Poly Network hacker returns $258M after stealing $600M • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by lifeisstillgood » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

dmantis wrote: post #225

capableweb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love the idea of a digital native currency. But I also love financial protections that have grown up over thousands of years. Yeah, this is a contrast/friction that exists in the ecosystem. Some people just want something that is like a "digital native currency" that works kind of like banks today (with the same protections at least) but works across banks/applications and somehow also is at a fixed value. Others…

The second group doesn't touch the first group (e.g. just use coinbase custody and forget about that "unlawful anarchists"), but the first group always want to regulate the second. Like they doing something wrong voluntarily rejecting financial protection for their own property and asking for more privacy, independence and less taxes. Why not drop both protection and regulations for that protection from the second gr…

Because the sound unregulated one looks like, walks like and talks like the first regulated one. Just imagine there were realtors split into two similar camps, and you bought your house only to find it was a hollywood facade and people just laughed when you complained.

Nah - we have this nanny like state because there are millions and millions of people and despite what Libertarians say, they cant all pay that much attention all the time.

Honestly the only way most of us make it through a year is because all the shit we rely on just does as it is expected.

In short, if you can't trust one politician/bank/sewage plant it breaks faith in all politicians/banks/sewage plants - That's no good for anyone

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

#282

Post by loceng » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #127

dpwm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was at least an observed property of some modern reformers in 1929: > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up…

In Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, Jordan Peterson dedicates the first chapter/rule to this: "Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement."

Really confused by the initial -4 votes on this comment... If that's not sufficient proof downvotes are misused..

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

#283

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

t0mbstone wrote: post #280

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like a big sign says “Jack may take this wallet, because it belongs to Jack”, and you happen to also be called Jack, even though you're not the Jack the sign was written about, but the sign enforcer only checks that your ID is valid and that you are named Jack.

That sounds a lot like a problem with the sign enforcer, not the second guy named Jack... You can't just expect people not to take free money laying out on a park bench with their name on it...

But it doesn't belong to that Jack. You can interpret the “smart contract” one of two ways:

• As a device to programmatically ensure the “owner” of some resource is the one who controls it; or

• As a system that decides who controls a resource, whomsoever controls the resource has a right to it, there can only be one.

The sensible interpretation (imo) is the first one, unless we're doing away with our conception of property rights. (Which would be an interesting experiment, but given the philosophical background of a lot of this cryptocurrency stuff I don't think that's what's intended.)

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

#284

Post by throwdecro » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #169

cassonmars wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony whenever someone references this article is they always seem to forget that he was arguing against the decision to rewrite Netscape, specifically, to create version 6, also known as Mozilla.

Looking back, updating Netscape may have been the correct choice.

Not really. Netscape wasn't trying to be Mozilla Firefox, it was trying to be The Internet.

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

#285

Post by Retric » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

bryondowd wrote: post #270

Retric wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those differences between engineering and software. For physical projects how much something is starting from scratch is kind of arbitrary. Knowing for example the ideal nose cone shapes and tradeoffs is a huge advantage. I mean this is the best way possible, the Falcon 1 didn’t reinvent the wheel. They basically said what’s the simplest useful rocket for getting stuff to orbit copying as much of the d…

You could make the same argument for software. Where do you draw the line "starting from scratch" in software? Does incorporating third party libraries make it not from scratch? What about the standard library of your language of choice? What about using the abstraction of a high level language in general vs a low level language, or straight machine code? For that matter, is it from scratch if you didn't design the l…

Falcon 1 also included 3rd party equipment and software. IMO, that’s fairly analogous to using 3rd party libraries. I am specifically talking about elements they where designing and building in house which where directly copied from earlier designs.

Take say all those identical looking highway overpasses. Even if one of those projects started with a blank file, applying standard solutions to standard problems isn’t starting from scratch.

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

#286

Post by spywaregorilla » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 8:22 PM UTC

t0mbstone wrote: post #280

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like a big sign says “Jack may take this wallet, because it belongs to Jack”, and you happen to also be called Jack, even though you're not the Jack the sign was written about, but the sign enforcer only checks that your ID is valid and that you are named Jack.

