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

U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 305 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#231

Post by gopher_space »

gradschool wrote: post #156
naet wrote: post #25

Cryptocurrency enables a big part of this. Not saying that there weren't any wire scams before crypto, but crypto has made it much easier for average people to make anonymous international money transfers that can't be reversed. Not to start a big argument, but to my eyes the main usecases of cryptocurrency are to bet on them as a speculative asset or to use them for various forms of crime. Someone will probably tell…

> Someone will probably tell me about some theoretical situation where it is a positive force Challenge accepted. My positive use case for cryptocurrency pertains to someone like me being over sixty and worried about being swept up into the guardianship system. With most of my assets in crypto and assuming decent opsec, they would be inaccessible to the guardian. If a judge ordered me to grant access, could I be cite…

> worried about being swept up into the guardianship system.

Functionally speaking you'd have to be incapable of calling a lawyer on your own, which means you'd already be under someone's care. Even if you're being scammed dry, the absolute last thing you want in that situation is a lack of funding.

Find someone who understands end of life financial planning and set up whatever trust-like scheme they recommend.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#232

Post by hananova »

johtso wrote: post #103
TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is, crypto makes irreversibility a fundamental part of the system, making it impossible for any party to unilaterally reverse a payment without having to first take over the entire chain. With regular fiat money and banks, such reversals are perfectly possible on a technical level. The banks are usually unwilling to do them, and an individual may not be able to force them to in practice, but it's still…

This seems like the correct way to go though.. if you want reversibility, then introduce escrow into the situation, the foundational building block should be irreversible.. as there's no way to make a means of transfer _more_ irreversible if you're inherently giving control to a 3rd party with no choice.

The thing is, crypto IS reversible, and has been reversed in the past. The people affected just need to be rich and/or powerful enough. And you and I are not in that club.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#233

Post by Symbiote »

compootr wrote: post #209
fennecfoxy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree, I think crypto is cool from a technological standpoint, but I don't think I've seen one common genuine use of BTC, etc. And before someone comes in with very specific, anecdotal examples - notice I said "common", ie not buying your indie music from a retro-Serb band that plays using the concept of instruments as instruments and from abandoned sewers; but only on Mondays. I definitely feel like the majo…

Just this week, I received a bug bounty from a company in bitcoin. No BS with banks or anything!* *: until I convert it to fiat

That sounds like more hassle than receiving a straightforward deposit into my bank account.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#234

Post by whimsicalism »

os2warpman wrote: post #47
alexey-salmin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you see international money transfers outside of the government control as a positive or negative force largely depends on how much you trust your government. How much it should limit things for your own safety? I suspect that for majority of the earth population the trust level is rather low, even though in some countries it could be different.

If I had to throw out a number describing how many more times I trust the FDIC than I trust some cryptobro, the first thing that comes to mind is "ten billion". And my trust in the current administration is rather low.

the point is that you don't have to trust 'some cryptobro' to hold USDS and you certainly don't have to trust Şahap Kavcıoğlu to keep your lira safe or Olayemi Cardoso's stewardship of your naira.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#236

Post by latchkey »

JamesBarney wrote: post #189
latchkey wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen one common genuine use of BTC One of my favorited comments/threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26238410

Even that technically falls under the crime umbrella (though I don't believe it is immoral or unethical). It's basically the getting around government imposed capital controls.

The comment (and thread) isn't about getting around capital controls, which is why it is so powerful.

The comment argues that for people in stable, wealthy countries, Bitcoin can seem unnecessary or overhyped. But for those living in countries with dysfunctional banking systems, currency controls, or even mild corruption (like Argentina), it solves very real problems.

Traditional financial systems often restrict access to dollars, limit foreign transfers, and are vulnerable to government seizure or devaluation, leaving people with few safe options to save or send money.

