351–360 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exchanges will blacklist the addresses that hold the hacked ETH. They won't be able to deposit, or if they can deposit, the ETH will be frozen by the exchange.
Tornado cash and similar exist
If someone complains, remind them that Tornado is illegal in US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not money though. It’s property at best. It doesn’t get held to the same standards. CryptoBros are all about “no laws, do whatever” right up until the, inevitable, point at which /they/ are getting swindled and then they want to cry foul and run to the authorities. It’s just like the whole DAO situation which showed “Crypto is immutable and we want to live and die by the code unless of course someone finds a fla…
From the beginning, they also feared contact with the underworld. People so familiar with the asymmetry between attackers and defenders online fail to imagine how that looks in real life. Considering the upfront cost of a rubber hose, a year's supply of heroin, Ensure (prevents bedsores) and maybe sodium pentothal: when $1.5 B hits the news, you need to be able to prove: it's gone; North Korea is protecting the proce…
a related blog from Trail of Bits about the opsec failure of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140754
The $1.5B Bybit Hack - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140754
Normally we'd merge that one hither but it looks like that article has more background and the thread is (therefore) better.
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 trading volume is in tens billions of dollars daily. Their comission rate for the retail traders is up to 10bp (0.1%). Even considering a huge part of that volume is coming from institutional players who enjoy significantly reduced commission rates, I think they're surely making few million dollars daily on comissions alone, maybe tens of millions in a good day. And besides comissions, they also have other sour…
Society has devolved a bit when not long ago a heist like this would involve sieging Nakatomi Plaza, now it takes just finding a bug in someone's defective Python codes.
I wonder how many programmers resort to crime after they were laid off and couldn't find a job. Like soldiers after a war.
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?
Did the cold storage wallet contain users' ETH? That seems implied by "Can Cover Loss".
If so, why does a crypto exchange hold users' ETH in a wallet that can execute transactions without said user's authorization/password for each transaction. Doesn't even Facebook require entering a password every time to change certain profile settings?
Or maybe more generally, why does there need to be such a large cold-storage wallet to run an exchange?
Also how or why would they have the assets to be able to cover this?
There's some other seemingly conflicting info I found in searches for Bybit:
- Bybit is not legal in Canada. Bybit is restricted in Canada and other jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.
- Bybit originates from Singapore, a global hub for cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Singapore has a favorable regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies, which has attracted many exchanges to establish their headquarters there.
- There's also a mix of results where some say Bybit is safe/secure and others saying they aren't (irrespective of this event). This story seems to indicate that they had measures to make it safe, but it didn't save them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm nowhere near expert on any of the things below, but: My gut tells me if an exchange makes as much money as you suggest, people involved in that exchange are making even more profit from the said exchange, otherwise they wouldn't engage. The whole thing being literally money out of thin air, it feels like a huge bubble that should inevitably burst bringing down _ a lot _ of collaterals with it.
Yeah, as a layman this MSTR explainer was an "aha" moment for me: No, what is likely happening with all the convertible bond issues is that MicroStrategy prices the bonds in a manner to attract market neutral hedge fonds, meaning arbitrageurs. Saylor has briefly mentioned these firms, as opposed to firms seeking actual Bitcoin exposure. For issue after issue, they can be spotted as the largest bond holders by anyone…
Where does the valuation of a payment processor come from?
Or is the objection that no one is actually using them to process payments, only to gamble? If so I'd ask for citations regarding the exact market breakdown.