71–80 of 105 posts
This time it's one of Solana's largest DeFi protocols. Are these guys asleep at the wheel? I wonder if these hacks can ever be fully prevented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing devil's advocate here, since I'm generally of your opinion: there is nothing that prevents more code being written covering more unintended uses of the technology, including injuctions and reversals. If at all, there is a hubris that complex problems can be solved with clean, minimal code and simple concepts. After all, when rendering their decisions, human courts are also solely refering to rules written bef…
> After all, when rendering their decisions, human courts are also solely refering to rules written before the fact (in my home country at least). They don't though. Courts dream new meanings into existing laws, create new duties where none existed before, and while the extent to which they should do so is controversial, few serious people think they should avoid doing so entirely.
Generally though, I use the arguments in this discussion the other way round: in convincing lawyers (German speaking lawyers that is) that the value of law is mostly in being readable by common people. And less in being unequivocal to courts. We have code for unambiguity, but in essence, code bears the same problems as complicated laws when communicating policy and what's socially accepted to society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto being public might mean more hacks get reported whereas a 100 private businesses getting phished out of a million wont register even if the information is available to a reporter.
And?
"According to Lim, the hacker funded the main account (account A) and offered 483mm units of $MNGO perps on the order book. The attacker then funded a second account (account B) with 5mm $USDC collateral. Then, he/she used the funds to buy the 483mm units of $MNGO perps (at a price of $0.0382 per unit). The perpetrator’s actions made $MNGO’s spot market price, reaching as high as $0.91. $MNGO/USD price of $0.91 per u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so cruel?
The world is a cruel place, sometimes being direct is the only way to get a message across. The world has been treating adults like children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like what the space needs is regulation... You know, to provide assurance that automated protocols are written strongly, and legal recourse against bad actors.
Regulating bodies are not capable of performing cyber-security protocol audits on emerging technology. 'Throwing regulation at the problem' is an embarrassing proposal that I'm sure many regulating bodies will pat you on the back for stanning.
I'm not suggesting that we ought prohibit innovation, and I'd prefer we tax and regulate drugs too, and laws don't prevent bad actors, but we should be able to go after and exact retribution upon those whom intentionally break the rules.
"According to Lim, the hacker funded the main account (account A) and offered 483mm units of $MNGO perps on the order book. The attacker then funded a second account (account B) with 5mm $USDC collateral. Then, he/she used the funds to buy the 483mm units of $MNGO perps (at a price of $0.0382 per unit). The perpetrator’s actions made $MNGO’s spot market price, reaching as high as $0.91. $MNGO/USD price of $0.91 per u…
> Nothing above looks illegal. In regulated markets, if something went from $0.03 to $0.91 in a short space of time, trading would be shut down. Because the attacker owns both wallets, this is called a wash trade, which is something that has been illegal for over 80 years .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing devil's advocate here, since I'm generally of your opinion: there is nothing that prevents more code being written covering more unintended uses of the technology, including injuctions and reversals. If at all, there is a hubris that complex problems can be solved with clean, minimal code and simple concepts. After all, when rendering their decisions, human courts are also solely refering to rules written bef…
> After all, when rendering their decisions, human courts are also solely refering to rules written before the fact (in my home country at least). They don't though. Courts dream new meanings into existing laws, create new duties where none existed before, and while the extent to which they should do so is controversial, few serious people think they should avoid doing so entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the crypto sector doesn't want exchange regulation, so they don't have the "circuit breakers" that, say, the CBOE does. The description of crypto markets as "speedrunning the history of why we have the financial regulations we do" seems more and more accurate as time goes on. But I agree, this isn't a "hack" in the normal sense. It may be a "hack" in the broader, "clever use of a system against the desires of t…
> The description of crypto markets as "speedrunning the history of why we have the financial regulations we do" seems more and more accurate as time goes on. As someone who's been at the butt end of banking regulation for almost two decades, I love that quote. It used to annoy me to no end that crypto folk touted the lack of regulation, actually even the ability to regulate, as some revolutionary new feature, not re…
This is how you end up with people comparing the energy usage of Bitcoin with that of the top 10 banks, as if they are remotely comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And?
its a statement to focus on the system design of the organizations that got hacked instead of the asset/platform they happen to use, just like we do with non-crypto organizations
And if an organization uses an anonymous, immutable platform that makes it vulnerable to manipulation and theft, well then they deserve every bit of criticism.