Bitcoin offers a practical alternative for remittances, savings, and financial autonomy in places where the local system fails to protect or empower its citizens. While Bitcoin may look inefficient compared to ACH transfers in the U.S., it’s a lifeline elsewhere, and one that could become more relevant globally in times of instability.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#237

Post by smeej »

DrillShopper wrote: post #192
smeej wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was mostly true of v.1 cryptocurrencies, but it's not like it's inherent to the system. It's just as easy to design cryptocurrencies where there are control mechanisms, governed however you'd like them to be. USDC, for example, can be frozen in any wallet at any time, and has still become hugely popular. IF reversibility is a desired feature of digital currencies, the market will bear that out. People can and wi…

USDC is only popular because it can be easily used to evade taxes while retaining its value

This comment just isn't even remotely connected to U.S. reality. Transactions into and out of USDC are taxable just like transactions into and out of USD, and the IRS can every bit as easily find the owners of these accounts as they can offshore bank accounts or anything else someone might use to try to evade taxes.

I'm confident that any other country who cares to (i.e., anywhere people bother to try to evade taxes) can also do so.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#238

Post by smeej »

mrguyorama wrote: post #167
johtso wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the correct way to go though.. if you want reversibility, then introduce escrow into the situation, the foundational building block should be irreversible.. as there's no way to make a means of transfer _more_ irreversible if you're inherently giving control to a 3rd party with no choice.

Why? Irreversible transactions are not desired by anyone in payment networks. Consumers don't want to get scammed out of money. Merchants want customers to feel like transactions are low risk so they are more willing to make them. That's a big reason why merchants put up with the outright hostile to them system of chargebacks. Sure, you will lose some money to chargebacks you might think were not valid, but you have…

The existence of wire transfers, cashier's checks, and, you know, CASH undermine your claim that people in payment networks don't desire irreversible transactions.

Basically everybody who's ever sold something in person wants to know they get to keep the money when the other person walks away with their stuff. It's the fraudsters in those everyday transactions who want reversibility.

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#239

Post by smeej »

ty6853 wrote: post #203
DrillShopper wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just kicks the can of trust to the entity performing the escrow, and there have been many, many cases of fly by night escrow companies (or companies pretending to be escrow companies) who just take the money and run. So introducing another third party to trust makes it more complicated than the alternative of allowing transactions to be reversable.

Banking reversibility is also kicking the can to a trusted third party. Several years ago my credit card was stolen. I contacted my bank, who then accused my wife of cheating on me in another state (I know this didn't happen because there is no way she left 1000 miles away for several days multiple times between me seeing her, unless she has a hidden personal jet). By 'lying' about it being a fraudster instead of my…

Bank of America decided I really had been in rural France buying tires when I had proof I was at work, at my desk, in Boston at the times of the purchases, and the card was in my hand. It's been 20 years and I still won't ever do business with them again.

It was much more fun, at least, when Amazon tried to tell me one of my children must have taken my card and made the purchases. I took it to mean the children I have not conceived yet will have access to time travel, in which case I'm not even mad. Pranking me in the past deserves whatever trinket they bought!

Re: U.S. sanctions cloud provider 'Funnull' as top source of 'pig butchering' scams

#240

Post by mappu »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #134
naet wrote: post #25

Cryptocurrency enables a big part of this. Not saying that there weren't any wire scams before crypto, but crypto has made it much easier for average people to make anonymous international money transfers that can't be reversed. Not to start a big argument, but to my eyes the main usecases of cryptocurrency are to bet on them as a speculative asset or to use them for various forms of crime. Someone will probably tell…

Totally agree, I think crypto is cool from a technological standpoint, but I don't think I've seen one common genuine use of BTC, etc. And before someone comes in with very specific, anecdotal examples - notice I said "common", ie not buying your indie music from a retro-Serb band that plays using the concept of instruments as instruments and from abandoned sewers; but only on Mondays. I definitely feel like the majo…

I'm interested in that band if you have recommendations, though!
Post reply on HN