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

Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#61

Post by sergers »

huherto wrote: post #58
Codestare wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of 'owning' a bitcoin as 'having the ability to spend' this bitcoin. This ability is guarded by a private key. If this private key is stolen, someone else ALSO has the ability to spend this bitcoin. Then, if this attacker transfers this bitcoin to another of his own private keys (he 'spends' it), in the blockchain there will be a record, yes. But who owns this new private key is unknown.

Thanks that was very clear. Follow up question. Could criminals use bitcoin as a payment method for ransom ?

yes and they do.

all the ransomware in the news in recent year or two accepted bitcoin payment to decrypt your data.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#62

Post by mizzack »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #13

What really pisses me off is how it got handled by NiceHash: Alex Zvyozdny: Many of you already know that the site reddit spread information about the alleged hacking of our service. We hasten to assure everyone that your bitcoins are safe and sound. And we are the largest pool in the CIS countries are not going to close, but rather increase our presence in the regions. In connection with the increased number of thos…

Can you source that quote? I only see instances of that in various comments on reddit/facebook posts, none from any official NiceHash account.

Gonna call fake news on that quote until proven otherwise. Lots of trolls/disinfo out there about this. e.g. https://www.facebook.com/NiceHashSupport

That said, these guys probably exit scammed.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#64

Post by glenneroo »

enraged_camel wrote: post #50
refurb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually true? I've heard it as well, but it seems like an impossible task for a bank. Are they scanning all the bills that come in? Which bills are in which teller's drawer? I doubt it. If they received new bills in sequential order from the mint and had them stolen, I could see how they would know the numbers. But then again, what's the point? Your average business isn't going to scan numbers, so by the tim…

Yes, bills are scanned and the system checks to see if they are marked as stolen.

Is that why small bills are preferred? Because they are less likely to be scanned? Or is another Hollywood fallacy that I've come to believe?

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#65

Post by stouset »

nikkwong wrote: post #36

Can someone walk me through how this happens from a technical perspective? Nicehash must keep their PK at some "super secret place" so they can sign transactions out to their miners. In an ideal situation that PK is unreachable even in a security breach—but if it's not well guarded enough then once that PK is found the floodgates are open. Is that correct? Also, from a technical perspective why would a pool keep so m…

Fundamentally, it is difficult to protect 256 bits of information from a highly motivated attacker.

You can make it more difficult by using things like cold wallets with Shamir Secret Sharing schemes, but $70m of seemingly untraceable assets is an attractive target. Even if you require a quorum of ten people to access the cold wallet, that’s still $10m per person if split amongst themselves.

And someone has to build that system in a trustworthy way in the first place.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#66

Post by chickenfries »

yks wrote: post #51
jwilk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Until very recently"? So what does it mean now to regular people?

It is used as a synonym of "doer" or "builder" but in the software/internet related industries, e.g. this website. Which is a bit strange since "to hack" doesn't carry good connotations, neither a "hacker" in the original sense.

Similarly there is now this term "maker" which I find... ridiculous, to be honest. Are carpenters "makers?" What about electricians? Plumbers? Why does "maker" seem to imply a nerd with an Arduino or a 3d printer?

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#67

Post by musicPants »

refurb wrote: post #41
murph-almighty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW banks will record serial numbers of bills that go missing after a robbery.

Is that actually true? I've heard it as well, but it seems like an impossible task for a bank. Are they scanning all the bills that come in? Which bills are in which teller's drawer? I doubt it. If they received new bills in sequential order from the mint and had them stolen, I could see how they would know the numbers. But then again, what's the point? Your average business isn't going to scan numbers, so by the tim…

Tellers used to have at least one packet of money in each of their drawers that have their serial numbers recorded. If they get robbed they are supposed to include it depending on the relative safety of the situation. I believe new bills from the federal reserve are also sequential and an inventory of those are probably recorded when they are accepted and counts are verified. At least that is how I remember it from about 15 years ago.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#68

Post by hinkley »

lawn wrote: post #60
ForHackernews wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also cash has the exact same properties. I mean, sort of. There are logistics that make stealing $70m worth of physical cash difficult.

Alright sure. You can however protect $70M Bitcoin easier so it balances out I'd say.

They've done such a successful job we're talking about it on Hacker News...

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#69

Post by loceng »

phil21 wrote: post #23
rafiki6 wrote: post #20

How is it that this can't be prevented by the Bitcoin network? The network should be able to mark coins stolen and unusable...oh wait it can't. Because in order to do that you'd need a trusted third party to verify the coins were stolen defeating the purpose of a distributed ledger that doesn't require third party trust. Yet another shortcoming of trying to replicate cash.

> Yet another shortcoming Really depends on your point of view. The entire use-case of Bitcoin is that no one can reach back in time and "undo" transactions. There is no point for it to exist otherwise. It's a feature, not a bug.

And then we'll all be forced to accept it from criminals for payment - or there will be a governing body/platform you must put transactions through to decide if it is usable (stolen) or not?
Post reply on HN