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

301–310 of 321 posts

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#301

Post by kerng »

Shank wrote: post #113
kerng wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

crypto.com is a little mysterious when it comes to authentication honestly. I still have not understood it. But basically in this case, you didn't even need a password to log back in, it was just an email to click a link, then FaceId/PIN and logged in and prompt to re-add 2fa. The app must store the password itself somehow and auto use it. Anyone know how the do auth on the app? For users in the US there is no way to…

> crypto.com is a little mysterious when it comes to authentication honestly. I still have not understood it. If you're speaking from experience as a user of their service, I strongly suggest that you use a different exchange. Gemini + Coinbase both have very easy-to-understand authentication systems. If you don't understand the authentication system, that's a good red-flag that you should take as a reason to move to…

Good point. Overall the user experience of crypto.com is really nice though.

I mean the app is tons better then Coinbase and I think a big reason that crypto.com is growing tremendously. Users like it.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#302

Post by xyst »

I signed up for an account at this CEX but never actually used it. Tried to cancel/close the account, and they have the weirdest set of demands before the account is deleted/closed.

> A photo of you holding a paper with the following handwritten on it, as it states in this FAQ. - Your name - Today's Date - "Crypto.com”

src: https://help.crypto.com/en/articles/3640569-how-to-close-cry...

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#303

Post by kayamon »

john2x wrote: post #279
kryogen1c wrote: post #176

Boy this whole thing just reeks. > No customers experienced a loss of funds. In the majority of cases we prevented the unauthorized withdrawal, and in all other cases customers were fully reimbursed. so which is it? no one lost funds or everyone that lost funds got paid back? where did that money come from? > transactions were being approved without the 2FA authentication control being inputted by the user. the withd…

I wouldn't be surprised if "reimbursing" is just updating a number on their database and hoping customers won't immediately withdraw.

Bear in mind many private exchanges aren't ever really exchanging crypto until you cash out -- the numbers you see can be just trades on an internal stockmarket, not necessarily backed by any external crypto asset until realized.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#305

Post by dustymcp »

wpietri wrote: post #179
GrumpyNl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how they can use the money from other people account to cover the losses. If i had a account there, i wouldn't allow them to use my money to cover this.

That's touchingly innocent. As an example, take Bernie Madoff. He took in people's cash and then sent them regular statements about how much money they had. But they were just statements doctored to look good. When some people withdrew money, he just gave them money that was handy. At some point, the difference between the numbers on the statements and the actual assets was over $50 billion. More details here: https:…

Like tether swears All the money is in their accounts..

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#306

Post by imtringued »

HaZeust wrote: post #287
matheusmoreira wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This company is literally at the apex of the crypto industry Cryptocurrency was not even supposed to have these pseudobanks called exchanges leading this space. It wasn't even supposed to be an "industry". People were supposed to mine cryptocurrency on their own commodity hardware and use that to transact amongst themselves.

Almost like its core mission statement was only led by the voluntary virtuosity of its participants - and wasn't as novel as previously thought. Huh.

It's basically a digital gold standard and the gold standard hasn't lead to an enlightened society either.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

For me there are really only two alternatives. Negative interest on cash or competition among currencies (free banking). All those people shouting that Bitcoin should become the global reserve currency don't actually understand that a global reserve currency is a terrible idea and are only in it for the money.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#307

Post by imtringued »

kayamon wrote: post #303
john2x wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if "reimbursing" is just updating a number on their database and hoping customers won't immediately withdraw.

Bear in mind many private exchanges aren't ever really exchanging crypto until you cash out -- the numbers you see can be just trades on an internal stockmarket, not necessarily backed by any external crypto asset until realized.

I honestly don't want to know how the sausage is made. The gold standard has always been a lie.

Cryptocurrencies traded on exchanges are basically paper gold at this point.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#308

Post by imtringued »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #130
croon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in the real world when using a regulated crypto exchange, what's the point of a blockchain other than asset speculation (which can also be done through traditional trading instruments at this point)?

You could argue that it allows people to send funds in ways that are faster than some other current options. But that’s about it. It’s basically another game to play with new financial assets printed out of thin air.

When you think about it, liquidity is the source of speculation.

This is because liquidity is the ability to quickly trade your thing for other things. Lending money via a certificate of deposit reduces liquidity because you are locking up your funds. Lending via demand deposits increases liquidity because the original deposit and the loan are both available to be spent immediately. Spending money on physical things is very time consuming. First you must pick what you want to buy among billions of product choices that are available to you. Even if you buy something, it takes time to drive to the store or for it to be delivered. The real world is quite illiquid which means that fiat currency is less volatile and has greater stability than Bitcoin.

Now there are two exceptions. Trading money vs financial assets and money vs other money. In the financial sector you are trading liquidity for liquidity. Buying an iPhone and selling it takes time. Buying Bitcoin and selling it does not. It can happen as quickly as technology allows it. This inevitably leads to speculation because it is possible to instantly react to any other transaction. Someone buys Bitcoin? Buy more! Someone sells Bitcoin? Sell!

To be more specific, the problem isn't liquidity itself but excessive amounts of liquidity that go way beyond what the real economy needs. This is a huge problem with fiat currency but it's also a problem with Bitcoin because the "Bitcoin economy" is absolutely tiny.

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#309

Post by thebean11 »

wpietri wrote: post #296
thebean11 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An important difference being that nobody ever expected users to use the x86 instruction set directly. Whereas the very clear initial expectation for Bitcoin was that it was an actual currency used for transactions by end users.

On what part of the stack exactly? Are they crafting RPC requests to a BTC node manually? Using wallet software? Using more advanced wallet software with social recovery features and named addresses?

I think you may be forgetting, earlier users of computers were using punchcards..

Re: Crypto.com accounts had unauthorized withdrawals

#310

Post by lottin »

i67vw3 wrote: post #298
lottin wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the point of "transaction privacy"?

Odd statement. It is on par that all your bank statement should be public and easily viewable. It is on par saying that people do need digital privacy at all, as they have nothing to hide. And those are trying to hide are really 'bad people'. Monero/Zcash/Dash/Firo/etc are used by legitimate users to hide their transactions from public blockchain.

Your bank statement is not private, your bank has it. You can pay with cash, but the other customers can see you right there paying, so that's not private either. I understand the need for private communications, but private transactions don't seem to make a lot of sense.
Post reply on HN