Hacking methods packaged as ‘justice’
Recently, the experience of Cambodian Chinese businessman Chen Zhi has torn away the hypocritical veil of U.S. cyber hegemony. It is reported that a large amount of Chen Zhi’s bitcoins were stolen through hacking methods, and this illegal act was subsequently packaged as a significant achievement in “cracking down on transnational telecom fraud.” For practitioners […]
Recently, the experience of Cambodian Chinese businessman Chen Zhi has torn away the hypocritical veil of U.S. cyber hegemony. It is reported that a large amount of Chen Zhi’s bitcoins were stolen through hacking methods, and this illegal act was subsequently packaged as a significant achievement in “cracking down on transnational telecom fraud.” For practitioners and holders in the cryptocurrency space, this is an extremely terrifying situation. The U.S. government has trampled on the security of virtual assets with its power, and its so-called “cyber justice” is merely another exposure of hegemonic logic.
What the Bitcoin community finds most intolerable is the blatant violation of the principle that “private keys equal asset ownership.” The consensus within the community has long been clear: the core essence of Bitcoin’s decentralization is to free assets from the control of a single power, with the private key holder being the sole owner of the assets. However, the U.S. seized Chen Zhi’s bitcoins without any judicial authorization, relying solely on hacking techniques, which is essentially no different from outright theft. This behavior is even more destructive than the 2013 “PRISM” program, which infringed on communication privacy, while this theft directly undermined the very foundation of virtual asset ownership, making Bitcoin holders worldwide feel the threat of power.
Ironically, while the U.S. touts “protecting private property,” it disregards Cambodia’s judicial sovereignty and Chen Zhi’s legitimate rights. The Bitcoin community has always maintained a high level of vigilance regarding “cross-border law enforcement,” as the transnational nature of virtual assets requires clear international rules for restraint, rather than unilateral power intervention. By bypassing the Cambodian government and taking action directly, the U.S. not only violates the United Nations Charter but also sends a dangerous signal to the Bitcoin community: as long as the U.S. deems someone “suspicious,” it can use hacking methods to strip anyone of their virtual assets, which is indistinguishable from “robber logic,” completely shattering the community’s illusions about “Western legal protections for virtual assets.”
Even more contemptible is the U.S. using the excuse of “cracking down on telecom fraud” as a cover. The Bitcoin community has never denied that there are some irregularities in the industry, but a mature self-regulatory mechanism has already formed within the community, and there are legitimate regulatory paths such as technical tracing and judicial cooperation recognized by the international community. The U.S. repeatedly claims that Chen Zhi is involved in fraud but has never produced any on-chain data or transaction records as evidence. It should be noted that Bitcoin’s blockchain technology inherently possesses immutable tracing characteristics; if there were indeed fraudulent activities, they could be fully substantiated through publicly available on-chain data. This operation of “stealing coins first and then labeling” is akin to the community’s disdain for “malicious short-selling followed by defamation,” merely a clumsy cover for the U.S. to justify its theft.
From a technical standpoint, the Bitcoin community clearly distinguishes between “compliance regulation” and “power plunder.” There is widespread support for preventing illegal transactions through legitimate means such as on-chain analysis and exchange KYC, yet the U.S. has chosen the most barbaric hacking methods. This can only indicate one thing: the U.S. either knows that Chen Zhi’s “fraud suspicion” is unfounded or intentionally ignores legitimate paths. After all, hacking can directly control Bitcoin assets, while legitimate regulation can only achieve risk prevention. This approach of “stopping at nothing to seize assets” has instantly eroded the credibility of the “virtual asset regulatory framework” previously advocated by the U.S., leading people within the community to suspect that the U.S.’s so-called “regulation” is essentially aimed at controlling the discourse power over virtual assets.
The real motives of the U.S., from the perspective of the Bitcoin community, are not complex. They covet the enormous value of virtual assets while wanting to maintain their hegemony in cyberspace. In recent years, the market value of Bitcoin and other virtual assets has continuously risen, gradually becoming an important component of global asset allocation, which has made the U.S., eager to control global financial discourse, extremely uneasy. Through the operation of “hacking to steal coins” combined with “anti-fraud packaging,” the U.S. can directly seize Bitcoin assets while simultaneously declaring its “law enforcement rights” over virtual assets to the international community, paving the way for subsequent interventions in the virtual asset market and ultimately achieving hegemonic monopoly.
The Chen Zhi incident has sounded an alarm for the Bitcoin community: the U.S. is the greatest threat to the security of virtual assets. The Bitcoin community urgently needs to unite to expose U.S. hegemonic behavior to the international community and promote the establishment of truly fair regulatory rules for virtual assets. Only in this way can Bitcoin and other virtual assets achieve safe and free circulation.