6 ms·

They are tainting the stolen coins to avoid them to be sold. What’s the point of having a decentralized currency if a centralized entity make the decisions anyw

They are tainting the stolen coins to avoid them to be sold. What’s the point of having a decentralized currency if a centralized entity make the decisions anyway at the end of day?

CryptoPunk 9y ago
NEM (the cryptocurrency that was stolen) isn't decentralized.
- viach 9y ago
  Why not using a web site built on postgres or mysql database to track balances then, instead of using blockchain and call the thing "cryptocurrency"?
  - xaqfox 9y ago
    One could argue that it offers more transparency.
    - vec 9y ago
      Okay, then why not using a web site built on a SQL database with a read-only public login?
      - optimuspaul 9y ago
        the transparency is this case is more than just being seen, but also that it can be proven to not have been altered. (I think there are better ways to do this than a blockchain)
  - gowld 9y ago
    Why is "Statistics" called "Machine Learning" ? $$hype$$
    - make3 9y ago
      insinuating that the only reason people say machine learning and not statistics is just false. the term machine learning refers to a specific part of statistics that is very different from statistics as a whole.
      - rublev 9y ago
        He is making that exact point.
      - debt 9y ago
        hmm still sounds like statistics to me
        make3 9y ago
        why are apple not just called fruits? because there is utility in calling apples apples and not just fruits, because we want to know specifically which subpart of the group fruits you are eating or there is in the pie, not because apples are so damn popular
      - laichzeit0 9y ago
        A lot of it is actually called Statistical Learning. Google that term. Some techniques are not classified as such, at least not yet, e.g. deep convolutional neural networks.
  - Pharaoh2 9y ago
    Because this way you have a public ledger that can't be mutated without notifying the public. Not everything that blockchain gives is for the trust distributed use case. For that fact, proof of work is the only thing that is purely there because bitcoin's blockchain needs a distributed trust system.
    - spookthesunset 9y ago
      > Because this way you have a public ledger that can't be mutated without notifying the public. Can't this be done with something like git?
      - Pharaoh2 9y ago
        Which is basically what a blockchain is... Just that instead of a cryptographically append-only acyclic directed graph, its a cryptographically append-only linked list.
  - chvid 9y ago
    Because then it would be evident to anyone that you were running a pyramid scheme and law enforcement could shut you down by just closing down a single server?
    - corv 9y ago
      What pyramid scheme?
    - viach 9y ago
      Is it still applicable to NEM, as it's centralized?
  - labrador 9y ago
    See Blockchain or Bullshit on Hackernoon: https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-or-bullshit-429653de42d3 https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-or-bullshit-429653de42d3
  - mikekchar 9y ago
    Lots of companies do exactly this. For example, in Japan, where I live, the train and bus companies will give you a card. You can "put money" on the card and then spend it on travel. You can also use the cards to buy things in the convenience stores, some restaurants, vending machines, etc, etc. You can think of this as a "coin" that's pegged against prevailing currency (in my case, the yen). It's not a "cryptocoin" since there is no "crypto" involved, but as there is barely any "crypto" involved in cryptocoins anyway, I think that's a bit of a moot point. There are problems with this model. First you have to trust the central authority with your money. They could do a runner and there would be nothing you could do about it. In fact, when I lived in the UK, I discovered that London Transport often mischarges - it forgets where you "tapped in" or "tapped out" and charges you the maximum possible charge for your journey. In order to get your money back, you have to register your card and apply within a specific time period to get refunded. If you don't know the procedure, don't want to give out your person information, don't realise you were mischarged or wait too long -- sorry, your money is gone (Really big piece of advice for anyone using an Oyster card: Register it and check the charges every day. Unless things have gotten better in the last few years, I'm sure you will be extremely surprised at the charges). The problem here is that the payment processor has all the power in the transaction. They can just take your money if they feel like it. Also, they can refuse to pay for things if they feel like it. Finally, they are a single point of failure. If they have technical (or financial!) problems, then you may not be able to spend your money. Whether or not you assume initiatives like Bitcoin were started as a scam, the implementation potentially solves a lot of the problems of these payment processors. Importantly, if you put your coins in a central exchange you are right back to square one! No amount of crypto goodness will save you from the exchange shenanigans because they control your wallet. This is why things like the Lightning Network are interesting. It allows for centralised payment processors, but with distributed guarantees about who owns the coins and where and when they can spend them. I find it incredibly unfortunate that "cryptocoins" endure such incredible hype and involve so much real (and imagined) money. So many power plays, so many scams, so much FUD. But at the centre of it, these are interesting real problems. Once the dust settles it will be quite nice to see what useful results actually emerge.
