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

Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

crypto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 321 posts

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#241

Post by thehappypm »

thebean11 wrote: post #215
wpietri wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original vision of Bitcoin was "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" "allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party". So yes, something like crypto.com represents significant centralization.

Crypto.com and its customers are willing parties who can transact with each other using this system, I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that one party trusted another party to hold on to their funds, and the holding party lost the funds. How is that an indictment of the protocol itself? Or put another way, how does Crypto.com and other centralized systems prevent me from using Bitcoin the "right" wa…

It’s not an indictment of the protocol, so much as it is saying that the protocol is too low-level for average users and therefore centralized players (like Coinbase) tend to step in and provide the desired service.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#242

Post by lottin »

roywiggins wrote: post #138
loceng wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so what are we going to do as a society with these stolen funds? Playing a wallet mixing tracking game is a rat race and a waste of energy, otherwise we need a centralized system [on an immutable blockchain] to keep track of stolen funds, to then cross-reference every transaction with at point of sale/transfer - to then prevent it, no? If not a centralized solution like above then what? We just allow stolen funds…

There's no centralized system to track stolen dollars (at least not in the sense you're talking about), so I don't know why crypto would necessarily need one.

Look up "anti-money laundering".

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#244

Post by vmception »

gitfan86 wrote: post #46

I am a cyber security consultant for startups. The first thing that I communicate is that just by not being in crypto you have drastically lowered your risk profile. Attackers care a lot about what they can get to if they are able to breach your security.

and then you follow that with “If you care about non-dilutive capital and making a ton of money for yourself you should pivot your startup to crypto”

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#245

Post by smt88 »

barkingcat wrote: post #192
smt88 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they one of the largest exchanges? EDIT: They're #3 (bigger than Coinbase). Only OKX and Binance are bigger[1]. 1. https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges

No! Coinbase is a large exchange...

I checked.

Crypto.com is the #3 exchange and bigger than Coinbase[1].

1. https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#246

Post by thebean11 »

thehappypm wrote: post #241
thebean11 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto.com and its customers are willing parties who can transact with each other using this system, I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that one party trusted another party to hold on to their funds, and the holding party lost the funds. How is that an indictment of the protocol itself? Or put another way, how does Crypto.com and other centralized systems prevent me from using Bitcoin the "right" wa…

It’s not an indictment of the protocol, so much as it is saying that the protocol is too low-level for average users and therefore centralized players (like Coinbase) tend to step in and provide the desired service.

I'm not sure, is the x86 instruction set too low level? Yes if you expect users to interact with it directly, but not for user facing products to be built on top of.

You can point to centralized products built on top of blockchain, but also decentralized ones.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#248

Post by lottin »

sneak wrote: post #183
gilrain wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what percentage of their total volume it is that “happens” to be used by hackers.

People who are not criminals deserve transaction privacy, as well.

What would be the point of "transaction privacy"?

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#249

Post by vmception »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #235
ouid wrote: post #232

I'm confused. Ostensibly the tradeoff for crypto is that only you know the secret factors that allow you to spend money, but there is no possibility of reversing a fraudulent transaction. If you give the keys to someone else, you lose the first condition, which was the benefit, but keep the second condition, which was the drawback. There was no reason to give anyone anyone else your keys!

This is the downside of decentralization that doesn't get enough attention. Digital wallets are just too cumbersome to use on their own for the vast majority of people and carry a lot of risks. I like how when my credit card gets a fraudulent transaction, all I have to do is push a button on my phone and it magically goes away. This is a major, major benefit of having a central authority.

Decentralized crypto currency is a benefit for everyone willing to take a shot at how much they can collect before they themselves get hacked.

Its a human coordination mechanism that forces other humans to make it increasingly more resilient when under pressure.

It is Machiavellian with no evolutionary dead ends, just mutating and hardening due to the needs of all of its ever growing participants. Rapid market based iteration on steroids.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#250

Post by thehappypm »

thebean11 wrote: post #246
thehappypm wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not an indictment of the protocol, so much as it is saying that the protocol is too low-level for average users and therefore centralized players (like Coinbase) tend to step in and provide the desired service.

I'm not sure, is the x86 instruction set too low level? Yes if you expect users to interact with it directly, but not for user facing products to be built on top of. You can point to centralized products built on top of blockchain, but also decentralized ones.

Yet the popular ones are centralized, no?
Post reply on HN