Comment by XorNot 3 days ago
Bitcoin literally has an immutable transaction record baked into it's model.
You would be able to point to the timestamp when you took possession of the wallet which would prove providence unambiguously.
AML statutes don't invert the burden of proof! If the government wants to prosecute you for taking money, they still have to prove you took the money beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm always amused by the paranoia in the xxxcoin communities. If the government had and exercised the power you believe it does, why on earth do you think putting your money in bitcoin or whatever would provide any protection at all?
Edit: case in point:
> KYC and AML invert the burden of proof and are essentially an exception to the 4th amendment
Oooph.
> If the government wants to prosecute you
Their point is that the government does not prosecute you, they threaten the banks with "regulatory incidents" if they don't comply. The result is that some people find it difficult to ever open a bank account with no means to "clear their name" as it were.
KYC and AML invert the burden of proof and are essentially an exception to the 4th amendment, that's why they're so controversial.
I tried to open a bank account when I was moving states before I had a local state ID or any utility bill or proof of address, no one would do it because they stated the standard the feds hold them to for KYC would essentially presume I am guilty of lying and require me to provide documentation to prove I'm not.
That works until it does not. What if you transferred the BTC to other wallets or exchanges in the meanwhile? Even if you still had access to the original wallet, what proves that it was really yours? etc.
What if you tried your best to do everything that a money launderer does without actually doing any money laundering?
If you and your friends are just innocently idling in a your car wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer with a shotgun and a large duffel bag, in front of a bank that was robbed in this manner four times last month, you're highly unlikely to, at minimum, beat the ride.
What I described is actually extremely mundane. Maybe you started with Bitcoin Core and later switched to a lighter SPV wallet like Electrum when the blockchain got too big. Maybe you bought a hardware wallet and moved your BTC offline. Maybe you sent some to Binance to invest in Ethereum at some point. There are countless reasons to shuffle BTC around - and countless reasons why you couldn't prove your full transaction history dating back to 2012 - none of which involve any crimes.
Has anyone ever been convicted for doing a few on-exchange trades and conversions? You should be keeping your receipts for tax purposes, it's on you to provide them up to a statue of limitations.
Or is this just a theoretical concern for anyone who isn't laundering Bitcoin stolen through ransomware or from exchanges?
Sounds like that criteria would match about 50% of people with child support or alimony orders.
Unless you’re using mixers then it is relatively trivial to follow your BTC around the blockchain. That is the very point of it.
The issue of provenance is an issue regardless of the type of funds.
In most jurisdictions the burden of proof is civil, so more likely than not.
Sure, you can trace the full transaction history of any BTC through the blockchain... but that doesn't prove anything. At minimum, you need all the private keys involved (e.g. not possible if you used an exchange or deposited/withdrew from some online service or lost/deleted an old wallet). Even if you had the full list of private keys involved, going back to 2012, what proves that they were really yours and, like another commenter pointed out, that you didn't just acquire them yesterday?
Which is a more complicated scenario then originally claimed, which was "I bought a $100 of BTC in cash many years ago and held onto it since then". If you cashed out that BTC via an exchange for example, then there will be bank transaction records showing you did but also welcome to "you were likely due taxes on your gains in the interim because it's no longer $100 of BTC - you took possession of much more in cash and later bought BTC again". Which is to say, you were ongoingly interacting with the money at decreasing intervals from the present.
The original claim is easy to prove: it'll be in a wallet which was held for that amount of time. The bank isn't obligated, unless you turn up covered in blood, to prove that you didn't just beat a guy with a hammer till he gives you the password - because you'll go down for that crime by other means.
But very few people engaging in ongoing criminal transactions are going to have a supply of aged BTC accounts to use in trade for goods and resources, and certainly you'll trigger red flags if you keep turning up with a brand new "held it for years" account of $50,000 each week. I mean we know this: because it makes headlines when untouched BTC accounts start moving.
I genuinely don't understand why mixing plus swapping into monero doesn't make sense.
Simply swap into monero and then send it to anybody else.. Maybe lets say you have 100$ in btc, you convert it to 100$ in monero and just spend 10$ 10 times in a span of a week and I am sure that nobody can keep track of it.
Suppose you deposited btc into an exchange, traded it back and forth for a while, and then withdrew. The withdrawn coins come from a communal exchange wallet, so the chain of evidence on the blockchain is lost.
Monero? Zano? (if you could actually see that monero actually hasn't been hacked as people say and it was all just a marketing gimick though I'd still be cautious and maybe keep my money in monero short term??)
There's no KYC to take possession of a wallet, how would you prove the wallet wasn't just traded to you (maybe even yesterday) instead of moving the bitcoins?