0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard 14 Apr \ parent \ on: FBI Subpoenas 2022 Event Attendees After Theft From Bitcoin Core Dev - Decrypt bitcoin
From my understanding, there have been a leak of Atlanta attendees private information without their awareness, and some part of this information is included now as part of the FBI investigation and some part has been made in the public. Saying that, I agree it’s still very confusing what did effectively happen.
I reached out to folks like Luke who has been for sure in touch with the FBI agent / unit to get more information. When I got an answer, I’ll certainly communicate what is my understanding. Some articles sounds to misquote.
Some people have many social ids for reasons.
Like one social network account for work, another one for your hobbys.
Yeah it’s good to have more press information. Luke is a Florida resident, and we end up with some Georgia, Atlanta conference attendees doxxed. It’s just not cool.
Or just respond with another question that doesn't give anything away, such as: "Why are you on my property?”
That line of attitude, you have to own it. Generally, silence and knowing your rights can be more wise. And staying chill.
Like said EFF and ACLU have generally good ressources, though better to have this reviewed it with one of your own lawyer.
As often said in development circles from laborious years of CSW litigations, IANA.
I’m not the one who shared the name of the CoreDev organizer, who was apparently under the subpoena, on Twitter or to medias, from the public feeds that are available. So I guess multiple plausible recipients of the mails have reached out to journalists.
From the private reports I have so far, the subpoena is more likely true than false :/
FBI budget ~10B a year.
Realistically, a lot of shitcoins have market caps just far above.
Indeed, one should ask how American tax payer is used.
Ask my friend Gleb Naumenko, who have lived the horrors of the Ukraine war since day 1.
He knows what are true pains.
According to CoreDev.tech website, the following list of people are regular organizers of CoreDev:
- Adam Jonas
- Mike Schmidt
- Jonas Schnelli
- John Newbery
- Steve Lee
I’ll let them answer first if they have a lawyer.
Additionally, if the email of the CoreDev organizer is correct and authentic, there is a FBI agent responsible of the claimed subpoena case, we don’t have his name yet, and I don’t know if he has a lawyer himself.
Once I have those informations, I might answer yours.
From a quick review, your stacker account does not have a lot of technical proof-of-work assigned to it.
Certainly consensus code is very costly in itself. However mishandled security failures are even more expensive on the long-term, e.g TheDAO hack and the moral hazard culture this generated in ETH.
Of course, this is always an option to go to publish a pinning toolkit and see the Lightning ecosystem jeopardized. In those matters it’s always good to have ethical self-restraint and respect a strict boundary on how much sensitive information you reveal.
what do you do if you have an opsec failure and your pseudonym doesn’t bind?
better to have defense in depth ready.
What did you say exactly in the deleted post?
i think the link here is mostly correct from memory: https://github.com/jamesob/delving-bitcoin-archive/blob/master/archive/rendered-topics/2024-02-February/2024-02-22-workgroup-lifecycle-id598.md though i won’t cryptographically to it, before checking more.
Do you have any evidence that leads you to believe this other than the fact that they were designing new proposals in private discussion rooms?
the fact than some devs are funded by entities with a commercial interest in a complex, clunky and centralized LN ecosystem, or at the very least they would accommodate business-wise from such state of things.
In my opinion, the concern is we have a subset A of developers being involved in the defense of a subset B of developers while the same subset A making legal threat to another subset C of developers.
So I think we need a clarification, either it’s not okay to have legal threats among developers, or it’s okay in function of whom is making the threat. Second alternative doesn’t look to fly in terms of ethics and principles, I think.
hello anon:
- a) off-topic, i’ll make the call myself
- b) unproductive, not so much if look on the matters of fixes / ideas adopted by other devs
- c) outright incomprehensible, you’re free to engage politely and ask what is incomprehensible
on being a dick, yes the brilliant jerk syndrome.
i don’t know a bitcoin security legend who has not been accused of being a dick with its communication style. time is limited and so many vulnerabilities to hunt after.
About instagibb’s comment is not like himself has recognized the value of my technical observations w.r.t soundness of its own pet project in a different context, ephemeral anchor (cf. https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ephemeral-anchors-and-mevil/383).
So I’ll let Greg Sanders explain himself here on the present case. Apart of the present divergence, he’s someone I respect professionally in Bitcoin.
On the call to take a sabbatical, look what I said in my sabbatical announcement post.
"The open feud with some people at Spiral and Chaincode, whatever significant are their contributions to bitcoin. Those people had my trust and confidence, they broke them and I’m not Mother Teresa. This has been ongoing since almost 2 years now, I guess this will take as long or even more to solve and I prefer to allocate the best of my time and energy to arrange a resolution satisfying everyone. Long-term principles at stake concern every other open-source dev.”
I’ll let you observe by yourself to what organizations belongs the people I’m pointing out the standards of behaviors in my post.
Apart of them, my talents stay widely appreciated among the remaining on the Bitcoin space. At least easy to say more than yours anon ?