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

291–300 of 303 posts

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

#291

Post by hardolaf »

Closi wrote: post #111
CryptoPunk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not an accurate generalization. Many in the crypto community do not advocate breaking laws. Instead they look for ways to interact that do not legally require complying with onerous regulatory burdens, like peer-to-peer monetary transfers, that do not as of yet have the same amount of totalitarian restriction placed upon them as monetary transfers that are intermediated by a trusted third party middle-man. As…

I don't agree that placing regulations on the finance industry can be in any way equated to totalitarianism. In fact, we have already seen what happens when the financial industry is entirely deregulated multiple times worldwide.

I'm in the financial industry and believe we need way more regulations than we currently have. And we need tougher and more rigorous enforcement of the existing regulations as well.

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

#292

Post by bouncycastle »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #175
bouncycastle wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you are debating whenever the hack was moral or not. From a moral standpoint, it's like, if you accidentally leave behind your wallet with cash on a park bench with a lot of passer-by, then it's your fault for leaving it there and whoever finds it deserves to keep it. I'm sure you're familiar with the "finders keepers, losers weepers" saying... After all, it's in public, similar to how public blockchain…

More like a big sign says "A man named Jack may take this wallet", and you're named Jack, so you take the wallet, even though it wasn't meant for you. The smart contract is explicitly defined and on a public ledger. A lost wallet is accidentally left there. The context of it being available to be taken by anyone is not intended. There is no declaration of rules by which you may take it by the owner.

Yeah, look all I said that you can interpret this both ways depending on your moral compass, and also based on the ethics of your group / society. You can argue all you like, but I think this dilemma never has a completely correct answer.

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

#293

Post by bouncycastle »

Jasper_ wrote: post #244
bouncycastle wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you are debating whenever the hack was moral or not. From a moral standpoint, it's like, if you accidentally leave behind your wallet with cash on a park bench with a lot of passer-by, then it's your fault for leaving it there and whoever finds it deserves to keep it. I'm sure you're familiar with the "finders keepers, losers weepers" saying... After all, it's in public, similar to how public blockchain…

But I thought the goal of blockchain was to replace the messy, centralized, inefficient human concepts of "morality" and replace them with unambiguous code? Code is law and all that. If we still have both, why did we add all that weird code stuff anyway?

Consensus can change.

Blockchain are just databases. But they still run due to consensus and the consensus is made up by humans and it is humans who uphold it.

For example, humans came to a consensus that there will there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin. However, we cannot guarantee that one day there may be more than 21. They also came to a consensus that that this shall never change. However, all that is protecting this consensus is a meme. The source code can be changed should everyone agree, especially if the future humans find that such a cap does not work.

The benefits of decentralization is that the consensus is hard to change by individuals or centralized organisations... Consensus must be reached by all of the participants of the network.

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

#294

Post by Geee »

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?

I think it's simply because lots of people on HN didn't buy any and now they think that they've missed the boat. They're angry because "stupid" people got rich on it. HNers like to think that they're smarter than everyone else and missing the boat hurts their ego. Although that isn't true and it's never too late to buy bitcoin.

Another reason is that most people on HN don't realize that there are roughly two sets of people in crypto. There are bitcoiners and then there are all the shitcoiners and scammers (who talk about use cases, ICOs, NFTs etc.). It's ok to hate all the scammers, but bitcoiners should be left out of it, because they're totally different set of people.

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

#295

Post by stevage »

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?

Because it is not useful for anything, causes immense damage, and many of the people that promote it are crooks.

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

#296

Post by brigandish »

grkvlt wrote: post #217
brigandish wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful…

> where does that post stand i think the bit where you talked about Sweden being in the southern hemisphere places it in the top tier of 'confusing' for me...

Ah, a helpful comment. I meant to write

there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. New Zealand, the big government paradise

I can't edit now but thanks for pointing out something in a reasonable way.

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

#297

Post by brigandish »

pessimizer wrote: post #222
brigandish wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful…

Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.) This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question of whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be, would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself. If you prefer contracts, stop arguing, if you don't, explain why you think the operation of prisons is a proper function of a small govern…

> Correlation is not causation (I hate having to post this.)

And yet you're going to avoid defending it, or even looking at, nor answering any of my questions and then accuse me of such matters. Ironic.

> This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question

What is it with those who support big government ascribing mendacity to their opponents? I'm not avoiding anything (except fallacies like ad hominem and false dilemmas).

> whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be

Here you admit that there is more than one possible outlook, yet you go on to produce this:

> If you prefer contracts, stop arguing, if you don't, explain why you think the operation of prisons is a proper function of a small government. It's not hard.

A false dilemma. Make your mind up, are there many types or only one?

Perhaps if my questions were answered I might feel more in the mood to answer those from people who accuse me of avoiding theirs.

> would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself

My answer is either, it's irrelevant. The government is regulator and enforcer. It should promote (high) standards which it then enforces regardless of whom is running a service. Problems may arise when:

a) the one running the service is also the regulator, a clear conflict of interest and though in some cases permissible, it's not one for incredibly powerful entities like government.

b) the ones providing the service are also over-represented in government i.e. they have more than a vote, they have lobbying power (or straight up corruption) which in this case would lead to criminalising essentially non-criminal behaviours to produce whatever positive outcome for them and not for the populace they're supposed to serve. How many people are in gaol for marijuana possession?[1]

More criminals means more prisons, more tax money, more staff and budget (hence more power), more cheap labour… how does that sound anything like small government?

This[2] will come in handy for you.

[1] https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

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

#298

Post by baq »

8note wrote: post #275
baq wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

side question: what does decentralized have to do with the issue?

No common jurisdiction to go to an actual court to get it sorted

i mean, if code is law, a centralized system will have the exact same issue.

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

#299

Post by rocqua »

andrewaylett wrote: post #97
rocqua wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard to infer writers intent from: - function and variable naming - social conventions around ownership - stated intent by code writers - common sense By any reasonable standard, this was theft. Is a door with a pickable lock always unlocked? No, that would be silly. What makes using a key on a lock different from using a lockpick. Social convention, intent of the creator, common sense, the fact that on…

But if when there's a dispute you have to rely on a trusted third party to determine intent and arbitrate the contract, what's the benefit of having a smart contract over a regular dumb one and relying on a trusted third party to determine intent and arbitrate the contract if there's a dispute?

At the moment, there is no third party settling a dispute. All that really happened is that there was consensus that this was 'a hack / theft' in all sense except for the 'code is law' interpretation.

Now, it seems that the thief was afraid of legal reprecussions, but that is sort of outside the scope of ethereum. It happens purely 'off chain'.

The interesting exception to this story is the original DAO heist. Where an Eth hard-fork was made to reverse the heist. In this case there was an intervention. That intervention took broad consensus of miners and developers. So it takes a pretty big effort to get disputes "resolved" away from what the smart contract says. That is an interesting deviation from normal contracts before a court. Personally, I do think that Eth should not have forked the DAO heist away, but I understand why they did.

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

#300

Post by [deleted] »

loceng wrote: post #282
loceng wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

[deleted]
Post reply on HN