From what I have read SBF doesn't "feel things" like compassion, remorse, or respect for authority and government. On one hand one could argue SBF stole the crypto (after all he was in the best position to know both the wallets and the exact timing it was going to come crashing down) and he is raising cash to flee - if that is even possible. On the other hand it's kind of brilliant timing if SBF didn't take the crypto for the actual parties to put more suspicion on SBF. The trial does not seem to be going well for him in either case.
I think the main reason the trial isn't going well for him is his obvious, overwhelming, and well documented guilt of committing the crimes he's charged with.
I think you're mistaking the feeling of guilt with the state of being guilty of something.
The person you're responding to isn't claiming that SBF demonstrated remorse at his actions, he is claiming that SBF admitted to the crimes he's been accused of.
Whether or not he feels remorse for those actions is a separate concern. But yeah, he's guilty.
No, it means he defied and then fired his good legal representation because he preferred to publicly and repeatedly proclaim his guilt before (and with the direct result of effecting) the burning of his political connections.
His tweeting through the FTX collapse was a masterclass in self-incrimination.
> I have read SBF doesn't "feel things" like compassion, remorse, or respect for authority and government.
Given his complete lack of life experience and rather sheltered existence, I strongly doubt this type of shallow self analysis. He's purposefully lived a life where he gets to avoid those responsibilities, instead, preferring to live with payrolled groupies in a mansion doing drugs and stealing money all day.
I suspect him still but I think he thought the rules would continue to not apply to him so there was no need to do something like this. I think it is only now that he realises that his goose is cooked and the the tell is getting his hair cut - the wild genius act is over and the new act will be remorseful and obedient in an attempt to only get ~20years. If only he could get pregnant and skate like Holmes.
. On one hand one could argue SBF stole the crypto (after all he was in the best position to know both the wallets and the exact timing it was going to come crashing down) and he is raising cash to flee - if that is even possible.
I would assign a near 0% likelihood of this . For one, why would he need to hack his own exchange? Just quietly move funds to a secret address he know the private key to. Done. Being the CEO he would have 'god mode' authority to do this, and being a private company no audits anyway.
Criminal malcompetence on the part of the software "engineers", as attested to in trial. If this particular inside threat were possible, they either skipped kindergarten cryptography or conveniently forgot how to split keys.
I would guess that this is actually SBF acting through an accomplice. Of course everyone's going to look at SBF when asking where that final $400 million went. Right now he's on trial, in the courtroom, everyone sees him there -- perfect Alibi.
You could have reasonably said Ross Ulbricht was the main suspect in the theft of Silk Road bitcoins, but it turned out to be two FBI agents involved with the case.
We also had once an office admin stealing stuff. When we revoked his access cards and fire him, he came back the night with a different acces scard and stole more stuff and would pretend then that since his badge was revoked, it couldnt have been him in the first place
Again, why would he need to hack his own exchange if he is admin/ceo and has 'god mode' to just move funds from address A to B (one he knows the private key to and no paper trail) undetected?
Hardly cashing out directly. The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount. Maybe even just 10% of its crypto value.
The thief gets paid, doesn't need to worry about cashing it out, and the outfit that has experience in laundering can just go to work and get a massive payday.
> Hardly cashing out directly. [...] The thief is probably just selling the crypto to criminal outfit(s) able to launder it at a highly reduced amount.
That's the thief cashing out directly. (Maybe for less than the apparent value, but still cashing out.)
With this model, the thief has already cashed out and washed their hands from this. It's now the secondary (or third) buyers of the crypto cashing out.
Can't the addresses with the money be marked as obsolete or something like that so no miner accepts transactions from them? Only 50%+1 need to agree on this, right?
Decentralization not only means that you need 50%+1 of miners to accept, but also that there isn't a centralized driving authority to kick-start banning initiatives like that.
It can be labeled, but this does not stop the thief from moving it. Otherwise, the network would need to fork, which will never happen for somethign like this. Even if it did fork, he would still be left with pre-forked coins, which would be worth something. In the case of the Ethereum Dao hacker, the thief still got Ethereum Classic coins worth millions.
just got to use the dirty address with dirty funds to pump an asset you already own in a separate clean address that you bought with clean KYC’d money.
you just sell the asset your dirty money pumped and now you’re just another lucky speculator that bought a random meme coin early with some capital gains tax to pay.
if you get ambitious maybe other people keep pumping the asset and your dirty address can sell the asset at even higher prices again to them. rinse repeat.
This is crypto, not artwork, jewelry, or coins. the thief should have no problem getting market value. part of the attraction of crypto from the criminal perspective is the liquidity and fungibility compared to other types of heists. large volumes can be moved at close to spot price.
If I had $470 million in stolen crypto, I would target to keep around 10% of that, and with the other 90%, just send them to random crypto wallets around the world. I would do that for years and years and lead the cops on expensive wild goose chases and get hundreds of thousands of people entangled, and then transfer some to me every now and then through different identities.
I don't see how this can be stopped, unless somehow they traced the execution of crypto transactions to a particular IP address and time.
It’s not the crypto transactions that would get you, I think. It’s turning that crypto into hard currency: This is money laundering, and while lots of criminals successfully launder money, quite a bit of effort is expended at all levels to make handing someone large volumes of cash—for any purported reason—difficult to do unscrutinized.
