re: And So It Begins: Bitcoins seized by DEA

quote:

---

So anyone knows exactly when a Bitcoin transaction took place. Can't the NSA, who allegedly is monitoring everyone's internet usage, compare all messages that occurred at the same time as Bitcoin transactions and look for patterns regarding the senders and recipients of messages that correspond with Bitcoin transactions. If so, then any claim to privacy for Bitcoin transactions is hot air. In fact, the use of Bitcoins might be cause for increased suspicion by government such that it could trigger government to increase surveillance on Bitcoin users.

---

Hypothetical: Person buys bitcoins from an exchange that is regulated and follows all KYC laws and what not. Person requests the exchange send those bitcoins to Address1. (Therefore it's provable that the person owns Address1.)

Then the person proceeds to send them a bunch of different times to other addresses.

example:

Address1 ---> Address2 ---> Address3 ---> Address4 ---> Address5

(that's a simple example. we could have many branches off that trunk too, if we wanted)

it looks like there were 4 transactions, yet the individual controls every address involved in the transactions.

How do you prove in a criminal trial that he controls Address5?

Do you think that the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard would be enough to protect a person, or will you argue that the burden of proof will actually be on the individual instead of the state?

In other words, would the defense that Address2 was actually an online webcam stripper and that Address3 through Address 5 are transactions from the stripper be enough to plant the seed of doubt, IYO?