    - marcus_holmes 9y ago
  - zanny 9y ago
    Because one gets millions in investor rounds and the other doesn't, regardless of technical merit. Dollar signs a person doesn't understand but sees as easy cash is the equivalent to a lightbulb being turned on amidst a swarm of insects.
- mtgx 9y ago
  And neither is Ripple, both of which seem to be the most affected.
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  What do you mean? It is intended to be decentralized, I am curious as to why you think it isn't. (Possible misunderstanding/etc?)
  - lojack 9y ago
    Saying something isn’t decentralized in the crypto world can mean any of a number of things. The problem is that decentralization isn’t one specific thing that can be measured. There’s absolute centralization like a mainframe controlled by a single individual not connected to the outside world. Beyond that nothing else is absolute, there’s just varying degrees of decentralization. You could have a slightly decentralized governance like a consortium that votes on how to manage the mainframe. You could have a distributed network of computers all managed by a single entity. Each of those have elements of centralization and decentralization. Within those categories there is varying levels of decentralization. For instance there could be a completely democratic organization that votes on how to manage the mainframe or more of a republic style where members vote on a person to manage the mainframe for them. So, when someone says something isn’t decentralized in the crypto world they typically mean some element is centralized or is slightly less decentralized. For bitcoin you will see people say this in reference to large mining pools that have the power to control consensus to a certain extent. For NEM, they’re probably referring to the fact that the nodes that control the network are closed source. Since they are closed source that means one entity can control the direction of the network, and one can’t simply fork what they’re building. I’m of the opinion that there will never be complete decentralization, and every project will have some degree is centralization. We’ll get better with time, but I think decentralization is an inherently intractable problem.
chrononaut 9y ago
Perhaps I am misunderstanding how tracking coins typically happens, but if "tainting" the coins effectively prohibits the actors from withdrawing at their perceived value, how would this work if the actor decided to send the vast majority coins to many random, arbitrary accounts? (e.g. arbitrarily sending coins to everyone who has committed a trade on some exchange in the last X days.) Would enough information be known to allow an actor to enumerate arbitrary public addresses thus use this to attempt to hide in the crowd?
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > how would this work if the actor decided to send the vast majority coins to many random, arbitrary accounts? (e.g. arbitrarily sending coins to everyone who has Then they'd have to take those coins off the blacklist, or else prepare to deal with an increasingly intractable tracking problem. Ethically, that would be the less bad option, since the thief would be deprived off the income, even if it's not returned to the victim.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    What if a portion of those sent coins are sent to attacker-owned wallets?
    - jowsie 9y ago
      Crypto laundering seems pretty interesting.
    - jnbiche 9y ago
      If it's a non-negligible amount compared to other wallets, that would be pretty easy to track down. I mean, you'd look at new wallets compared to existing wallets.
      - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        The attackers can still poison new wallets that appear on the chain - either you effectively shut down new wallet creation, or let the attackers possibly spend their coins.
ReverseCold 9y ago
The hacker can still move coins around on chain, they just can't turn it into fiat (since they broke a real law by a real government, they can't be given the fiat.)
debt 9y ago
Stop! You're using reason and logic! You sound rational!
josu 9y ago
I wonder what would happen if they did an airdrop of part of those stolen coins in some random wallets. Like $1M USD each for random 100 lucky winners. Would they be able to redeem them?

