satoshi from T0885 to address xxxxx1x
T1104: 1 Satoshi from T0885 to address xxxxx2x # Each Satoshi moves to a separate new wallet
T1300: 1 Satoshi from T1104 to address xxxxx3x
T1400: 1 Satoshi from T1001 to address xxxxx3x # and then they recombine
From that record, it's clear that one Satoshi moved from address 0x to address 3x by way of transaction 1001, and the other one did the same by way of transaction 1104.
However, there is no instrumental difference between an address's balance from one transaction and its balance from another transaction, as the behavior of the address is controlled by the private key associated with that address, and two balances belonging to the same address necessarily share the associated private key. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.
100 Satoshi from A1
2 Satoshi to A2
98 Satoshi to Ax
2 Satoshi from A2
1 Satoshi to A3
1 Satoshi to A4
1 Satoshi from A3
1 Satoshi from A4
2 Satoshi to A5
1 Satoshi from A1
1 Satoshi from A2
1 Satoshi to A3
1 Satoshi to A4
1) My understanding is, every transaction in bitcoin is public knowledge forever as part of the forever growing block chain. That is, there is no way to ever remove a transfer.
2) The only anonymity built in bitcoin is to hide your identity with pseudonymity, nobody necessarily knows your bitcoin address you are using. However if you are buying coins with credit card for example from person A and spend those at person B, person A will know that you have just spend that money at person B, and person B will know that you bought the coins from person A.
3) The only way(?) to hide, make the transactions anonymous is via tumbling, that is you send your coins into a huge account outside your control that aggregates maybe millions of $ from thousands of people and then sends them out again into random addresses. Nobody except the provider of the tumble service knows where your money went, making you anonymous, your money untraceable. I assume you want to repeat this process a few times with different tumble services.
Is that correct? I'm no expert. Also with 3) how feasible is that with $130 million? I mean to successfully tumble wouldn't I need at least double the amount probably much much more? How large are the tumbles in services such as bestmixer.io? Also it seems to me that with enough heuristics even tumble services could potentially be traced back, this doesn't seem impossible to me?
How feasible to do this with $130 million? Yesterdays trade volume for monero was 75 million (thus actual on chain tx's are much less). So it would take a while to do this without drawing attention. I don't have a lot of faith in pure bitcoin tumblers. Possibly scams or fraud. Im yet to see one that works as expected.
it might be wasabi wallet. not 100% though