And even if someone is able to get their hands on a few briefcases full of $100 bills (or probably better a steamer trunk full of smaller bills), it's probably going to be hard to actually use that much money--at least for legal transactions.
> I would target to keep around 10% of that, and with the other 90%, just send them to random crypto wallets around the world.
Your idealism or whimsy would have evaporated long before you accumulated anything close to that amount. No one in crypto is in it for the lulz, least of all SBF who was a media poster boy for "effective altruism".
Past the point of lifetime financial comfort, money is simply a way of keeping score in a game. And the players at the table tend to be some of the worst individuals in the world.
What do you mean? When you broadcast a transaction you do it from an IP address.
Validators/Miners/Nodes whatever can see which IP broadcast a transaction. There's definitely a way to link an IP address to a transaction if you're not using a VPN or TOR.
> Some of the stolen Bitcoin successfully laundered last year has been traced to a wallet known to be used by Russian-linked criminal groups. Elliptic says this could point to the involvement of a broker or other intermediary with a link to Russia.
IMO, the most compelling story is that the thief is an attacker who had previously gained access, saw the news, and acted quickly to grab what they could. Security was not exactly a priority for these people.
While a mild pain, I don’t see Russia really having that many issues if they can’t just wire money from A to B.
Russia sells oil to India, India puts rupees or some other representation of currency into an Indian bank account and then Russia buys some finished Indian goods from that bank account.
This isn’t far from regular banking where everyone just tries to keep flows balanced. All that’s new is being unable to directly “balance” payments if they go out of whack too much.
Do they lose a few percent doing this? Probably, but the spike in oil prices makes up for it.
If you just hack you don't need any of that though. Balancing, goods delivery, currency controls... Drain a western company, mix crypto for optics, give it to Iran or DPRK or whatever in exchange for munition
Plus India and relatively reasonable countries are not especially keen on trading with Russia, while they are friends they also want to be friends with West. Remember India has big problems with China and who's gonna help them against China? not Russia
People are willing to override a lot of their ethical concerns (and accept potential long term pain in favour of short term gain) when it comes to slightly cheaper oil, gas, labour or any other need and want.
A few countries got themselves in a pickle after shutting down local coal production in favour of cheap and cleaner Russian gas…
I don't know what is widely assumed, but I personally assume it was one of the insiders who shared credentials with the pretty clear intention of making it impossible to individually attribute any shenanigans, most likely SBF himself who actually did the theft.
Given the degree of surveillance he is under, he probably didn't directly execute the sale (but I wouldn't bet too heavily even on that.)
i would guess about 0% likelihood it is him. more liekly a hacker or employee. Being CEO, Sam would have the authority to take the money himself. He would not need to hack his own exchange.
We're a talking private company in the Bahamas that has no oversight. There are no shareholders, board of directors, or audits. Sam can just go to the databases of pooled funds addresses from his admin panel and move some of those funds from A to B. Assuming anyone notices, he can pretend to be clueless. That is the scary thing about exchanges and why so many people in crypto say to self-custody. Your money is in the hands of people who can do whatever they want with it.
Didn't at least one major theft occur just as Altman was forced out as CEO?
And, in any case, avoiding attribution would be important whether or not he was CEO and especially if done when FTX was still pretending to be a viable business, since embezzlement isn’t legal and the CEO running off with a bunch of corporate assets kind of kills trust in the business.
The FBI et al are very good at surveillance. I doubt anyone close enough to SBF to be part of a criminal conspiracy would be unknown to the FBI or not under surveillance at this point.
Being _known_ by the FBI doesn’t stop crime or terror attacks. More often than not when something big happens the FBI was already tipped off, an investigation started and then somehow someway the crime/attack/incident still happens.
If someone is willing to steal from their customers and injure innocent, random public, then it seems like a small character epsilon to also steal from their employer and its investors.
Why would he need to hack his own exchange if he is CEO? He can just move the funds himself. I would wager it is not North Korea. Probably some guy in a developed country if I had to guess. That was the case with Bitfinex , for example. It's not who you would expect.
Definitely North Korea. Just like that time the feds blamed North Korea for the Sony hack and then years later it was quietly revealed to have been a disgruntled former employee.
Occam’s Razor says it’s an employee, perhaps SBF himself (because #yolo).
> Why did the FBI then start a manhunt on Reddit leading to the suicide of the falsely accused suspect?
You have your facts completely mixed up. The man falsely accused by Reddit, not the FBI, had died a month before the Boston bombings occurred. The entire reason he was accused by Reddit is because he was already known to have been missing. His body was subsequently discovered more than a month after he died.
I can't find any evidence this happened. What I did find evidence for is that Redditors started a manhunt leading to a suicide. If you actually believe this happened, please inform us.
> What I did find evidence for is that Redditors started a manhunt leading to a suicide
The guy he's talking about was already dead weeks before the Boston bombing occurred. Reddit could not have been responsible for his death, reddit libeled a dead man.
I was curious about this. The guy you're saying was falsely accused was ALREADY dead from suicide before the bombing took place. His body was found days after the bombing according to Wikipedia [1]. (took 3 seconds to find this reference)
Also its a bit ridiculous to suggest the FBI tasked redditors with a manhunt.
