OHAI, Dnia piątek, 7 marca 2014 21:43:38 Cathal Garvey pisze: > (...) > What about simply exchanging different blockchain based coins, though? > Would that not help to "launder" with reasonable efficacy, provided both > participants use crypto to hide the transaction? From the outside, > transactions occur on both blockchains, but there's no "data trail" > correlating the transactions with one another as there is within each > blockchain.
This is interesting. > So, Alice buys .4 btc from a friend, but knows the friend's opsec might > be poor, or that the transaction may have occurred over a bad channel, > or that the coins were purchased from an exchange that demands valid > phone numbers, etc.: she wants to launder. > > She contacts Bob, a Dogecoin seller, to set up a private exchange. She > asks him to sell her 0.4btc worth of Dogecoin in two transactions of > unequal value (to prevent analysis by exchange rate to ID their > transaction). They conduct the exchange over an encrypted channel. > > From the outside, someone knows she's laundering, and just bought > Dogecoin, but because they don't know her Dogecoin receiving addresses, > they've lost the scent; Well played, Sir, I didn't see that pun coming! > she now has 0.4btc worth of Dogecoin, and can convert that back to btc > againin the same way. > > In a round trip, she's broken the chain; she keeps her value, minus > fees, of 0.4btc, but now it's in different btc, with no > blockchain-recorded transaction logs to link the original, tainted btc > to the new, clean btc. Wouldn't it be possible and even possibly more effective (no 3rd party involved, any price can be set) for Alice to do the round-trip by herself? As in: Bob == Alice? I.e. generate a new Dogecoin wallet, generate a new BTC wallet, and use these for the back-and-forth? > As a way for an individual to "launder", does this look plausible? Is it > any better or worse than laundries as they currently exist? -- Pozdr rysiek
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
