It is pretty good way to say 'we are fine' actually. At this point twitter will leak any IP address of anybody posting there. WL probably doesn't want any more of their people being identified.
Even though the Bitcoin address for WikiLeaks isn't using multi-sig it's still possible to require multiple individuals by possibly using a fragmented private key. This would make it harder but not impossible to compromise the funds of WikiLeaks.
Thefts have of course happened in Bitcoinland but these have been due to poor OpSec rather than due to flaws in Bitcoin, if anyone is going to have high OpSec it would be WikiLeaks.
This method of communication is strange as signing a message would be more accepted, however this method does allow everyone to see it as no knowledge of verifying signatures etc is required. Still remain skeptical.
My personal view is that it's highly unlikely the set up they would be using for Bitcoin has been comprised. If anything is compromised it would be something they don't control the OpSec of such as Twitter.
A Bitcoin transaction is signed with a key, multiple people could be responsible for that process and that can be done in any location with an offline air gapped device. The signed transaction(s) would then be passed on to be broadcast using a different online device and this could be done at any time (For example you could sign a transaction months before you actually broadcast it).
That's nice, now can anybody tie this to WikiLeaks and verify it in a sensible manner?
Still no PGP signature, still no Assange internet, still no Assange balcony appearance, still no Assange appearance for the Swedish procecutors...
On the other hand we have a verified fake video interview, a super sketchy phone interview and it's been almost 50 days since the last verified sighting of Assange with "WikiLeaks" communicating through unorthodox ways.
For the sake of argument, lets say this is real. Then what about the 911 bitcoin message that indicates distress? If this message is verifiably true then all it does is add credibility to outside control. It's counter-productive if it's real.
devnulll ago
It is pretty good way to say 'we are fine' actually. At this point twitter will leak any IP address of anybody posting there. WL probably doesn't want any more of their people being identified.
hunter3 ago
how do we know this is wikileaks?
bitbybitbybitcoin ago
That's the power of Bitcoin!
Fred-Stiller-OnAWire ago
WikiLeaks Bitcoin address 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v sent 41.77711525 BTC to a new Bitcoin address 13LBgLZ24X55mr8LqKddy9DusJtba17NCC. The new Bitcoin address was used to make a transaction containing "WeRe Fine..." which then goes back to WikiLeaks.
Even though the Bitcoin address for WikiLeaks isn't using multi-sig it's still possible to require multiple individuals by possibly using a fragmented private key. This would make it harder but not impossible to compromise the funds of WikiLeaks.
Thefts have of course happened in Bitcoinland but these have been due to poor OpSec rather than due to flaws in Bitcoin, if anyone is going to have high OpSec it would be WikiLeaks.
This method of communication is strange as signing a message would be more accepted, however this method does allow everyone to see it as no knowledge of verifying signatures etc is required. Still remain skeptical.
psymin ago
And if all the wikileaks machines have been compromised by having physical access .. what would that imply for the potential validity of the message?
Fred-Stiller-OnAWire ago
My personal view is that it's highly unlikely the set up they would be using for Bitcoin has been comprised. If anything is compromised it would be something they don't control the OpSec of such as Twitter.
A Bitcoin transaction is signed with a key, multiple people could be responsible for that process and that can be done in any location with an offline air gapped device. The signed transaction(s) would then be passed on to be broadcast using a different online device and this could be done at any time (For example you could sign a transaction months before you actually broadcast it).
wellfuckyoutoo ago
That's nice, now can anybody tie this to WikiLeaks and verify it in a sensible manner?
Still no PGP signature, still no Assange internet, still no Assange balcony appearance, still no Assange appearance for the Swedish procecutors...
On the other hand we have a verified fake video interview, a super sketchy phone interview and it's been almost 50 days since the last verified sighting of Assange with "WikiLeaks" communicating through unorthodox ways.
For the sake of argument, lets say this is real. Then what about the 911 bitcoin message that indicates distress? If this message is verifiably true then all it does is add credibility to outside control. It's counter-productive if it's real.
Fred-Stiller-OnAWire ago
Bit of an unusual method of communication...
1WeRe3jh9XiaAyabyiE2Mz4v8bbcB52Gy - 0.01 BTC
1FineoW99TYAAZuRSkbZLrx65iTXELqHhv - 0.02 BTC
18chaNzLXvAbYvkad7MH2LNrQmBzeXbWLo - 0.03 BTC
1PoStJBYu49Ezqcwh1VeMWZgRopwcYwksY - 0.04 BTC
1FAke1neYErMQLebVPYBAToTLvafr5ZPF6 - 0.05 BTC
We're fine, 8chan post fake.
Edit: To make it a bit more clear...
The Bitcoin address 13LBgLZ24X55mr8LqKddy9DusJtba17NCC was used to receive transactions from the WikiLeaks Bitcoin address 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v.
The 13LBgLZ24X55mr8LqKddy9DusJtba17NCC address was used to make the "WeRe Fine..." message using 5 Bitcoin vanity addresses which have returned to the original WikiLeaks Bitcoin address.
This should not be used as solid proof but it's interesting none the less.