Live data from Hacker News

A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

medium.freecodecamp.org

371–380 of 440 posts

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#371
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Societies have gradually grown more unfair as the political system has strained under their growing complexity. Since when? Since the 60's? Perhaps. Since the rest of history? No. Every argument you make in the rest of your comment other than pure scope of surveillance doesn't apply if you aren't comparing in the short term, i.e. 1-2 generations. In 1903, the average voter didn't know what the government was doing.…

> In 1903, the average voter didn't know what the government was doing. In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman argued the opposite: In the 1800s, people would watch hours-long political debates for amusement and were much more politically literate (the book is more about the negative effects of telecommunication - most people know it as the inspiration for the famous Orwell vs. Huxley infographic).

> In the 1800s, people would watch hours-long political debates for amusement and were much more politically literate

Isn't that what YouTube is?

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#372
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your analysis. But cryptocurrencies are just the latest tool that will serve well the interests of the demagogues. Technocracy will not improve affairs that we don't resolve as a society in the first place. More powerful tools means just more power to those who can afford the longest lever. Any other interpretation is just a blatant neglect on the history of technology.

Cryptocurrencies, growing pains aside, will arrest the trend toward economic centralization. They are not just more powerful tools. They are tools that shift the control over money from large trusted third parties to individuals. They literally allow an individual to be their own bank. They are a counter-force against the trend toward eliminating cash, and with it, financial privacy [1]: >Any future cashless bank-pay…

> They are tools that shift the control over money from large trusted third parties to individuals. They literally allow an individual to be their own bank.

You're not thinking big enough. All I need to be a bank is some money to lend, or safe to put deposits in.

Cryptocurrencies let people be their own nation state.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#373
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the argument that if, say, you've made a bunch of ethereum through means that the majority of miners don't like, they can just fork the currency and take your coins from you, and that's totally fine.

I don't know enough about Ethereum to know whether or not that is technically possible, but I believe it's technically possible with Bitcoin. I think the common misconception of these technologies is that trust is eliminated. It's not, it's simply distributed - you have to trust that the majority miners will find it in their own interests not to steal money from your wallet. I am not saying one way or another whether…

What do you mean? It's exactly what happened in the DAO hack/fork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_w...

The code had implications that the writers didn't intend. Those implications involved attackers being able to take/steal a large amount of ETH under its terms. But those writers got the entire network to fork and give them back their money in direct contravention of the terms of the code/contract.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are central functions of banks, debt is not the main one.

Saying that bitcoin allows users to act as their own banks is like saying a mattress with your cash under it is your own bank. It's not meaningful in anyway. Debt is the meaningful differentiator.

No, ability to issue a controlled lot of physical currency is the meaningful differentiator, which is why the relation to banks is irrelevant.

I can buy $1 worth of Bitcoin, declare it ErikCoin, acceptable only in my stores at a 1/1,000,000 denomination, and I instantly "minted" $1,000,000 in cryptocurrency, using only the Bitcoin blockchain.

Bitcoin doesn't let people be banks, it let's people be the mint.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When there's too many cooks in the kitchen, we all benefit when there is less people trying to cook.

We will not benefit from fewer people working..

Well you won't have any coworkers who are just there for the paycheck and actually have zero interest in solving the company's problem.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#376
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we create a UBI then people will have the time to be better educated, to be healthier, to raise healthier, happier, and more productive families. We're almost there, automation will strongly facilitate this. Because a new technology seems exciting - and gains adoption because early adoption means potential for an individual to turn $1000s of into $1,000,000s with very little individual effort of working towards ma…

>If we create a UBI then people will have the time to be better educated, to be healthier, to raise healthier, happier, and more productive families. We're almost there, automation will strongly facilitate this. Compulsory redistribution programs like UBI pervert incentives, leading to less individual responsibility over time. They're clumsy cookie cutter solutions, which with a stroke a pen, impose the same formula…

> I believe everyone should be part of the ownership class.

No classes for me no thank you. But hey, maybe different personality types need to have different ways of life. Perhaps you would thrive in a class based society, where as others would thrive in something else.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#377
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we create a UBI then people will have the time to be better educated, to be healthier, to raise healthier, happier, and more productive families. We're almost there, automation will strongly facilitate this. Because a new technology seems exciting - and gains adoption because early adoption means potential for an individual to turn $1000s of into $1,000,000s with very little individual effort of working towards ma…

>If we create a UBI then people will have the time to be better educated, to be healthier, to raise healthier, happier, and more productive families. We're almost there, automation will strongly facilitate this. Compulsory redistribution programs like UBI pervert incentives, leading to less individual responsibility over time. They're clumsy cookie cutter solutions, which with a stroke a pen, impose the same formula…

> Compulsory redistribution programs like UBI pervert incentives, leading to less individual responsibility over time.

