h a l f b a k e r y
It's not a thing. It will be a thing.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
So if you are a human that uses email, you have most likely
received a threatening letter that says they know all about
your porn habits, in fact, have you recorded in the midst of
self-gratification, and are, pick one: the authorities, but
willing to take a bribe, ready to email the info to
significant other, or some other threatening step...
Of course you can fix all this by sending a sum of money to
the specified bitcoin wallet address. And no doubt, some
Since the NSA is already monitoring all emails, can they
please also save a database of said wallet addresses?
While the RECEIVER may be hiding the money, the SENDER
is likely using a more public method -- perhaps Coinbase or
other public exchange -- just grab the crypto on the way
Come to think of it, maybe the NSA should really start
sending these out (last one I got was from the "CIA") to
improve voluntary taxation rates.
||//have you recorded in the midst of self-gratification//
||Difficult to believe, I don't have a cam or microphone on any
of my devices.. my usual response is to reply asking if they'd
like me to rectify their lack of material & send them some.
||I doubt the NSA will divulge exactly how much of its budget
is covered by confiscation, but this is no less a satisfying
thought to have against scammers.
||I'm not sure what you mean by
||// While the RECEIVER may be hiding the money, the
SENDER is likely using a more public method -- perhaps
Coinbase or other public exchange //
||or what the upshot of that for your scheme is, or even what
your scheme is, come to think of it.
||a crypto wallet has to receive the money, but transactions
||CoinBase, though, and most echanges where the
blackmailed person would originate a transaction from --
they would be reachable by govt. authorities.
||So the idea is to compel public cryptocurrency exchanges to
confiscate ransoms/protection money that victims attempt
to pay, rather than
letting them be paid? Doesn't that just mean the victims lose
the money (and, in the case of ransomware, never get their
data back), while doing nothing to identify the perpetrators?
||Well if those are known addresses, and specifying them
leads to confiscation danger, don't you think it would have
an impact on the practice?