286
Monero Project admits thieves stole 6-figure sum from a wallet in mystery breach
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
286 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59314 readers
4719 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tell me you don't understand what you're talking about without saying you don't understand what you're talking about. It really sounds like you only get your info about crypto from headlines.
To go through each of your points:
There are plenty of stable coins that are stable, such as USDC. Many of them exist for a multitude of different purposes.
Non stable coins also can have different uses. Reddit, for example, had its own coin for a while, and Ethereum exists to allow for programmatic transactions (ie: you pay a program to do something, and it'll get done)
While it is true that laws around crypto are nowhere near as mature, as they are very new, crypto offers its own consumer protection advantages over fiat. For example, as an attacker it's a metric fuck ton harder to get into a crypto wallet than it is to get into a bank account.
What makes you think fiat currencies aren't controlled in the same way?
Pick one. Both cannot be true at the same time. While it is true most crypto uses a publicly available ledger, you can only start tracing purchases when you know the identities of the ones holding the accounts. This is muuuuch easier said than done, especially given how easy it is to simply make new accounts with zero identifying info attached to them.
If you're the kind to fall for Nigerian Prince scams, you're fucked regardless if you used fiat or crypto. Banks will not refund you over payments you yourself sent.
For now. All the stable coins that failed were stable until they weren't. What incentive is there to actually providing that kinda service, if you won't make money with it?
NFTs. SAY THEIR NAME
And remember what a resounding success Wolf Game was? As a hobbyst programmer I can tell you there isn't an idea dumber that putting code into something immutable, that you have to destroy, create anew, rename the new thing you made to the old one, while paying for each step of the process, just so that you can fix a bug is a terrible idea.
It's pretty natural that what ended up being contained in those smart contracts was links to jpegs - it's much harder to mess that up than an actual interactive program.
I have too many people hammering me with comments to respond to all your points. I spend like an hour writing responses to you goobers, unless I see something really stupid I'm not responding any further.
So a quick round: 3&6 social engineering is far more common than simply hacking your account. So no, it's the opposite. Also, 6- completely false, why do you think they avoid using bank accounts?
5- I gave you an example where someone would know your identity - if you're using it in a non-anonymous context, like getting paid. It could also be the case when buying something, with your name/delivery address. Unless you go off chain, there is no point of setting up new accounts, as transactions can be traced and connected to the intermediate accounts.
4- Financial policy is decided by elected representatives. Corruption is an issue, but in crypto it's built-in.
This is the nature of all emerging technologies. The internet itself went through a similar phase in the late 80s up until the early 2000s. Remember Gopher? NetBeanz?
I didn't say NFTs because I wasn't talking about NFTs. I was talking about smart contracts. They are two very seperate things.
This is why I say you don't understand what you're talking about and only get your info from headlines.
A shitty flash-style game who's only defining feature is having a blockchain. What of it?
It's not like the regular videogame industry started with Super Mario Bros either.
And yet people wrote immutable code all the time in the 80s and 90s. Many people didn't have internet back then, so the only ways to get patches out reliably would be extremely expensive.
Also: it's not like bug fixing traditional apps is free either.
Again, if someone socially engineers you into sending money, you're shit out of luck when dealing with fiat currencies too.
If you're worried about someone divulging a password and hoping 2FA could catch them, there are hosted exchanges like Coinbase for that. If your person is the kind to give 2FA codes too, again, you're just as fucked in fiat environments; banks do not cover that shit.
Banks will only cover fraud incidences that you can't reasonably be blamed for, like your card details being exposed because a website got hacked. They leave you high and dry when it comes to social engineering.
If you're that worried, just make another crypto wallet, send the money to that and then make your purchase. Your employer doesn't know who owns that other account. If you're really worried about traceability, use BitTornado, and any would-be hobbyist investigator is fucked.
Cute that you think corruption in fiat isn't part of the design. You do know how, for example, the federal reserve in US works, right?
Wut. Immutable OSs are super hip right now
You have no idea what that phrase means.
The "immutable" I'm talking about here is not in the sense of "immutable OS", but rather immutable like punched cards. You literally needed to punch another set of cards if your program contained a bug. You need to create another smart contract to replace your buggy program. Paying gas fees for it.