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

$625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

roninblockchain.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 761 posts

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#311

Post by vmception »

Jerrrry wrote: post #299
vmception wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is one of many styles of telegram channels that promote newly launched tokens on Uniswap solely for the gamble and fun https://t.me/goobygambles

the premise is, though, to lure in others via 1000% fomo -- that is only inflated because of the user buying the questionable tokens, then use their capital for exit liquidity? seems pretty simple

Well no, in the way I described its primarily inflated because of your tornado cash notes being withdrawn (by you to virgin addresses) and you directing those addresses to buy the token

While you simultaneously get to pretend to be one of the fomo users who also bought the token, from different addresses that are linked to your identity and exchange account

The way Uniswap works is that prior buyers are the exit liquidity (look at how liquidity pools work, its different than posted order exchanges so you dont have to wait for people to show up with an order to sell into), and the majority of the prior buyers (because you are those prior buyers) would be the capital withdrawn from tornado cash (the dirty money from the big hack), the other fomo users can sell at a premium too depending on the price they buy

So your only goal here is for you and your clean money to blend in with the rest of the clean money crowd by having it promoted on these “degen gambles” channels, just because you don't want a future wiser investigator to suspect this token was created solely for you to cash out your tornado cash money.

(Also, dont use someone else’s node over clearnet to do this. Connect to infura over a tor OS (not just the browser) or run your own node.)

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#312

Post by cecilpl2 »

gowld wrote: post #189
lmkg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike traditional banks with their burdensome regulations and gate-keepers, the permissionless, decentralized nature of the blockchain means that they can't get the money back.

The increased risk of total loss in the edge case is in exchange for a more efficient system with lower prices in the average case. Individual users should make an informed decision about the tradeoff. See also http://go/hackernews/item?id=30838572 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80...

This sounds like an argument for why companies should be allowed to sell unregulated drugs and use asbestos and lead paint.

Individual consumers, who we all know are extremely knowledgeable and informed on all topics interacting with their lives, should weigh the increased risk of total loss against generally lower prices. And then in the event they unluck into in the total loss case, they should just shrug their shoulders and accept that they were lucky.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#313

Post by treis »

the_svd_doctor wrote: post #90
joering2 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when it comes to banking, random checking accounts are hacked into very rarely. to the point that in USA the FDIC is protecting your account up to $250,000. I don't recall last time seeing news on someone's bank account being hacked and drained, if anything its mostly family fraud. also there are all sorts of checks when you try to wire or withdraw more than $10,000, not to mention wire hundreds of millions. Such tra…

FDIC protects against bank failures (like the bank goes bankrupts and looses all the deposited money). It has nothing to do with unauthorized transactions as far as I know.

Depends on the transaction type. Checks and debit cards are pretty well protected. Wire transfers aren't protected at all.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#314

Post by leifg »

HWR_14 wrote: post #283
leifg wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that is desired and wouldn't spark a philosophical debate about wether centralized entities should get involved at all, there is a much deeper problem. Every transaction that is occurring now on the chain will be invalidated. That means you can't even reverse a single transaction you will have to reverse one transaction and ALL other transactions that happened after the one you want to reverse. If that happen…

You wouldn't have to reverse all the transactions. You could trivially create a fork (which has to be longer, and therefore have more transactions available) that includes every transaction but one from the blockchain. Well, that is you can create that fork as trivially as you can create any other fork.

Sure maybe. But that only really works if few (if not all) entities have control over the consensus mechanism.

On a regular PoW blockchain you will have to recalculate all the hashes according to the difficulty which will up to the miners.

But even if you could, it's an absolute technical nightmare.

To build an analogy that somehow fits. If you have git repo and you find out that a particular commit that you want to undo, what do you do?

- Rebase all changes to an earlier commit, remove the faulty commit and recalculate all commit hashes that follow it.

or?

- Create a new commit that reverts the old commit.

In reality you opt for option 2 99.99% of the time. The only reason you would ever want to remove a commit from history is if you accidentally exposed information to an audience that is not supposed to see it.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#315

Post by rkagerer »

mabbo wrote: post #47

In a system run by people, the transaction could be reversed, traced, and the culprits eventually brought to justice. In a system run by algorithms, designed to avoid oversight by people (governments), there is no such powers. There's no reversal. There's no checking the name on the account the transfer was to. It's just gone. I do not understand why people who have legal intentions would want to be part of the crypt…

You raise legit concerns. Though the practical degree to which recourse is available and the effectiveness and fairness of those reversals really vary depending on where you live and/or transact.

