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

Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

blog.keys.casa

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#191

Post by amarant »

dang wrote: post #172
amarant wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because crypto-weebs would never ever make a mistake, ever. So clearly this is better. Sigh

Please do not respond to a bad comment by making thread even worse. That helps nothing and is against the site guidelines in its own right. " Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. " a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You might be right, I can never tell the serious people from the trolls when it comes to crypto. And often times the serious ones are even otherwise intelligent. Crypto is like religion in that sense: sometimes the most intelligent people believe the most egregious things! My apologies if I failed to spot what should've been an obvious troll..

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#192

Post by user-the-name »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #190
user-the-name wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a whole world of difference between heating homes across the planet, and running a network that can do 7 transactions a second. A single home PC from 2004 could run the bitcoin network, but instead, it uses 0.1% of all the energy in the world. It is by a wide margin the most ridiculously inefficient thing ever created. And it won't improve, because it is built that way by design.

You are clearly missing the point of why it uses so much energy. It is the price of security, decentralisation and permissionlessness. As for "7 transactions per second", sure, 7 on-chain transactions with the current block size. You don't need them for things like buying a cup of coffee. So this FUD is somewhat outdated.

Yeah, it's the price of that.

And that price is ridiculously, stupendously high. Much, much, much too high. It is in no way worth that price.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#193

Post by MattReigns »

How I recouped stolen crypto currency coins and tokens from scam hackers on telegram: People all over the world are hearing about the fast profits early investors are making on Bitcoin and other coins and want to join the party and make a fast profit .But be sure, where big money is, there are also companies that are abusing and taking advantage of this situation. Such was my situation , I had a fake telegram group admin contact me and gave me a phishing link in which my 12 recovery phrase were compromised. These evil persons gained access to my crypto-wallet and stole all my coins and tokens worth over $230,000 . I was in great despair due to this situation, I was confused till a group member on the telegram referred me to Coinwalletrecoup dot com. This recovery agent is really God sent. After relating all of my predicaments, details of incidence and necessary requirements for my recovery program , it took them less than a week to track and recover all of my tokens and coins back, they helped me hack the perpetrators wallet and all of my coins were returned to me .I am so amazed , joyous and appreciative. I don't know what I would do without this specialist. They specialize in chargeback disputes and their team knows how to identify these types of scams.If you invested in Crypto and believe you have been scammed contact their experts today and they will help you recover your losses. Contact : Coinwalletrecoup dot com

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#194

Post by Nursie »

statoshi wrote: post #154
echelon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all too complicated for all but a handful of people. Crypto just doesn't work. It's far more harm than good. Every time a weakness is unveiled, we get hand waving from those most invested. It's bad for the environment, bad for crime, bad for laymen, undemocratic (vote with money), no knobs to adjust monetary/fiscal policy, and it poses as an alternative to government institutions that serve society with thing…

> It's bad for the environment Not any more so than other forms of energy consumption. If anything, Bitcoin incentivizes the use of clean renewable energy. https://niccarter.info/topics/ > bad for crime Hard to even parse what that means given how much crime is committed via dollars. https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-not-for-crimin... > bad for laymen Meaningless drivel. > undemocratic (vote with money) B…

> If anything, Bitcoin incentivizes the use of clean renewable energy.

By that measure anything that has a huge energy demand incentivises the use of clean energy. In a world where we're really trying to restrict energy use because we haven't yet got the green capacity we need, that's not a good argument.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#195

Post by panarky »

user-the-name wrote: post #161
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, nobody ever asked for ransom before cryptocoins. /s Legitimate democracy can't be undermined by an international currency not controlled be the government. In fact, it can be reinforced by it. This issue is very similar to free speech: the good it does by making the government unable to silence political opponents far outweights the harm done by extremists and lunatics of all sorts.

People tried ransomware before cryptocurrencies. Payouts were minuscule compared to what cryptocurrencies are now enabling. And no, it is not at all similar to free speech. Cryptocurrencies do massive harm - to the environment, to innocent people losing their money to scammers and frauds, and to the entire economy through enabling ransomware - and tiny, tiny amounts of good, which dwindle in comparison to the harm.

> Payouts were minuscule compared to what cryptocurrencies are now enabling

I see arguments of this form everywhere:

Law-abiding, tax-paying, responsible citizens use Tool X for legitimate purposes. Criminals also use Tool X for crimes. Therefore, we should ban Tool X.

Tool X = {cryptocurrency, encryption, firearms, drugs, etc.}

Tools that have legitimate uses should not be prohibited to law-abiding citizens.

Absolutely prosecute people who use the tool to hurt other people, but don't prohibit the tools that both bad people and good people use.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#196

Post by sizzle »

dannyw wrote: post #80
seibelj wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is extremely scary. I hope you filed a police report? That person is a serious criminal.

Ehh, for a lot of people $500 is the "I'd rather just move on" amount. If that happened to me I would move on, particularly because you don't know the criminals here and whether they'd seek retribution if you made a police report. If someone roofied you, they'd probably be willing to do worse things to you if you hassled them. Just some advice; speaking from life experiences.

