..particularly if they bought them using cash! I'm a shameless plug I know.No seriously, I think the CPS would step in and use the "public interest" veto they have on matters if some 65 year old Nun received a ton of hash in the post but as for the Bitcoins, it's not certain if a detailed analysis of the Blockchain would be enough evidence in court to pin on someone.I think certainly it could be used to put together an overall pattern of intelligence, which is why, quite unselfishly, I think it behoves users to obtain Bitcoins as discretely as possible. The problem is compounded by the fact that cashing out of Bitcoins is also not anonymous if handled incorrectly (let's not go into details here!)Having said that as you say proving that someone sent coins to a Bitcoin exchange in itself proves nothing - I used this method to send some money to a relative in Australia the other day as a way of avoiding extortionate Western Union fees for instance. However I think our goal should be perfect secrecy (even if this is unattainable), so suggest we seize with both hands any opportunities to cover our tracks!V.Quote from: gustono on May 16, 2012, 06:34 pmQuote from: vlad1m1r on May 16, 2012, 06:24 pmActually Gustono, I'm afraid you can get into trouble for receiving drugs in the mail in the UK where we live.I went into this in some detail in another thread (Please see: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=9543.msg189546#msg189546) but essentially it boils down to Possession itself being the offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act - taking ownership of a package is generally accepted to entail taking ownership of its contents therefore if you accept contraband into your home or sign for them at a postal depot, you can be arrested.If you try to plead ignorance i.e innocent possession this is a defence but it is what is known as a rebuttable presumption i.e the onus will be upon you to demonstrate you were ignorant as to the contents of the package. Ultimately it will be for a jury to decide.It is not however illegal to buy or sell Bitcoins in itself. The incriminating part comes in where you use an unsafe method to buy Bitcoins which can then potentially be linked to an illicit transaction. V.Quote from: gustono on May 16, 2012, 06:16 pmGood post pine. One question/issue : If I buy bitcoin from an exchange using bank deposit and access from another network + computer, then send those bitcoins directly to bitcoinfog (or maybe even instawallet --> bitcoinfog) on TOR, then how is that incriminating? It's not illegal to buy or sell bitcoins, and it's certainly not illegal to send bitcoins to another user, which is what it looks like. How is anyone to know that the person I'm sending bitcoins (well.. me) is intending to use them for illicit activity? It's precisely the reason why you can't get in trouble for receiving drugs in the mail.You can be arrested, but you certainly can't be charged for receiving drugs as anyone could send you anything. Once you've signed it/opened it you're done for though, which when you think about it is ridiculous because someone could try to set someone up, and when the poor fellow opens the package unknowingly he will get fucked over, but will work out eventually if he's 100% legitimate. As long as you leave no trail behind (liveusb, no drugs in house) then even tracing bitcoins back is ultimately useless, because all illicit trading will be done over TOR so no linking of IP addresses to transactions, bitcoinfog makes this even harder, only the buying of bitcoins will be traceable, but like I said it's out of your hands what "someone" does with those coins ;). Even then if they were to track it that far back, most people use bank deposits and proxies (pine mentioned this in his post) so it would be even harder to pinpoint the illicit trading and buying bitcoins to one person.