The ontology describes how Chainalysis considers the role of attribution to these clusters, and presents a two-layer structure; the first level “defines the structural graph” while the second assesses how secure the analysis is in that graph.
“What does it mean that these addresses belong together, right? It’s clear because someone thinks they’re under the control of the same entity, right?” Illum said. “Maybe it’s an exchange, or maybe it’s a darknet market, or maybe it’s a mixer or whatever. But what is the basis for determining that these things actually belong together?”
Investigators likely won’t have private keys, which would be the easiest way to find out if a cluster of addresses is all controlled by the same entity, so they’ll have to look at onchain data.
Illum was also aware of the limitations of this type of analysis: while Chainalysis could research transactions and clusters, it cannot single-handedly identify the actual end user without additional information.
Chainalysis could track funds for e.g. a crypto exchange or other entity that manages wallets on behalf of customers, but investigators may need to issue a subpoena to identify who the customer is.
In other words, who controls a wallet or what device is connected to the wallet are separate issues from the actual tracking aspect.