Yup what if they stole some keys or garage clicker to rob you later or other personal info to do some identity theft? Better have a police report to cover your ass at a minimum.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#197

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

user-the-name wrote: post #192
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are clearly missing the point of why it uses so much energy. It is the price of security, decentralisation and permissionlessness. As for "7 transactions per second", sure, 7 on-chain transactions with the current block size. You don't need them for things like buying a cup of coffee. So this FUD is somewhat outdated.

Yeah, it's the price of that. And that price is ridiculously, stupendously high. Much, much, much too high. It is in no way worth that price.

Maybe, for you. Probably you're lucky to live in a country that doesn't abuse its financial system. But others pay this price gladly, because bitcoin provides clear and undisputable value for them.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#198

Post by vishnugupta »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #138
vishnugupta wrote: post #36

I've been working in the payments industry on and off for 15 years. I am yet to work with a payment method that does not support reversal (except for physical cash). As a last resort victims can file chargeback with their issuers or police. To begin with there are several layers of protection built in at acquirer, issuer, network and so on. Almost at each step there's an option to reverse the payment (or issue a comp…

> I am yet to work with a payment method that does not support reversal Strange, because from your comments you are based in India and there's simply no way to reverse a bank transfer there or in my own country, can you confirm this? What I've read over the years suggests the complete opposite of what you've said. A brief internet search brings up: > Adhil Shetty, CEO & co-founder, Bankbazaar.com, says, "The most imp…

Semantically you are right, however there's more to it.

Bank transfer can be invoked within the context of a business transaction (e.g., buying on Amazon) or as a standalone payment with no context attached to it.

In the first case, the money goes through many intermediaries such as payment gateway, merchant, acquirer, etc. In this instance, a customer can dispute a payment at different levels beginning with the merchant (or marketplace), their issuer, and finally file a case in the consumer court. 90% of the disputes get settled by the merchant/marketplace. Issuers typically side with the consumer because their primary customers are consumers. Consumer courts take time to settle a dispute, but they do work.

It's possible for fly-by-night sellers to con a bunch of customers but it's rare. Because payment gateways and acquirers have gotten their act together in recent years and they do stricter KYB checks (Know Your Business).

The bulk of the theft happens through person-to-person bank transfer, i.e., devoid of any business context. Here, the fraudsters con a gullible person to reveal bank credentials and also second-factor auth. Social engineering attacks are also common. But the thing is you always know the destination bank account. So you can track the fraudster as the destination bank would have done a KYC. The key point to note here is that the money can always be physically traced. And there are laws that let victim claw back that money if they can provide sufficient evidence of fraud.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#199

Post by vishnugupta »

kragen wrote: post #152
vishnugupta wrote: post #36

I've been working in the payments industry on and off for 15 years. I am yet to work with a payment method that does not support reversal (except for physical cash). As a last resort victims can file chargeback with their issuers or police. To begin with there are several layers of protection built in at acquirer, issuer, network and so on. Almost at each step there's an option to reverse the payment (or issue a comp…

Payment reversal is an open invitation to criminals to steal from sellers. A friend of mine had his laptop stolen via payment reversal. Listed it on Craigslist for sale, a woman paid by PayPal and then came by to pick it up, and after she left she reversed the payment. PayPal automatically took her side because he didn't have a shipping tracking number. Cashier's-check scams are another classic form of this crime: ht…

> Cryptocurrencies just remove those risks instead of externalizing them.

Cryptocurrencies unilaterally move the risk to the spender and I don't see how that is same as removing risk. A financial transaction is always risky for all the participating parties, there is a chain of liability. You can't make the risk disappear, someone has to bear it and/or underwrite it. Which is why you have all these payment processors that charge x% transaction fees for merchants in exchange for taking on that risk.

A larger point here is disputes will always arise in a business transaction. Which is why we have arbiters who hear both sides of a story and settle the matters. You can't say "Payment reversal is an open invitation to criminals to steal from sellers." and make payers unilaterally liable for every payment they make. That is a recipe for killing a market.

In your friend's case PayPal acted as an arbiter and given that the seller had no proof of sale PayPal made a judgement call to side with the payer. The harsh reality is your friend should have been more careful or said only-cash-accepted.

Re: Casa Client Case Study: The Tinder Trap

#200

Post by vishnugupta »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #164
vishnugupta wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but your argument applies to cash, Right, so it's important to understand the context in which cash is used. The vast majority of cash transactions take place in exchange for goods/services rendered immediately . Like I go to a grocery store, buy a pound of bread and pay cash. So disputes are settled right there and then, merchant and customer talk it out. Also, about 90% of cases ticket size is ~20$ so even if a d…

I think this is really a key insight. The physical nature of cash actually puts limits its fraudulent use cases. I mean, think of all the movie plot points that center around having a drop point for ransom payments. Remember that scene from Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol in 2011 where they are doing an exchange and the best form of illicit payment is a bag of diamonds. Not only does crypto make giant illicit ran…

Since you mentioned movie, my favourite one is No Country for Old Men :-). If that movie doesn't put the fear of a bag full of cash, I don't know what will!
Post reply on HN