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

$14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

blog.clain.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#51

Post by aspenmayer »

barkingcat wrote: post #33
save_ferris wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchanges in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if most people with exchange accounts don’t understand that coins not in their own wallet aren’t actually theirs. The exchanges don’t really make that clear to their users either, at least the ones I’ve used.

It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human

Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#52

Post by mindslight »

nootropicat wrote: post #37
mindslight wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order for something to function as money, it must be fungible - every unit must be interchangeable. Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies lack a critical ecash property known as untraceability . This has attracted private analysis companies offering solutions for legacy identity-bound concerns even despite them being directly contrary to existing cryptocurrency conventions and desires. Ten years ago the refrain…

Anonymity in ethereum is rapidly accelerating. Currently the best option is an on-chain mixer [1] for set amounts, but fully anonymous transaction systems are going to launch relatively soon [2]. In two years, ether is virtually certain to be the most anonymous cryptocurrency and dai (dollar stablecoin) to be the most anonymous digital dollar in existence. Anonymous digital dollar has the potential to cause quite a s…

IMO, if Bitcoin had had untraceability, it would be in the exact same regulatory situation it is in today. That would be serious plausible deniability.

The mechanisms you're describing also happen to already be crimes. As soon as a system has any legible structure, regulators want to mount up. They don't care about perfect enforcement or even aiming for perfection, but rather just exerting control over most uses. I do hope untracability can be sustainably implemented at scale by the techniques you're describing, but we'll see. There are many more people thinking that tracing cryptocurrency transactions is a desirable thing.

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#53

Post by verdverm »

aspenmayer wrote: post #51
barkingcat wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human

Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?

What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?".

How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#54

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

cortesoft wrote: post #25
fastball wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralized exchanges exist for the more sophisticated cryptos (e.g. Ethereum).

Sure, but you will never be able to get out fiat currency from a decentralized exchange (which is what most people want).

Bisq and fiatdex do this.

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#55

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

barkingcat wrote: post #31
cortesoft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keys = coins Exactly... and if you steal the keys, you are stealing the coins.

well, when you place cryptocurrency with an exchange, you're giving them the keys, no one's stealing anything.

The law generally makes a distinction between voluntary parting, which usually maps to “here, take my $thingy and use it, bring it back when ya done” and then not having it returned as expected.

And theft, which usually maps to taking something that belongs to another person, without their consent, and keeping it with no intention of giving it back to them.

Which one of these categories do you believe your example falls in to?

How does inserting the word cryptocurrency change your perspective?

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#56

Post by aspenmayer »

verdverm wrote: post #53
aspenmayer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?

What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)

To me that seems both too high a bar and making the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s asking too much of crypto specifically because the same complaint can be leveled against undeclared cash as you are leveling against crypto in your wage garnishment scenario. A hypothetical worker paid cash wages by a cash only business could in theory fail to divulge their full wages and thus fail to comply with a wage garnishment order. However, that is the status quo. To solve it is to solve it for all kinds of undeclared income, crypto included. For that reason I think that the current wage garnishment system is to blame for its own failings; it is also the moral failing or civil disobedience of the scofflaw which allows this situation as much as the existence of crypto. You may as well blame cash for the problems of crypto, and for the problems of wage garnishment evaders.

As to how you are making the perfect the enemy of the good: your complaint fails to specifically apply to cryptocurrencies in general or to any specific crypto for the same reasons it fails to apply to cash specifically. That cryptocurrencies cannot mitigate the market failings of cash is not a failure of crypto or of cash. It is no failure at all because cryptocurrency never sought to solve that which you perceive as a fault. The problems you raise may be very real problems in society, but they are not a problem that is in-scope for crypto developers to solve or mitigate. That’s more of a problem for crypto custodians and their customers.

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#57

Post by erdii »

verdverm wrote: post #53
aspenmayer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?

What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)

escrow services

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#58

Post by jasonlingx »

verdverm wrote: post #44
jasonlingx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The larger problems comes from the risk they inject in the market just by existing. They will be hacked, fail KYC, or straight up scam exit with all their customers money and that will impact the value of the market as a whole. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers? Enron? Madoff? The vast majority of scammers, criminals still use fiat. By your reasoning that would make fiat more risky. >For my risk tolerance, crypto is…

It's for speculation and to get rich quick. That's how myself and a bunch of millennials used it. We had digital money beforehand, it's way easier to use than cryptos, and I get a legal safety net.

It may be useful to citizens of countries whose currency is about to collapse, or with strict currency controls.

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#59

Post by fluffything »

ashtonkem wrote: post #48
arcticbull wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not your keys, not your coins™ -- with that as the core philosophy of cryptocurrency, can you even say this was stolen, let alone laundered? It sounds like the person with the keys transferred the coins into another wallet. Resolved: behaves correctly. At least, as intended anyways.

That’s certainly an argument that can be made, but not one that’ll fly if you want more adoption.

Isn't this just the main trade-off between centralized banks and decentralized crypto?

Like, if a bank is able to reset my password, how safe is it really ?

Re: $14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges

#60

Post by ashtonkem »

fluffything wrote: post #59
ashtonkem wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s certainly an argument that can be made, but not one that’ll fly if you want more adoption.

Isn't this just the main trade-off between centralized banks and decentralized crypto? Like, if a bank is able to reset my password, how safe is it really ?

The bank is regulated externally, they do not have arbitrary control over how they treat you.

In fact, if you get hacked the bank will make you whole at their expense, which is quite a bit different from what happens in crypto.

Post reply on HN