pull down to refresh
988 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 31 Aug 2023 \ on: Chainalysis, The Theranos Of Blockchain Forensics? bitcoin
I don't know much about their underlying methods, but I assume they are statistical. Statistical methods are generally not admissable as legal evidence except in narrow circumstances: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/statistics-legal-evidence.
Moreover, I highly doubt Chainanalysis has statistical models of high quality as it would require a sufficiently large dataset both with behavioral data and "ground truth". It's the ground truth part that I doubt they have any high quality data for. e.g. Knowing with certainty that two wallets are controlled by the same individual; knowing the identity of individuals connected to the same wallet; etc.
Distrust of statistical evidence is directed primarily against statistical proof of individual, specific events. Whenever some measurement of a large universe is at issue, such as the share of a market or the proportion of people holding a certain view, statistical evidence is clearly the best, if not the only, evidence obtainable. It is in such contexts that statistical evidence is playing a growing role in litigation.
That should map onto this case, but it seems like the primary evidence the prosecution is using (at least based on the podcasts I've listened to in the case.
reply