>The opsec is shocking

If you choose to blindly believe what the prosecution claims, sure.

You're the guy in the article? Could you elaborate and share more of your side of the story?

I am indeed the guy in the article. My side of the story is fairly boring, didn't do crime but got blamed for it anyway by desperate cops. The whole investigation has been bizarre, for example, no-one has ever searched my homes, or even attempted to seize my personal devices.

Should find out within the next couple of months if the appeals court decides to acquit.

Wow. That's why I love HN. :)

But you were strongly linked to the crime. Thus your opsec is terrible.

For sure, just goes to show how important it is to really carefully consider your threat model.

This is worse than the SBF denial, do better, post a full on substack about how they didn't link you to a bitcoin address.

A LLM chatbot trained to deliver and debate the denials might be more on trend?

Your position is that none of your banking information was linked to this investigation?

Two different things:

Linked to this investigation? Of course it was.

Linked to the crime? No, not really.

The cryptocurrency analysis in this case reaches absurd conclusions and doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. At best their analysis establishes a low-confidence link between me and the hacker, as it's impossible to tell what if any transactions took place between us. Just that an unknown amount of money may have traveled between our wallets.

One thing is certain though, the relevant sum in this case was 0.1 BTC paid by the police. Their analysis shows me receiving significantly more than that, with no explanation as to where the rest of the money originated. Coincidentally, the other person who was later charged in this case received pretty much exactly the 0.1 BTC according to the police report.

Yes