521–530 of 890 posts
This last week has been a rollercoaster. I've been in crypto since a long time ago and have seen quite a bit, but this FTX implosion takes the crown. And to be honest, I don't think its over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy which was paid for. If there is a problem with that then price it accordingly.
Nobody has the power to unilaterally “set the price” of energy, it’s set by the market. Free markets are great for a lot of things, but pricing in externalities isn’t one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do banks get hacked very often? They seem to have their security in order. Probably because they would have to reimburse their customers if something went wrong.
When the banks get bankrupt (i.e due overleverage, stealing/using customer's money etc) their customers get nothing back. A such example is MF Global. I'm not going into the whole story why banks and centralised/opaque finance is bad. Now the whole point of crypto was the tech behind it which was supposed to replace banks, exchanges and missuse of your OWN money. It's supposed to be an alternative to the trash financ…
“Nothing to do with the crypto technology” is an empty and meaningless statement.
IF, and that’s a very big if, they got hacked, the fact that $600m could be moved and disappeared so quickly is 100% to do with the “crypto technology”. In the real financial system it is exponentially harder to make money disappear, transfers are logged on three sides of the transaction, you have to hack multiple autonomous and different tech stacks, and you have to wait as the transfers get transmitted, validated and passed in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do banks get hacked very often? They seem to have their security in order. Probably because they would have to reimburse their customers if something went wrong.
When the banks get bankrupt (i.e due overleverage, stealing/using customer's money etc) their customers get nothing back. A such example is MF Global. I'm not going into the whole story why banks and centralised/opaque finance is bad. Now the whole point of crypto was the tech behind it which was supposed to replace banks, exchanges and missuse of your OWN money. It's supposed to be an alternative to the trash financ…
A great deal larger than nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty common for apps to load some external content from a server to show to the user. This is useful in part because it allows you to update the content without going through the slow app review process. Potentially, if your backend got hacked, the hackers could change this content.
Sure, but your onboarding flow popup buttons? I don’t think app review allows those to be loaded from a website
You could also serve a change like this with an OTA update, again no app store review required, which ios and android allow (as long as you don't fundamentally change the app, and even then they could only catch that retroactively.
Not sure if they'd care if you load it in a webview as long as the UX wasn't substantially different. I seem to recall getting bounced to web auth flows pretty often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ponzi schemes by definition use opaque ledgers. Ponzi schemes are custodial. Ponzi schemes guarantee returns. There exist Ponzi schemes which have disguised themselves as cryptocurrencies, but the idea that all cryptocurrencies are Ponzi schemes demonstrates a complete ignorance of what a Ponzi scheme is.
> Ponzi schemes by definition use opaque ledgers. Why? To me a ponzi scheme is where the earlier "investors" get paid out with the money of later "investors". That's it. By that definition it's quite the "decentralized", somewhat stochastic ponzi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in general religions are in business of extracting money from people and using it for their own means. Scientology is not any different from any other. Including the mainstream Christian cults...
Wait is the government a religion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the crypto community’s skepticism of proven financial safeguards. Large financial systems are centralized for a reason and they seem intent on finding out why by hitting every bump in the road at full speed.
Pretty much everyone in the crypto community would be fine and happy if exchanges were forced to prove they own the users funds. Crypto people generally don't want crypto regulation. But exchanges are not crypto. They are a third party holding your crypto. The problem is that regulators "confuse" that (or pretend to) and any regulation that comes out hurts the users, and the DeFi space, instead of focusing on central…
Arguably, fractional reserve banks “steal” customer deposits to invest and pay interest in exchange. They have a very particular license from the government and are monitored (and insured) and rightly so - they are very dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reworded things to separate the first hand information (FTX_Official indicating they don't know what's going on) from speculation (app hacker rumors).
I saw an update on coindesk that they confirmed it was a hack on their official telegram channel? What a dumpster fire. But let's be honest, I think retail investors weren't getting anything back anyways. Probably only impacts creditors
Surely it's not a coincidence that on the day FTX announces bankruptcy, this gigantic hack occurs? Some folks in this thread are speculating this might've been an inside job. I suspect, it's likelier that hackers had been aware of a vulnerability for some time, had a plan to drain these funds, but decided to hasten the timeline on the basis of the news FTX was going under.
This make no sense to me. Thieves in the crypto currency world seize the opportunities before other thieves do: what more do "hackers" need than 600m? 700m? 900m?
Why let a vulnerability unexploited, risking someone else to exploit it before you? Because 600m wouldn't be enough? (and before the price crash it was probably worth way more than 600m).
I don't buy it.
Insider job 100%. Especially seen that it's a know fact it was run by scammers.
It's not as if we were talking about honest people playing it fair. We're talking about a scam.
A more than shady company, ran by scammers.
I call insider job unless proven otherwise.