In a headline-grabbing caper like this the advantage seems obvious. But from the less sensational, day-to-day perspective of a small seller, reversals can be a nightmare ripe with fraud (google "chargeback fraud" for anecdotes) infeasible to pursue.

It does put onus back on the buyer / investor to do some diligence on who they buy from or send their money to, and increases the importance of reputation in the space. (I personally feel there's an opportunity right now for a reputation mechanism to complement the crypto economy and believe when that catches up it will help incentivize good seller behavior).

Kind of like when coins were primarily used as a medium of exchange. Coin payments didn't have reversibility, and adjudication stayed within the purview other institutions, i.e. courts, instead of being diluted and delegated to e.g. VISA. A more efficient dispute resolution system - some kind of analogue of the legal system civilization has built up over centuries - is another opportunity I feel is ripe for innovation in connection to the crypto space.

I do think the missing gaps of reputation and justice will be filled eventually and adopted by users, which would go a long way toward addressing your criticisms. In the meantime existing options of criminal / civil litigation remain available and people sending large sums of money would do well to make sure they know who they're sending it to so they can pursue if things go sideways.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#316

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tshaddox wrote: post #292
jonny_eh wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. An attacker obtained 5 of 9 keys, which is the signing threshold. How?

> The attacker used hacked private keys in order to forge fake withdrawals. > The attacker managed to get control over Sky Mavis’s four Ronin Validators and a third-party validator run by Axie DAO. Easiest explanation: at least one Sky Mavis employee and one Axie Infinity employee who have access to those private keys got together and took all the funds. Perhaps it was only one employee; it's not clear to me what the…

> Easiest explanation: at least one Sky Mavis employee and one Axie Infinity employee who have access to those private keys got together and took all the funds

Easier explanation: they were all in a Dropbox or something stupid like that.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#317

Post by lfkdev »

mabbo wrote: post #47

In a system run by people, the transaction could be reversed, traced, and the culprits eventually brought to justice. In a system run by algorithms, designed to avoid oversight by people (governments), there is no such powers. There's no reversal. There's no checking the name on the account the transfer was to. It's just gone. I do not understand why people who have legal intentions would want to be part of the crypt…

Why are you actitng like theres no corrupt goverment? Your country is not the whole world

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#318

Post by neffy »

thawaya3113 wrote: post #249
xyzzyz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't always reverse the transaction in regular financial world. It is typically possible if all parties involved act in good faith, and often possible in other cases too, if you act fast, or the bad faith actor is less than competent. However, this is not always the case. Imagine the following scenario: bank A sends $100M to bank B, which then sends it to bank C. By "reversing" the A->B transaction, all you're d…

The shifting of the goalposts is incredible. Yes, there are flaws in the real world financial system as well. Yet, we’ve heard of more of these scams in years of crypto than in decades and centuries of banking. And no one has still provided an explanation of why crypto is better than the established working system other than “it’s decentralized” except as we find repeatedly, it’s not decentralized.

I wouldn't go with "centuries" of banking on that one. Truth to tell the early days of banking, which is most of the 19th century for the US, were replete with exactly the kinds of frauds and cons that crypto is now replete with. Which is what has led to the regulation and supervision that crypto is in de facto rebellion against.

Of course, the best way to find out why something is not done a certain way, is to try doing it that way.

Re: $625M worth of ETH drained on Axie Infinity's Ronin Network

#319

Post by [deleted] »

MereInterest wrote: post #277
xyzzyz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't always reverse the transaction in regular financial world. It is typically possible if all parties involved act in good faith, and often possible in other cases too, if you act fast, or the bad faith actor is less than competent. However, this is not always the case. Imagine the following scenario: bank A sends $100M to bank B, which then sends it to bank C. By "reversing" the A->B transaction, all you're d…

Isn't the obvious solution to also reverse the transfer from Bank B to Bank C? If multi-hop transfers are treated as irreversible, then it creates an incentive for fraudulent sellers to collect all payments through multiple hops. If instead fraudulent transactions may be reversed at the first payment processor, the payment processor then has a financial incentive to make sure that they only pass through valid transac…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN