[ad_1]
In the last episode of Magical Crypto Friends, Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, Samson Mow, the CSO of Blockstream, Riccardo Spagni, the main developer of Monero and Whale Panda, discussed the recent news concerning the backlist of two addresses Bitcoin of the control of assets abroad [OFAC].
Recently reports have emerged according to which the OFAC has included two Bitcoin addresses on the black list as they are linked to cybercrime. It is believed that the owners of the addresses are Iranian citizens and that these addresses contain more than 7000 transactions, receiving about 6000 BTC. Furthermore, anyone who interacts with these addresses could be held liable by the United States government and may be punished with a legal punishment.
Charlie Lee said the backlisting of two Bitcoin addresses does not really matter "so much". However, according to him, the exchanges will have a lot of work because they have to check thousands of addresses and keep a card every time someone makes a transaction to make sure none of the addresses belongs to the OFAC addresses list, adding that "this can be so painful".
Furthermore, Riccardo Spagni said:
[…] if your job is in return, check that no deposited funds come from those addresses and that no funds that are withdrawn are withdrawn from these addresses, it's easy. But because of the nature of Bitcoin it is very easy to move funds as you know from an address, pass it through ten addresses and then go and deposit it "
The main developer added:
"So the question is: how far back do you need a check now as an exchange and it seems to me that this is just like everything that is going to happen is some kind of magic number like okay guys, we just have to check ten steps back or three steps back that apparently you said is the magic number and people will look at the coins more than 10 steps or more than three steps this does not seem to be a trivially solvable problem or a simple way to prevent something from happening. "
This was followed by Charlie Lee stating that this is the same with "going on" coins, adding if it would have been banned if the coins were deposited at the terrorists' address after three steps or if the exchange would have kept track of the addresses even a year later.
Spagni noted:
"Yes, that's right, so you move it to an intermediate address and then move it to the banned address and now what the exchange should be responsible for monitoring that"
Later, WhalePanda underlined the possibility of an attack with dust, stating that "they can send small quantities to other addresses and make a kind of dust attack and therefore every address is stained because it comes from the blacklist addresses or the blacklist" .
To which Spagni said:
"If you're using a wallet that gives you control of the coins and it's easy to prevent you from being hit by a dust attack, but let's be honest, I'll be people who use Bitcoin, a) use the wallets that control coins ) are aware that a dust attack is also a thing and c) have the presence of the mind to go and prevent all these things "
The main developer also stated:
"Is this another thing that happens if I pay a tax to a miner from a spoiled address is now also available the new production of coin mechanism? […] are ways inside the Bitcoin blockchain to wash the outputs "
Subscribe to the AMBCrypto newsletter
[ad_2]Source link
