Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.freecodecamp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 440 posts

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

#401

Post by InclinedPlane »

PeterisP wrote: post #198
InclinedPlane wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question was more: how do you ensure a system that has true secrecy for its one time pad data when all the source is open?

The code will inevitably need to use a source of true randomness, which will be external to your source code, by definition it can't be a deterministic formula, it needs to use external input from physical devices.

And? You've just moved the problem, you haven't solved it. How do you guarantee that your source is what you think it is? If you can't trust anything outside your source code, then you can't trust anything outside your source code.

If you can't trust, say, a url or an IP address. Then you can't trust those things to host a source of randomness either. Security is only as strong as the weakest link, if you try to obfuscate a weak-link by surrounding it with impressive looking junk, that doesn't make it stronger.

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

#402

Post by wdewind »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #397
wdewind wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from virtual currency in video games?

- Blizzard can't wipe your balance - You can't destroy anyone's balance after you've issued them currency - Balances are publicly verifiable - Balances can be stored in one's mind ... lots of things. Tons of affordances differ from a game currency.

But you can just choose to stop accepting ErikCoin at any time right?

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

#403

Post by Jabanga »

nl wrote: post #347
Jabanga wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen no evidence of that. Pretty much the entire advanced world has seen its rate of progress slow since the late 1960s, in concurrence with growing public sectors.

Pretty much the entire advanced world has seen its rate of progress slow since the late 1960s, in concurrence with growing public sectors How are you measuring progress there? If you mean economic growth then now might be a good time to point out that correlation does now imply causation. Otherwise perhaps increasing life expectancy also causes a larger public sector? ;)

Correlation can be an indication of a causative association. I believe in that case of the growth in the public sector and the slowdown in GDP growth, it is.

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

#404

Post by Jabanga »

abritinthebay wrote: post #394
Jabanga wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen no evidence of that. Pretty much the entire advanced world has seen its rate of progress slow since the late 1960s, in concurrence with growing public sectors.

I'd argue that you'd have to come up with a VERY suspect definition of "progress" to make that stick. Especially as almost all the major innovation in that time started with tech developed from public funding. NASA, DARPA, and CERN would like a word with you. Also most of the private sector innovation was due to public funding and tax code incentives (Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc). So basically technology, science, med…

Progress as defined by gains in per capita GDP, median wages, and life expectancy.

And the public sector growth that I view as harmful is growth in social welfare programs and regulations restricting business activity.

>Especially as almost all the major innovation in that time started with tech developed from public funding.

Quite a bold statement..

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

#405

Post by Jabanga »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #372
Jabanga wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You're right. You can live in Cuba, and yet virtually live in a cyber nation using nothing other than an internet connection.

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

#406

Post by Jabanga »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #375
Jabanga wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People don't need to be motivated by high-minded ideals to make useful contributions.

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

#407

Post by [deleted] »

TimPC wrote: post #348
Jabanga wrote: post #312

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. 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…

Strongly disagree. This feels like the academic style analysis that assumes computing costs are free. $10 trading costs suck. But so does the time energy and effort spent on researching stocks. Owning tiny micro shares isn’t worth the research costs.

[deleted]

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

#408

Post by Jabanga »

TimPC wrote: post #348
Jabanga wrote: post #312

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. 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…

Strongly disagree. This feels like the academic style analysis that assumes computing costs are free. $10 trading costs suck. But so does the time energy and effort spent on researching stocks. Owning tiny micro shares isn’t worth the research costs.

Individuals have private knowledge about their local environment that can inform purchases of these micro shares. Combined with automated analysis tools, it can allow quick effective decision-making on small purchases to build one's personal portfolio.

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

#409

Post by Jabanga »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #377
Jabanga wrote: post #312

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. 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 to…

>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.

This idea that the free market doesn't address intergenerational poverty is unfounded in my opinion. Poverty declines precipitously anywhere in the world that adopts a market economy [1].

In the US, poverty was declining decade over decade, until the War on Poverty began, at which point it remained steady, despite spending on subsidies for the poor increasing decade after decade. While UBI doesn't have incentives that are as harmful as those of traditional welfare, it still reduces the need to be self-sufficient, and thus teaches the wrong behaviours.

>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.

It's important to remember that the role of a financial market is to provide capital to individuals and enterprises that can make good use of it. If this kid is the next Elon Musk, as you suggest he could be, then it's in the interest of profit-motivated investors to identify him, and provide him with a substantial student loan, in exchange for the future interest payments he will easily be able to pay off once he's finished school and started his Tesla.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol...

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

#410

Post by Jabanga »

throwawayjava wrote: post #365
Jabanga wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because -- believe it or not -- some people actually approve of some or all of those mandates and regulations. How does people approving of these mandates/regulations (which I dispute, but let's go with it) invalidate my claim? If the cost of enforcement increases, regardless of the popularity of the law in question, it stands to reason such laws would become less common and/or less effective. >So. Why in god's name…

> which I dispute Seriously? You realize that's delusional, right? Most people -- even most right wing folks! -- aren't libertarians. The set of people who think that blockchain is the right way to organize society is astonishingly small, and they're basically all speculators. People may not agree on which regulations they want (environmental regulations? drug regulations?) Or what taxes should be spend on (education…

>Seriously? You realize that's delusional, right?

Comments of this nature aren't constructive. It's better to restrain the urge to tell your correspondent that their belief is delusional, and simply explain why you disagree with it.

>Most people -- even most right wing folks! -- aren't libertarians.

I think most people don't think deeply about the policies they support, and the implications of those policies. Most people don't think much about the nature of the law, for example. [1]

The complexity of the political system results in people supporting policies that if they had the time to closely examine, they would not. Our political system is geared toward decision making based on shallow assessments and emotional gut-reactions, because it does not give the average person the ability to meaningful analyze the issues that they base their vote on.

But in any case, I already said that for the sake our debate, let's accept your claim as correct. There's no need to try to expand this debate more than is necessary.

>I don't think that we'll ever have occasion to even test this claim, because no sovereign state in its right mind would ever adopt a legal or financial system in which a computer bug or Chinese supercomputer could result in constitutional crisis.

I have no idea where this suggestion that a sovereign state would replace its Constitution with a smart contract came from. Can you please go back to my comment and re-read what I suggested would happen?

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

Post reply on HN