Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#271

Post by vannevar » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 5:24 AM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #260

jeffem wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are those "problems inherent in the peer-to-peer model"? Aren't those problems any business in the industry has to face?

They are inherent in peer-to-peer because peer-to-peer transactions are based on trust, and trust ultimately has to be based on accountability. If I'm in a small town, I can trust a local resident because I know their history and where they live. If they injure or steal from me in some way, I have some recourse, if nothing else with the social shame that can be brought to bear in a small society. But in a large-scale…

No, I'm saying someone will have to be the regulatory body for AirBnb, because their business is infringing on other people's rights, for example neighboring homeowners who are disturbed or damaged by AirBnb renters, or customers who are exposed to dangerous conditions on an AirBnb property.

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#272

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 6:32 AM UTC

uptown wrote: post #157

montecarl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need to government to require that? How about you only rent from land lords that disallow tenants from renting out their apartment. Maybe some people don't mind this and would like to have that as an option.

I don't rent - I own my apartment. I've invested in a property and a neighborhood zoned for a specific purpose. Cities are generally configured with zoning laws designed to preserve a certain standard of living for the larger community that extends beyond just a single apartment or building. It helps to preserve the intended use of those properties for people that choose to buy in those neighborhoods. For instance it…

I always wonder why people with this attitude live in cities. If you want peace and quiet, shouldn't you go get a few acres in the country? Living in the city means you're living right next to a bunch of other people. Living in the city and having the expectation of peace and tranquility and total control over your home just seems like expectations out of whack.

Maybe it's just that I get peeved when people get all "landed gentry" and start thinking that somehow because they are privileged to have been able to buy a piece of property that they have a moral right to control the lives of their neighbors.

That said, I support regulations "within reason" and I suppose it all comes down to a quantitative difference in where we draw that line.

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#273

Post by jerguismi » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 3:41 PM UTC

Eliezer wrote: post #82

acslater00 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an absolutely terrible lesson to draw from this episode. First and most importantly, Airbnb and Uber are not disrupting industries burdened primarily by consumer safety regulations; they are disrupting industries burdened primarily by barriers to entrance that are designed to direct economic rents to politically favored actors. Huge difference. There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story for preventing…

Legitimate banks don't get hacked? Is that true?

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=106

"I was told confidentially by an IT Security specialist from a major bank that the public would be shocked if they knew the amounts that are stolen daily from online financial institutions via ACH and wire fraud. Typically, breaches and total numbers are not revealed because they don’t want to advertise a weakness and they certainly don’t want to alarm customers. Some of the more vicious attacks are State sponsored. I believe him. That’s what bitcoin is up against as it progresses into the mainstream. The leading security experts are in that world, already protecting against the barbarians at the gate. They are not in the bitcoin world."

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#274

Post by jvm » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 4:48 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #136

jvm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems to beg the question (in the actual meaning of that phrase), at least w.r.t Uber and AirBNB. All the problems they've had have come from the regulatory authorities, except for those one or two bad incidents on AirBNB which are pretty much unavoidable in a business like that. So is the argument that regulation is good because it's hard to cope with the regulators? I just don't buy into the abrogatio…

All the problems they've had have come from the regulatory authorities, except for those one or two bad incidents on AirBNB which are pretty much unavoidable in a business like that. Atlantic, Wired, the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and the L.A. Times have variously run horror stories for renters who made the mistake of using AirBNB to book rooms (see, e.g., Toshi hotels and their variants). The whole point of hotel re…

This is the freedom from risk argument for regulation? There are plenty of horrible legal hotels in the world. I personally think cheap hotels are an important part of the ecosystem.

> The whole point of hotel regulations is to protect the guests, not the hotelier.

I wish this were true.

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#275

Post by jvm » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #139

jvm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems to beg the question (in the actual meaning of that phrase), at least w.r.t Uber and AirBNB. All the problems they've had have come from the regulatory authorities, except for those one or two bad incidents on AirBNB which are pretty much unavoidable in a business like that. So is the argument that regulation is good because it's hard to cope with the regulators? I just don't buy into the abrogatio…

All the problems they've had have come from the regulatory authorities... I'm not sure about Uber, but this is most definitely not true of AirBnb, which has come under fire from many neighborhood associations. It's not just your quality of life that gets reduced when you rent your house to bad apples, it's your neighbors' as well.

I guess I can take other people's word on this argument, I live in New York (where AirBNB is illegal) and there's plenty of odd loud people running around my building any given day. Inside a building is different but I have no problem with individual building leases banning AirBNB (I'm sure some would and some wouldn't).

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#276

Post by jvm » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

cube13 wrote: post #185

malandrew wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem you described has a very simple solution. Grant more permits to increase the number of brand new housing units added to the market each year. The rate at which SF adds housing units given demand is absurd. In fact, you'd probably have many more small business opportunities in SF if the city were willing to add residential units faster.

Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.

There is actually tons of demand in silicon valley but development there is mostly illegal. Mountain View recently rejected Google's request for mixed use zoning in the Googleplex which IMO is just gratuitous nimbyism (it's not even in anyone's back yard!). This is probably related to so many silicon valley types living in SF instead of anywhere near their work.

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#277

Post by illuminate » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

temp453463343 wrote: post #195

xxpor wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. More people living in a smaller space is much more efficient, and therefore less polluting energy. San Francisco might be "ruined" by your definition, but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land? Zoning is central planning at it's worst.

> You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. Sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the…

"There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc."

Which is not created by suburban sprawl, either. You seem to (without support) indicate that this is not possible with denser communities.

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#278

Post by numbsafari » Tue, Jan 15, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #94

numbsafari wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably depends. Banks are typically capitalized by a variety of assets, of which cash is typically a small amount. In addition, the bank typically has its cash holdings distributed at a number of different branches. Your account at the bank is technically it's liability. Essentially, you've loaned your money to the bank with an option to redeem it at any point in time (demand-deposit account, or checking account…

> Let's say a bank has all its assets in cash in a single branch location and that location is robbed, meaning the bank now has no assets left. // Governments can and do offer an insurance system whereby they will ensure that customers receive a substantial part of their monies back - this aids against bank runs (where customers panic and all try to withdraw their money as cash and so cause the bank to implode).

Yep. The original question was "what happens when those things don't exist".

Re: Bitcoin exchange hacked via Rails exploit, funds stolen

#279

Post by cyphunk » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 3:30 PM UTC

the comments for this item have gone way off topic and just to be clear if you look at bitcoincharts recording of trading history for this exchange you will see that no more than $3000 changed hands via the exchange. That means that the total amount lost is well under that.