181–190 of 364 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, they minted $3B, taking the circulating supply from $73B to $76B.
Do you have any evidence of that other than the parent link which looks kind of scammy? Everywhere else I have read that the minted $3B is not circulating yet, it's waiting for new purchasers of Tether. Not saying you are wrong by any means, I'm genuinely curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when scamming is something we should be ok with?
100% of Crypto "investors" are speculators looking for a quick buck by investing in a system that is pumping needlessly huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere. They're not well-meaning victims who stumbled into the bad part of town, they are greedy thoughtless people in search of free money.
So your environmental criticism of Proof of Work is not applicable here. A PoW coin with no premine doesn't allow for a rug pull.
Right now, there's an active google ads phishing campaign targeting the "Biswap" crypto exchange, so if you google "Biswap," there's a good chance you'll see fake Google ads. If the very first thing you see on Google is what you're looking for, and it leads you to a site that looks just like the site you expect to be on - why would you think twice?
We've also seen cases where scammers create fake support accounts to impersonate legitimate organizations, such as Opensea, and use Twitter to trick victims onto counterfeit sites. The sites may seem obvious on their own, but when you combine these additional steps scammers take, it's clear to see why the scammers are having so much success.
Here's our Twitter feed where we post some of what we find on our day-to-day. https://twitter.com/GuardYourDomain
The “I have no sympathy for the victims” comments are crass. But there is a legitimate question of how much law enforcement these crimes deserve. Arizona has a stupid motorists law [1]. If a car “becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway,” the driver “may be charged for the cost of their rescue.” A similar concept for crypto may be necessary. Law enforcement will pursue. B…
Yes let's keep making weird incentives for law enforcement like asset forfeiture. I want police to be like an American ambulance and run my credit card before saving my life.
I hate civil forfeiture. That’s why I specifically suggested the proceeds flow to the Treasury. Not the law enforcer’s budget.
There is also a world of difference between taking something you legally possess, and taking a cut of things returned to you at the expense of the public purse.
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's something that I don't get about DeFi. My understanding of the idea is this: 1) Using distributed code, the operation of which is assured by code on a blockchain based system like Ethereum, lending and investment can happen without the intermediation of banks and capital markets gate keepers. The savings from cutting these layers out can be shared between the supply and demand…
> business where they can provide substantial collateral for their loan, support high returns, but somehow can't access other forms of finance Apparently the answer is "crypto margin trading".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technical hacks against the protocol and implementations are fair game, and is the implicit incentive that balances the market. Social engineering and financial hacks are not fair game, and are "illicit" in the sense that crypto is obviously an international martial zone. Exhaustively brute forcing a keyspace is valid, making your username an XSS to steal funds from an insecure page/downstream app is not valid. Findi…
Fair game and valid according to whom? You cannot legally rob a bank just because they left it unlocked and unmanned. It might be possible to take crypto due to a bug in a protocol, and arguably justifiable, but that doesn’t mean it would hold up in court if you were identified as the one using the exploit.
Nobody suggested making crypto crimes legal. Just metering the degree to which law enforcement, a public good, is put to use pursuing it. Why should a law-abiding saver bail out what in many cases looks like a gambler’s foray?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when scamming is something we should be ok with?
100% of Crypto "investors" are speculators looking for a quick buck by investing in a system that is pumping needlessly huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere. They're not well-meaning victims who stumbled into the bad part of town, they are greedy thoughtless people in search of free money.
This is my biggest complaint against cryptocurrencies in general. I'm happy with my bank's fraud protection. How can crypto users protect themselves without recreating traditional banking? Bitcoin was released ~13 years ago, and wallet/transaction security has been one of the most important requirements since then (along with scalability, but let's not go there). If trillion dollar market caps and god-knows-how-many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing annoys me more than arrogant ignorance. It's like, pick one! You speak as if these are handled as federal matters, and they are not. Contract disputes are handed as local matters, usually in a local district court. Furthermore, when you talk about the court you're talking about a Judge. The Judge gets final say and they can take their sweet time, regard or disregard anything they want. In local matters, Judge…
> I can't stress enough the arbitrariness, and supreme, unaccountably, of a local judge's decisions. Exactly. Code-contract signers hate this, and go out of their way to avoid the possibility of this interference. Judges should tell crypto cases to get rightfully fucked. If I appear and sue a drug dealer for giving me fake 100's, I'd get laughed at. Considering crypto is just an massive abstraction layer to hide the…