Cryptocurrency forensics became standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering underlying premises transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations as well as uncover and help address uncertainty in underlying premises - thus contributing to protect the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.

翻译：加密货币取证已成为执法部门的标准工具。其基本思路是通过去匿名化加密货币交易来识别交易背后的人员。加密货币去匿名化技术通常基于隐式前提，尤其在法律实践中这种隐式性尤为突出。一方面，这种隐含性使调查复杂化；另一方面，它可能对被调查对象的权利产生深远影响。论证模式可通过揭示底层前提来改善这一不可持续的局面，同时有助于批判性评估加密货币去匿名化技术所获结果的证明价值。在论证理论与人工智能领域，论证模式极具影响力，因其能为不同类型的论证阐明隐含前提，并通过批判性问题帮助论证参与者进行批判性评估。本文将论证模式的概念特化至加密货币去匿名化的法律推理场景，并通过真实案例展示特化后模式的适用性。最终我们预期，在法律实践中应用这些模式既能巩固区块链调查的证明价值，又能揭示并协助解决底层前提中的不确定性——从而有助于保护加密货币取证中被调查对象的权利。