191–200 of 381 posts
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
It sucks if you're Bybit, but they're going to have plenty of lenders happy to provide them liquidity while they make it all back.
> "Please rest assured that all other cold wallets are secure. All withdrawals are normal," he added. There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
The second they have to pause withdrawals and look weak, it could be game over from the (additional) reputational damage.
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
Surely you'd allocate a new wallet/1m roughly and always keep it spread.
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
bybit makes $100 million a month and has substantial excess reserves
> "Please rest assured that all other cold wallets are secure. All withdrawals are normal," he added. There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You like decentralized money without laws and accountability, but would like to have a central thing (TBD) that is accountable and respect laws? How would that work?
I'm not too sure but few things come to mind: 1. Upgrade protocol to include protections for well known cold wallets held by exchanges (ex: API call has to be made to the exchange's security endpoint to validate each transaction out of the wallet. Exchange staff would need to manually allowlist large transactions before they are transmitted). 2. Decentralized voting on reversal of transactions (90-95%+ vote needed to…
Couldn't you technically just 'git checkout' a previous commit from before the fraudulent transaction occurred and pretend it never happened? Isn't the real problem that you'd have to convince a majority of users to do the same?
I'm a huge crypto believer but I can admit that we don't have a serious system if a person can just transfer over $1.5B from a well known crypto cold wallet to different accounts with nothing flagging it and no way to reverse it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A huge problem with signing EVM transactions using hardware wallets is that is common to be blind signing messages. The device has no knowledge of the SAFE EVM contract functions or any other context, it just asks you to sign an gobblygook opaque binary message so you may have no idea what's being signed, is my experience using multiple different vendor HW wallets. Not sure if that's what happened, but possible this…
> with turing-complete arbitrary computations in EVM this becomes very difficult. I have very limited knowledge about EVM, but those computations are bounded by gas, right? Evaluating them is a finite process.
How on earth is it possible they can cover a 1.5B loss? Are they really sitting on that much profit, or is the goal to ponzi it out from here, MtGox style?
These exchanges make an absurd amount of money. That amount of money is basically a decent quarter for Coinbase in fee revenue, and Bybit is smaller but it isn't that much smaller. It sucks if you're Bybit, but they're going to have plenty of lenders happy to provide them liquidity while they make it all back.