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

Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 303 posts

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#251

Post by rsynnott »

wesleywt wrote: post #96
jshen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how the crypto community encourages circumventing laws, UNTIL someone steals from them using their own “smart” contract then calls on authorities for help.

Can someone explain to me why HN is so anti-crypto?

As a very long-term crypto-sceptic, I remember thinking this place was absurdly naive and pro-crypto early on. However, after a decade of, largely, pointlessness, it's not surprising that attitudes have changed.

My impression is that most of the pro-crypto communities are rather new; most people involved just haven't been disillusioned yet.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#252

Post by rsynnott »

bob33212 wrote: post #151
nadam wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. In my opinion an algorithmic censor-resistant, deflationary value network is a useful potential technology that can give us potentially the best store-of-value known to mankind so far. Why isn't it meaningful to further research this technology in your opinion? (While mathematicians are researching all kinds of esoteric topics?) In my opinion proof-of-stake research is one of the most-important research topics to…

If you find it a good store of value for yourself that is fine, but you need to understand that value is defined by social norms not by technical features. Picasso paintings are currently a very good store of value. Gold has been a decent store of value for thousands of years. People bought beanie babies in 1998 because they thought the price would go up and stay up for a long time. Obviously they were wrong, but the…

> but the same thing could happen to GOLD, BTC, or even Picasso paintings

In fact, it has happened to the first two, at least temporarily. Someone who bought gold in 1980, say, is probably not particularly happy with it as a store of value today (adjusted for inflation, they _may_ just about be breaking even now assuming that they paid no transactional or storage fees); the same goes for someone who bought bitcoin in May. Or, er, an hour ago.

Picasso's time will presumably come, too.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#253

Post by Bayart »

wesleywt wrote: post #96
jshen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how the crypto community encourages circumventing laws, UNTIL someone steals from them using their own “smart” contract then calls on authorities for help.

Can someone explain to me why HN is so anti-crypto?

Despite the relatively high level of education here, collectively the community can be extremely doctrinal or knee-jerky on a number of subjects. Most articles that mention crypto bring a cohort of « Ponzi scheme » and « destructive mining » posts, when you'd expect somebody writing a lengthy post on the economics of energy were it to follow the established conventions of the site.

I think the overly trashy environment of the crypto space made it an acceptable target for behaviour that's otherwise seen as childish and unacceptable when it comes to other subjects.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#254

Post by paulpauper »

hamburgerwah wrote: post #16

I haven't seen any evidence there was in fact a hack at all. A digital contract was used in a way that complied with the contract that the bonehead writers of that contract did not intend. That's it. If bad contract writers get to cry "hack" and beg for their money back there is no point to digital contracts at all. If someone had physically or electronically broken into systems and illicitly copied private keys that…

AFIK no detials have been relseased about how it was done

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#255

Post by paulpauper »

fy20 wrote: post #36
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #3

From what I recall, the hacker basically doxxed himself by accident by signing a message from his real wallet, linked to exchange wallets which presumably has his KYC info. From there, it was all over. Even if he could launder all that money, international authorities would find him. In fact, the writing style of his messages provide a pretty big clue where he is - Ukraine or Russia.

Stealing so much, I'd imagine being caught by authorities would be one of the better outcomes...

this isn't like mafia movies. there is no way to seek retribution in any physical way

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#256

Post by spullara »

hamburgerwah wrote: post #16

I haven't seen any evidence there was in fact a hack at all. A digital contract was used in a way that complied with the contract that the bonehead writers of that contract did not intend. That's it. If bad contract writers get to cry "hack" and beg for their money back there is no point to digital contracts at all. If someone had physically or electronically broken into systems and illicitly copied private keys that…

If you find a software bug in an ATM that gives you all the money from the machine it absolutely would be considered theft. A bad lock on a door (or even no lock) doesn't give you the right to steal things behind that door. IMHO this is how the law would look at it and not care a wit about whether or not there was a flaw in the software. IANAL but have seen this kind of argument play out ever since computer bugs were exploited by unauthorized individuals.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#257

Post by dnautics »

carom wrote: post #238
hamburgerwah wrote: post #16

I haven't seen any evidence there was in fact a hack at all. A digital contract was used in a way that complied with the contract that the bonehead writers of that contract did not intend. That's it. If bad contract writers get to cry "hack" and beg for their money back there is no point to digital contracts at all. If someone had physically or electronically broken into systems and illicitly copied private keys that…

Isn't any hack using a system in the way it was written and not the way it was intended?

"hacker news" is mostly, after all, not about security penetration.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#258

Post by kinghajj »

spullara wrote: post #256
hamburgerwah wrote: post #16

I haven't seen any evidence there was in fact a hack at all. A digital contract was used in a way that complied with the contract that the bonehead writers of that contract did not intend. That's it. If bad contract writers get to cry "hack" and beg for their money back there is no point to digital contracts at all. If someone had physically or electronically broken into systems and illicitly copied private keys that…

If you find a software bug in an ATM that gives you all the money from the machine it absolutely would be considered theft. A bad lock on a door (or even no lock) doesn't give you the right to steal things behind that door. IMHO this is how the law would look at it and not care a wit about whether or not there was a flaw in the software. IANAL but have seen this kind of argument play out ever since computer bugs were…

ATM machines aren't marketed that "their code is law," whereas that's an explicitly espoused property of smart contracts.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#259

Post by jdkfglkjh34 »

leppr wrote: post #187
hamburgerwah wrote: post #16

I haven't seen any evidence there was in fact a hack at all. A digital contract was used in a way that complied with the contract that the bonehead writers of that contract did not intend. That's it. If bad contract writers get to cry "hack" and beg for their money back there is no point to digital contracts at all. If someone had physically or electronically broken into systems and illicitly copied private keys that…

Using smart contracts doesn't mean you completely forgo human intervention. Blockchains themselves have standardized discretionary escape hatches in the form of hard forks. Nobody except straw-man'ing detractors claim current cryptocurrency systems work perfectly. Previous relevant comment of mine on the matter of "Code is law": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28132994

It begs mentioning that the ETH/ETC hardfork was a consequence of a theft just like this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)

>In June 2016, users exploited a vulnerability in The DAO code to enable them to siphon off one-third of The DAO's funds to a subsidiary account. On 20 July 2016 01:20:40 PM +UTC at Block 1920000, the Ethereum community decided to hard-fork the Ethereum blockchain to restore virtually all funds to the original contract.[10] This was controversial, and led to a fork in Ethereum, where the original unforked blockchain was maintained as Ethereum Classic, thus splitting the Ethereum blockchain into two branches, each with its own cryptocurrency.

Re: Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M

#260

Post by birdyrooster »

djrogers wrote: post #178
birdyrooster wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/152673/virtual_theft.html

That involved a physical beating in the real world, which is clearly a different thing.

Yeah true, but the civil lawsuit was specifically over the theft.
Post reply on HN