6 ms·

That seems fishy tho, you'll probably have to prove that, one of the core pruposes of judges is choosing who to believe, there is no such thing as a 100% fact.

doggosphere 6y ago
The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex: Being in the vicinity of a crime when it takes place may make you a suspect (aka "fishy"), but this alone is not enough to prove guilt.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  Buddy there are plenty of people in jail right now based on extremely flimsy evidence such as simply being in the vicinity of a crime. All your comments in the thread are about "proving it," when, at the end of the day, it's up to 12 people in a box, most of whom don't know the first thing about bitcoin. Refusal to decrypt, wife moving Russia, etc... The government is going to make an extremely convincing case, with plenty of witnesses and all the time and money and lawyers they need. Meanwhile you'll be communicating with your defense lawyers from behind bars. You might be right -- maybe they can't prove any ill-intent -- but that's not a gamble with the odds in your favor.
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    It very well may be up to a jury (or a judge alone). And they'll hear questions like: - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? The answer is basically no to any of those questions. This is simply because of the nature of crypto and mathematics; a set of seed words allows anyone to restore access on any machine, from anywhere on the planet.
    - listenallyall 6y ago
      Juries hear circumstantial cases all the time where they have no witness, or no actual murder weapon, or no fingerprints, no DNA -- and more often than not, convict anyway. Just acting shady is usually enough, and the moment you refused to decrypt the wallet, you made yourself look guilty to the majority of jurors.

doggosphere 6y ago

The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex: Being in the vicinity of a crime when it takes place may make you a suspect (aka "fishy"), but this alone is not enough to prove guilt.

listenallyall 6y ago
Buddy there are plenty of people in jail right now based on extremely flimsy evidence such as simply being in the vicinity of a crime. All your comments in the thread are about "proving it," when, at the end of the day, it's up to 12 people in a box, most of whom don't know the first thing about bitcoin. Refusal to decrypt, wife moving Russia, etc... The government is going to make an extremely convincing case, with plenty of witnesses and all the time and money and lawyers they need. Meanwhile you'll be communicating with your defense lawyers from behind bars. You might be right -- maybe they can't prove any ill-intent -- but that's not a gamble with the odds in your favor.
- doggosphere 6y ago
  It very well may be up to a jury (or a judge alone). And they'll hear questions like: - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? The answer is basically no to any of those questions. This is simply because of the nature of crypto and mathematics; a set of seed words allows anyone to restore access on any machine, from anywhere on the planet.
  - listenallyall 6y ago
    Juries hear circumstantial cases all the time where they have no witness, or no actual murder weapon, or no fingerprints, no DNA -- and more often than not, convict anyway. Just acting shady is usually enough, and the moment you refused to decrypt the wallet, you made yourself look guilty to the majority of jurors.