OHAI, Dnia piątek, 7 marca 2014 21:43:38 Cathal Garvey pisze:
(...) What about simply exchanging different blockchain based coins, though? Would that not help to "launder" with reasonable efficacy, provided both participants use crypto to hide the transaction? From the outside, transactions occur on both blockchains, but there's no "data trail" correlating the transactions with one another as there is within each blockchain.
This is interesting.
So, Alice buys .4 btc from a friend, but knows the friend's opsec might be poor, or that the transaction may have occurred over a bad channel, or that the coins were purchased from an exchange that demands valid phone numbers, etc.: she wants to launder.
She contacts Bob, a Dogecoin seller, to set up a private exchange. She asks him to sell her 0.4btc worth of Dogecoin in two transactions of unequal value (to prevent analysis by exchange rate to ID their transaction). They conduct the exchange over an encrypted channel.
From the outside, someone knows she's laundering, and just bought Dogecoin, but because they don't know her Dogecoin receiving addresses, they've lost the scent;
Well played, Sir, I didn't see that pun coming!
she now has 0.4btc worth of Dogecoin, and can convert that back to btc againin the same way.
In a round trip, she's broken the chain; she keeps her value, minus fees, of 0.4btc, but now it's in different btc, with no blockchain-recorded transaction logs to link the original, tainted btc to the new, clean btc.
Wouldn't it be possible and even possibly more effective (no 3rd party involved, any price can be set) for Alice to do the round-trip by herself? As in: Bob == Alice? I.e. generate a new Dogecoin wallet, generate a new BTC wallet, and use these for the back-and-forth?
As a way for an individual to "launder", does this look plausible? Is it any better or worse than laundries as they currently exist?
-- Pozdr rysiek