美媒：中国指责美国窃取130亿美元比特币

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the theft of $13 billion in Bitcoin has escalated into a confrontation between China and the U.S. over digital asset ownership, highlighting the complexities of cybersecurity and international law [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On November 9, the Chinese National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center accused the U.S. of stealing $13 billion in Bitcoin, originally lost due to a technical vulnerability four years ago [1]. - The U.S. Department of Justice announced the seizure of 127,271 Bitcoins, valued at approximately $15 billion at the time, linked to a theft from a Chinese mining pool [3]. - The stolen Bitcoins had remained dormant for four years without any transfers until the U.S. authorities declared them "legally" confiscated [3][8]. Group 2: Accusations and Legal Framework - China accused the U.S. government of using hacking techniques to steal the assets, labeling it a "state-level hacking operation" [5]. - The U.S. maintained that the seizure was part of a legal investigation into a fraud and money laundering network involving a Cambodian businessman [5]. - There is a significant gap in the timeline regarding how the stolen Bitcoins transitioned from the original attackers to the wallet controlled by the Cambodian businessman, raising questions about the legitimacy of the U.S. actions [7][8]. Group 3: Analysis Framework - Analysts proposed a "three-role analysis" to dissect the incident: the attackers, the intermediary holder (the Cambodian businessman), and the law enforcement agency (U.S. DOJ) that executed the seizure [10]. - This framework helps clarify the complexities of the case, moving beyond the question of "who stole the coins" to understanding the implications of power dynamics in digital asset governance [12]. Group 4: Global Implications - The incident reflects a broader global struggle for digital enforcement rights, with other jurisdictions like Singapore and the EU taking steps to establish their frameworks for digital asset governance [14][16]. - The EU's recent legislation aims to create a multilateral framework for cross-border digital asset enforcement, contrasting with the U.S. approach [16][19]. - The differing responses from various countries indicate a potential reshaping of the power dynamics in the digital asset landscape [19]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The incident underscores the ongoing tension between technological ideals and the realities of power, suggesting that the notion of a decentralized digital asset landscape may be an illusion [21][25]. - Predictions indicate that over 15% of decentralized concept funds may shift towards seeking regulatory protection under compliant digital assets in the next two years [23]. - The need for a balanced digital order amidst power struggles is emphasized as a critical challenge for the future [25].