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

Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

tradingview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 381 posts

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#341

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

stouset wrote: post #106
zer0x4d wrote: post #103

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.

In the face of the never-ending list of these kinds of events, the laughably impossible task of average nontechnical individuals protecting their own assets (and the consequence of total financial ruin when they fail to do so), the overwhelming number of and size of scams, rug pulls, fraud, outright Ponzi schemes, and on and on and on… what exactly is left to keep anyone a “huge believer”? Put differently, it’s been…

In 17 years, USD holders got hacked for 65% of their money (based on gold, or eggs, prices). At the same time, btc holders ... you know.

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#342

Post by Scotrix »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #239
grues-dinner wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to break into a wierd high-tech vault to get an unreasonably slow (or fast) billion-dollar progress bar with a snazzy custom UI toolkit these days. Not sure if technology or inflation is most to blame!

yes, this part won't play well in the movie: it takes just as long to transfer a billion as a dollar; the progress bar won't allow any time to build suspense... will they finish in time? cuts between parallel timelines...

well, min. required network confirmations could still replace the progress bar. I certainly pressed reload anxiously quite a few times :-)

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#343

Post by malfist »

killerstorm wrote: post #280
malfist wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they're mistaken. In traditional banking only the central authority can print money, not the individual banks. If someone stole a trillion dollars from JP Morgan, JP Morgan can't make themselves whole by creating a new trillion dollars. The central authority might guarantee the customers of JP Morgan that their money is protected, but they won't print money to make the bank whole.

False. Banks create money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

Banks create credit within the confines of law. That isn't creating money. Only the central bank can do that

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#344

Post by killerstorm »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #331
killerstorm wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over-collateralized stables are different from "algorithmic": the algorithmic ones are not fully backed by reserves.

the algorithmic ones are not fully backed by reserves. And you just know that the "collaterized" ones are? In most cases, their books aren't open. And they wouldn't lie about this would they? In some strange way, the crypto brain has been programmed to ignore the obvious with a hand wave and just accept all the chicanery that is crypto.

I gave you Liquity as an example. They don't have "books", it's a smart contract which takes ETH as a collateral and lets ppl to borrow LUSD against it.

Maker initially worked same way, but eventually they started accepting off-chain collateral.

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#345

Post by robotnikman »

tmpz22 wrote: post #288
FabHK wrote: post #247

Crypto use case: Finance North Korea's nuclear missile program.

I’m not worried we have entire federal agencies to regulate financial crime and nuclear operations don’t we?

They can't really do anything when it comes to crypto in comparison to actual money. There's a reason why countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia are resorting to stealing crypto by various means.

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#346

Post by PhilipRoman »

killerstorm wrote: post #264
jqpabc123 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How it it different from what banks do? (Except for a central regulator.) Your exception is the answer. Only the central regulator can "mint" money and doing so has real world consequences. The central regulator has financial incentives to limit this sort of activity. The bizarro world of crypto has no such regulation and as a result, it is inherently unstable. The proof of this is right in front of you --- it is the…

False. Money on your bank account is backed by bank's assets, not by the central regulator. Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking , M1 money supply, etc. > The only way to bring stability to the bizarro world of crypto is by tying it to "fiat" False. It's possible to make stable-coins using just price oracle and collateral. "Fiat" is not necessary. E.g. https://www.liquity.org/…

Regarding fractional reserves...

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...

>the Board has reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective on March 26, the beginning of the next reserve maintenance period. This action eliminates reserve requirements for thousands of depository institutions and will help to support lending to households and businesses.

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#347

Post by alberth »

_factor wrote: post #311
alberth wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described volume-based discounts. What’s so wrong with that? It’s the same reason why buying a single soda at a convenience store cost more (per unit) than buying a large pack at Costco.

Try to become an insider at one of these exchanges even with a couple million dollars. See how it goes. This is like Coke ONLY giving discounts to Costco instead of anywhere else so that Costco can reap the rewards. Walmart, Target, they can all pay full price. The convenience store spends more money to package individual items. A crypto transaction is the difference of a keystroke. They are not comparable on many fr…

Just curious, do you have concerns/issues with progressive discounts?

  Tier        Taker Fee   Maker Fee
  ----------  ---------   ---------
  $0K-$10K    60bps       40bps
  $10K-$50K   40bps       25bps
  $50K-$100K  25bps       15bps
Everyone is still paying the same full price (for the volume tier they are in).

Only those transactions at the higher volume tier get the higher discount (and everyone is eligible for that same discount).

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#349

Post by stouset »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #341
stouset wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the face of the never-ending list of these kinds of events, the laughably impossible task of average nontechnical individuals protecting their own assets (and the consequence of total financial ruin when they fail to do so), the overwhelming number of and size of scams, rug pulls, fraud, outright Ponzi schemes, and on and on and on… what exactly is left to keep anyone a “huge believer”? Put differently, it’s been…

In 17 years, USD holders got hacked for 65% of their money (based on gold, or eggs, prices). At the same time, btc holders ... you know.

In 17 years, the value of my traditionally-invested assets (VTSAX) went up 700%.

I didn’t risk losing everything to scams. When I forgot my password my brokerage was able to restore my access. When I made a mistake in a transaction I was able to call them and sort it out.

Meanwhile, despite the incredible runup of BTC I know precisely zero Bitcoin billionaires. I know people who have theoretical fortunes on hard drives that have died. I know people who mistimed purchases and sales and who’ve perhaps turned a small profit. I know people who turned a large profit and then lost it all to malware or exchange failure.

So yeah, I do know what happened to the BTC holders.

Re: Bybit loses $1.5B in hack

#350

Post by desumeku »

FabHK wrote: post #339
desumeku wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat is not indispensable, hello. Did you forget that human societies used to primarily have metallism-based economies before central banks managed to entrap the entire world in a system of debt slavery?

Sure, and that gold standard failed. Fiat (with a money supply that can be discretionarily managed, and allows for monetary policy) is indispensable to a modern economy.

It didn't "fail". It was gradually dismantled and replaced by a new economic order based on credit.
Post reply on HN