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

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#71

Post by Balgair »

jwilk wrote: post #42
chickenfries wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because until very recently that is what hacker meant to regular people: "someone who bypasses computer security, usually to commit a crime"

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

Hacker has switched around a few times. In the Comp-Sci/academic/programmer world the semi-original use of 'hacker' was in reference to the pranksters at MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, then for those that hacked into computer systems not just at MIT, leading to the thief-like image down the road. HN's name is out of the MIT prankster heritage of those people that can 'hack' something together or find novel pathways in systems (not just computers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacks_at_the_Massachusetts_Ins...

http://hacks.mit.edu/

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#72

Post by [deleted] »

forthefuture wrote: post #10
acali wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don't understand. If you can watch every transaction, is the key to successfully getting away with theft the ability to withdraw funds without being detected?

You can just pass it through mixers to anonymize it. Input 1,000 different peoples coins, output any one of their coins one at a time. There's no way to know whose coins are coming out the other side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_mixer

[deleted]

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#73

Post by rafiki6 »

siculars wrote: post #38
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.

Who is the "trusted third party", the arbiter of such disputes? Is it the government that relies on civil forfeiture laws to keep the lights on in many local municipalities? Which government? The US? EU? China? Russia? Best you can do is start a tainted coins site and record it there.

That's exactly my point. That's the main issue here. This is a short coming of cash, so why are we trying to replicate it? A truly decentralized system can exist that ties value to an individual instead preventing these things.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#74

Post by rafiki6 »

JakeWesorick wrote: post #26
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.

Could the community as a whole black list a bitcoin address so they could at least not spend the money they stole? Are you able to track the history of who was a previous owner of the bitcoin? Seems like a major issue. If these hacks keep happening thieves are going to own more bitcoin they the rest of the community.

See the problem is, how can you trust the claim of coins being stolen to begin with? A common scenario would be I buy something with the coins and then I decide to claim they were stolen thus making the coins useless.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#75

Post by rafiki6 »

lawn wrote: post #47
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.

You can flip the argument around: Credit card chargeback fraud is extremely common. Accepting irreversible payments would be better for these cases as the customer cannot pay, walk out with goods and keep their money. It's much harder for a public company to actively defraud their customers so this is actually more sane. Also cash has the exact same properties.

As I mentioned, a short coming of trying to REPLICATE cash.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#76

Post by rafiki6 »

Scarbutt wrote: post #21
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.

If someone stoles cash from you, how do you mark that cash as stolen?

That's my point, why are we attempting to replicate a broken system but digitally?

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#77

Post by rafiki6 »

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.

Read the whole sentence I wrote. "Yet another shorting coming of trying to replicate cash." The problem isn't the blockchain. The block chain is all good and well. The problem is the anonymity associated with the transactions. There has to be a balance between anonymity and security of transactions.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#78

Post by bufferoverflow »

mizzack wrote: post #62
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.

It's not fake, it was posted on FB, and then deleted when the truth finally came out.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#79

Post by refurb »

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.

Why? If they turn up stolen, what can they do with the info?

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#80

Post by candiodari »

loceng wrote: post #69
phil21 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The thing is that for every other currency the governing body/platform cannot be trusted, as has been clearly proven many times, but even the Fed proved it cannot be trusted in 2008-2009 (and before that in 2001).

The organisations these governments put forth as arbiters are, of course, are much worse. Pretty much every bank of any size has been caught embezzling, unilaterally cutting people's accounts, and worse. In many cases for very petty reasons, or just for a quick buck.

So what exactly is your suggestion ?

Is bitcoin more or less trustworthy than BAC, WFC, which are the organisations the Fed chooses to represent it to normal Americans ?

More trustworthy. No doubt about that whatsoever.

Post reply on HN