OK yes, but you can't think about incentives like that.

It's not just a matter of GOOD INCENTIVE/BAD INCENTIVE, because the incentives all influence each other. You can't just make a giant list of GOOD INCENTIVEs and then do them all.

In fact, you really can't play very many incentives all at once together, because the more incentive schemes you have the more likely you are to create strange situations that exploit unanticipated interactions between what really are GOOD INCENTIVEs when considered independently.

So, your lionizing of THE SPECTRE OF UTTER POVERTY as an incentive for people taking responsibility for something in their life... I agree with you. That spectre does in fact incent quite a lot of people to take responsibility.

But the problem is, if you accept THE SPECTRE OF UTTER POVERTY into your incentive package, then you also incent INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY, where children are born into homes of people who, despite all those helpful incentives, just sucked at not being poor.

And the problem is INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY is actually a horrible, horrible incentive when it comes to taking responsibility. Because those kids have very little resources and crime, even though it really pays off like a piddly little amount of money compared to a good job, if kids have like no resources even crime starts to make financial sense.

So you created this world where you have this super strong YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, THERE IS NO NANNY STATE culture, then what really makes sense for that kid to do is say you know what, I am going to take matters into my own hands. I am responsible for my destiny. I am going to drive these kids over to this house and get a lot of money.

And that's what you incented. You incented people taking responsibility for taking care of their own.

Personally, I'd rather incent that kid to sit in an apartment and play Xbox after school until he's 18. And incent his mom to hang out and smoke as much weed as she wants and use food stamps to buy Frosted Flakes and stay the fuck out of trouble until he does turn 18.

As far as I know that kid could be fucking Elon Musk. For what? 12k218 = $432,000 of tax revenue?

You're saying his moral compass will be so eroded by the presence of his free apartment and lack of consequences for his slacker-ass mom that he will be unable to take responsibility for himself? I doubt it. He'll have plenty of other role models in his life besides his mom. Like Elon Musk and Prince or whoever.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#378

> Having sounded the alarm bells, a group of benevolent white-hat hackers from the Ethereum community rapidly organized. They analyzed the attack and realized that there was no way to reverse the thefts, yet many more wallets were vulnerable. Time was of the essence, so they saw only one available option: hack the remaining wallets before the attacker did. > By exploiting the same vulnerability, the white-hats hacked…

Cash is not for the general public. Someone can mug you and take your banknotes, and the solution to that problem is an authority mugging those people and taking the money and giving it back. Not a sound argument.

Mugging scales poorly.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#379
post #144
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what's the point of having a smart contract if it's not the final authority? We already have contracts that require highly paid humans to judge whether they've been broken or not. To me at least Etherium was dead the moment they chose to fork because they felt a contract was "hacked".

> Well, what's the point of having a smart contract if it's not the final authority? I think this is a common misunderstanding of Ethereum and blockchains in general. The current Ethereum blockchain is authoritative only as long as a majority of it users consider it to be authoritative. The same applies to Bitcoin. No single person decided to fork Ethereum after the DAO was hacked, it was decided by a quorum of Ether…

> cryptocurrencies can be thought of more as living organisms fed by the collective computing power of their users

Mm, I like this image. It completes something for me...

The world is filling up with these autonomous information organisms, who eat computing power. They also need other care, to go for walks, etc. If we humans want to survive in the information age, we will need to take shelter in one, draw a salary from the care of it.

Re: A hacker stole $31M of Ether – how it happened, and what it means for Ethereum

#380
post #161
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, what's the point of having a smart contract if it's not the final authority? I think this is a common misunderstanding of Ethereum and blockchains in general. The current Ethereum blockchain is authoritative only as long as a majority of it users consider it to be authoritative. The same applies to Bitcoin. No single person decided to fork Ethereum after the DAO was hacked, it was decided by a quorum of Ether…

You forgot when the people that run ethereum made the default vote choice as the hard fork. This is important.

I guess to be fair they should've had those clients go 50/50?
Post reply on HN