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

Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#41

Post by refurb »

murph-almighty wrote: post #31
Scarbutt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone stoles cash from you, how do you mark that cash as stolen?

FWIW banks will record serial numbers of bills that go missing after a robbery.

Is that actually true? I've heard it as well, but it seems like an impossible task for a bank.

Are they scanning all the bills that come in? Which bills are in which teller's drawer? I doubt it.

If they received new bills in sequential order from the mint and had them stolen, I could see how they would know the numbers. But then again, what's the point? Your average business isn't going to scan numbers, so by the time the bills pop up again, you have no idea the path they took.

I've heard that serial numbers from ransom money would be recorded. That makes a bit more sense as they are one-time events and there is value in knowing if you find money it came via the ransom.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#42

Post by jwilk »

chickenfries wrote: post #37
Tharkun wrote: post #33

Tangent: why refer to these people as "hackers" and not "thieves"/"criminals"/" embezzlers"/...?

Because until very recently that is what hacker meant to regular people: "someone who bypasses computer security, usually to commit a crime"

"Until very recently"? So what does it mean now to regular people?

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#43

Post by Shoothe »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #4

Can someone explain how is it possible to steal Bitcoin if every transaction is recorded in a public ledger? Does not every bitcoin have its own signature which allows you to track its movement? New to this.

On a low level there are no "coins", just numeric amounts of smallest units of Bitcoin (satoshis) attached to outputs. Outputs have predicates (scripts) that allow the one who can satisfy the predicate to move amount in the output. Generally it's EC signature requirement but can be more complex. A transaction has also inputs that indicate which output do you want to claim and some data that satisfies the predicate (generally it's also a script but usually only data).

And yes, it's not possible to hide stolen Bitcoin. These addresses will be monitored forever. Think about what would happen if you stole some Bitcoin from the mafia and could not cash it. There are some services that can mix Bitcoin to hide their origin.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#44

Post by sowbug »

rafiki6 wrote: post #20

How is it that this can't be prevented by the Bitcoin network? The network should be able to mark coins stolen and unusable...oh wait it can't. Because in order to do that you'd need a trusted third party to verify the coins were stolen defeating the purpose of a distributed ledger that doesn't require third party trust. Yet another shortcoming of trying to replicate cash.

May I suggest that you extend RFC 3514 to include Bitcoin transactions?

Bitcoin didn't invent crime. It's not going to stop it, either.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#45

Post by Codestare »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #4

Can someone explain how is it possible to steal Bitcoin if every transaction is recorded in a public ledger? Does not every bitcoin have its own signature which allows you to track its movement? New to this.

Think of 'owning' a bitcoin as 'having the ability to spend' this bitcoin.

This ability is guarded by a private key. If this private key is stolen, someone else ALSO has the ability to spend this bitcoin.

Then, if this attacker transfers this bitcoin to another of his own private keys (he 'spends' it), in the blockchain there will be a record, yes. But who owns this new private key is unknown.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#46

Post by fauigerzigerk »

ahoka wrote: post #27
JakeWesorick wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the community as a whole black list a bitcoin address so they could at least not spend the money they stole? Are you able to track the history of who was a previous owner of the bitcoin? Seems like a major issue. If these hacks keep happening thieves are going to own more bitcoin they the rest of the community.

That would require appending to the consensus rules, which is effectively a hard fork.

Why would it be a hard fork? Anyone can freely decide not to buy bitcoin from specific addresses without any change to the software running the blockchain nodes.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#47

Post by lawn »

rafiki6 wrote: post #20

How is it that this can't be prevented by the Bitcoin network? The network should be able to mark coins stolen and unusable...oh wait it can't. Because in order to do that you'd need a trusted third party to verify the coins were stolen defeating the purpose of a distributed ledger that doesn't require third party trust. Yet another shortcoming of trying to replicate cash.

You can flip the argument around:

Credit card chargeback fraud is extremely common. Accepting irreversible payments would be better for these cases as the customer cannot pay, walk out with goods and keep their money. It's much harder for a public company to actively defraud their customers so this is actually more sane.

Also cash has the exact same properties.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#48

Post by kbvk »

jwilk wrote: post #42
chickenfries wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because until very recently that is what hacker meant to regular people: "someone who bypasses computer security, usually to commit a crime"

"Until very recently"? So what does it mean now to regular people?

Someone who is good with computers.

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#49

Post by sowbug »

skybrian wrote: post #25
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With bitcoins, it is easier to track the notes, but it is also easier to get rid of the association if you find someone willing to clean them for you. Say I steal 10 bitcoins from you. I go to someone who cleans bitcoins for a cost of 10%. I send them 10 bitcoins, and they send 1 bitcoin to 9 different wallets (keeping the 10th as payment). That alone would allow you to still track it. But now add in thousands of oth…

Not doing business with mixers: wow, what an interesting way to stir up trouble! Someone should create a service to distinguish "legit" from "tainted" Bitcoin. Let's see if Gresham's law applies so 1 bitcoin is no longer 1 bitcoin. What would the other exchanges do if one of them started trading these separately?

It's important to distinguish two issues: (1) whether the currency is usable as currency and (2) whether there are forensic clues enabling law enforcement to identify criminals. They're completely separate questions.

The value of a dollar bill is the same whether it was used in a crime. But if it has some ink on it, it might provide evidence that the person holding it robbed a bank. The ink doesn't keep the dollar from being usable.

It has to be this way. Otherwise money simply gets taken out of circulation, and people participating in the economy have to worry about whether money is money.

More: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_land...

Re: Hackers Steal $70M in Bitcoin

#50

Post by enraged_camel »

refurb wrote: post #41
murph-almighty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW banks will record serial numbers of bills that go missing after a robbery.

Is that actually true? I've heard it as well, but it seems like an impossible task for a bank. Are they scanning all the bills that come in? Which bills are in which teller's drawer? I doubt it. If they received new bills in sequential order from the mint and had them stolen, I could see how they would know the numbers. But then again, what's the point? Your average business isn't going to scan numbers, so by the tim…

Yes, bills are scanned and the system checks to see if they are marked as stolen.
Post reply on HN