That sounds a lot like a problem with the sign enforcer, not the second guy named Jack... You can't just expect people not to take free money laying out on a park bench with their name on it...

If we're really going to play this contrived example out. Let's say there's a camera watching the wallet, so Jack gets in trouble if he's caught doing this.

The debate being had is whether the sign was sufficiently well written ("It's the code's fault") vs. whether the sign system is just a terrible idea regardless of sign quality and you should use normal societal systems to transfer the wallet.

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

#287

Post by lifeisstillgood » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

jobigoud wrote: post #67

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #43

Someone recently pointed out that we have a "free market" in cryptocurrency, and are now spending years discovering why we have regulations, laws, contracts, courts etc. I love the idea of a digital native currency. But I also love financial protections that have grown up over thousands of years. The mints of each country could solve that tomorrow (is there a FOSS blockchain already that does a "we know there are 1 t…

Re your last paragraph, isn't this what pegged cryptocurrencies are? You couldn't have the same amount circulating in both fiat and crypto at the same time so they make reserves of cash while issuing tokens, but it's pretty fragile because you have to trust the issuer they actually have the reserves.

Yes. But instead of trusting that (is it Binace?) has a million dollars in the bank (no really honestly !) you are trusting that say the US government has. Full faith etc. It sounds simple but even a moment makes for some hard problems. Amount of actual cash in circulation - yeah that's fine the US Mint probably has a spreadsheet. So we could just go with that. Let's say that's 10% of the "total". But who uses cash these days? You want all the currency in bank accounts denominated in US dollars - ok we just go ask CitiBank et al. Now that probably gets us to 70%. Now we hit the hard stuff. The dodgy bank accounts (That's going to be fun one - hiding money off shore. We are about to make any dollars not "registered" effectively unspendable)

Now what about things that are not really US dollars but convertible? There are a thousand weird instruments I barely have heard of. God knows if they should get a UUID?

And loans - look everyone loves to rag on fractional banking but we want the amount of currency in circulation to prety much match the value. Having banks create currency at the margin works pretty well as a distributed solution (we like those). Imagine the federal government assessing what your widget factory is worth every ten years.

Do we stop banks doing that? do they hand out UUIDs as well? Will there be two tier currencies (see Scottish banks).

It should be a simple solution, but nah.

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

#288

Post by freemint » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

Jasper_ wrote: post #249

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…

> 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. Neither of those things are true about Bitcoin (it will not become deflationary until 2140, and "censor-resistant" requires a lot of extra elaboration). But then what's the economic basis for that being a good store of value? I'm mos…

It could become deflationary before 2140 by more Bitcoins bring burned then created by schedule.

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

#289

Post by jshen » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

gunshai wrote: post #68

jshen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have time to compile a list, but if you listen to crypto proponents you frequently hear advocacy for circumventing democratically enacted laws and institutions like fiat currency, taxation, financial regulation, international regulation, etc.

... No we want more efficient and transparent systems where possible. Avoiding taxes is breaking the law, circumventing fiat currency isn't exactly a democratic institution, did you vote for the monetary policy of the US government?, I'm all better financial regulation. I think you talk to kooks.

I agree that people like Peter Thiel are kooks ;)

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

#290

Post by ahallock » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

panarky wrote: post #213

pjmorris wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe we should understand the existing system before advocating complete disruption. This is a great point. One name for it is 'Chesterton's Fence' [0] [0] https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

In 2011 a new Bitcoin exchange called Bitcoinica launched. I deposited 100 BTC to test it out. First thing I did was to try to withdraw negative 100 BTC. It sent me 100 BTC, but instead of a zero balance in the exchange, it said I now had 200 BTC. So then I withdrew a negative 200 BTC, and it sent me 200 BTC and increased my exchange balance to 400 BTC. I contacted the owner and returned the funds and he sent me a 10…

You were exploiting a bug, an egregious one, and I don't think any reasonable person would think that behavior was the intent of the service provider. In other words, "the code let me do it" isn't going to fly in court.

To your original question, entering a negative amount in a web form should not be illegal. That's silly. But you're responsible for the effects and what you do after noticing the odd behavior. If an ATM machine vends me an extra $20 because the bills were stuck together, I should return the extra $20.