They are tainting the stolen coins to avoid them to be sold. What’s the point of having a decentralized currency if a centralized entity make the decisions anyway at the end of day?

CryptoPunk 9y ago

NEM (the cryptocurrency that was stolen) isn't decentralized.

viach 9y ago
Why not using a web site built on postgres or mysql database to track balances then, instead of using blockchain and call the thing "cryptocurrency"?
- xaqfox 9y ago
  One could argue that it offers more transparency.
  - vec 9y ago
    Okay, then why not using a web site built on a SQL database with a read-only public login?
    - optimuspaul 9y ago
      the transparency is this case is more than just being seen, but also that it can be proven to not have been altered. (I think there are better ways to do this than a blockchain)
- gowld 9y ago
  Why is "Statistics" called "Machine Learning" ? $$hype$$
  - make3 9y ago
    insinuating that the only reason people say machine learning and not statistics is just false. the term machine learning refers to a specific part of statistics that is very different from statistics as a whole.
    - rublev 9y ago
      He is making that exact point.
    - debt 9y ago
      hmm still sounds like statistics to me
      - make3 9y ago
        why are apple not just called fruits? because there is utility in calling apples apples and not just fruits, because we want to know specifically which subpart of the group fruits you are eating or there is in the pie, not because apples are so damn popular
    - laichzeit0 9y ago
      A lot of it is actually called Statistical Learning. Google that term. Some techniques are not classified as such, at least not yet, e.g. deep convolutional neural networks.
- Pharaoh2 9y ago
  Because this way you have a public ledger that can't be mutated without notifying the public. Not everything that blockchain gives is for the trust distributed use case. For that fact, proof of work is the only thing that is purely there because bitcoin's blockchain needs a distributed trust system.
  - spookthesunset 9y ago
    > Because this way you have a public ledger that can't be mutated without notifying the public. Can't this be done with something like git?
    - Pharaoh2 9y ago
      Which is basically what a blockchain is... Just that instead of a cryptographically append-only acyclic directed graph, its a cryptographically append-only linked list.
- chvid 9y ago
  Because then it would be evident to anyone that you were running a pyramid scheme and law enforcement could shut you down by just closing down a single server?
  - corv 9y ago
    What pyramid scheme?
  - viach 9y ago
    Is it still applicable to NEM, as it's centralized?
- labrador 9y ago
  See Blockchain or Bullshit on Hackernoon: https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-or-bullshit-429653de42d3 https://hackernoon.com/blockchain-or-bullshit-429653de42d3
- mikekchar 9y ago
  Lots of companies do exactly this. For example, in Japan, where I live, the train and bus companies will give you a card. You can "put money" on the card and then spend it on travel. You can also use the cards to buy things in the convenience stores, some restaurants, vending machines, etc, etc. You can think of this as a "coin" that's pegged against prevailing currency (in my case, the yen). It's not a "cryptocoin" since there is no "crypto" involved, but as there is barely any "crypto" involved in cryptocoins anyway, I think that's a bit of a moot point. There are problems with this model. First you have to trust the central authority with your money. They could do a runner and there would be nothing you could do about it. In fact, when I lived in the UK, I discovered that London Transport often mischarges - it forgets where you "tapped in" or "tapped out" and charges you the maximum possible charge for your journey. In order to get your money back, you have to register your card and apply within a specific time period to get refunded. If you don't know the procedure, don't want to give out your person information, don't realise you were mischarged or wait too long -- sorry, your money is gone (Really big piece of advice for anyone using an Oyster card: Register it and check the charges every day. Unless things have gotten better in the last few years, I'm sure you will be extremely surprised at the charges). The problem here is that the payment processor has all the power in the transaction. They can just take your money if they feel like it. Also, they can refuse to pay for things if they feel like it. Finally, they are a single point of failure. If they have technical (or financial!) problems, then you may not be able to spend your money. Whether or not you assume initiatives like Bitcoin were started as a scam, the implementation potentially solves a lot of the problems of these payment processors. Importantly, if you put your coins in a central exchange you are right back to square one! No amount of crypto goodness will save you from the exchange shenanigans because they control your wallet. This is why things like the Lightning Network are interesting. It allows for centralised payment processors, but with distributed guarantees about who owns the coins and where and when they can spend them. I find it incredibly unfortunate that "cryptocoins" endure such incredible hype and involve so much real (and imagined) money. So many power plays, so many scams, so much FUD. But at the centre of it, these are interesting real problems. Once the dust settles it will be quite nice to see what useful results actually emerge.
  - marcus_holmes 9y ago
- zanny 9y ago
  Because one gets millions in investor rounds and the other doesn't, regardless of technical merit. Dollar signs a person doesn't understand but sees as easy cash is the equivalent to a lightbulb being turned on amidst a swarm of insects.
mtgx 9y ago
And neither is Ripple, both of which seem to be the most affected.
ReverseCold 9y ago
What do you mean? It is intended to be decentralized, I am curious as to why you think it isn't. (Possible misunderstanding/etc?)
- lojack 9y ago
  Saying something isn’t decentralized in the crypto world can mean any of a number of things. The problem is that decentralization isn’t one specific thing that can be measured. There’s absolute centralization like a mainframe controlled by a single individual not connected to the outside world. Beyond that nothing else is absolute, there’s just varying degrees of decentralization. You could have a slightly decentralized governance like a consortium that votes on how to manage the mainframe. You could have a distributed network of computers all managed by a single entity. Each of those have elements of centralization and decentralization. Within those categories there is varying levels of decentralization. For instance there could be a completely democratic organization that votes on how to manage the mainframe or more of a republic style where members vote on a person to manage the mainframe for them. So, when someone says something isn’t decentralized in the crypto world they typically mean some element is centralized or is slightly less decentralized. For bitcoin you will see people say this in reference to large mining pools that have the power to control consensus to a certain extent. For NEM, they’re probably referring to the fact that the nodes that control the network are closed source. Since they are closed source that means one entity can control the direction of the network, and one can’t simply fork what they’re building. I’m of the opinion that there will never be complete decentralization, and every project will have some degree is centralization. We’ll get better with time, but I think decentralization is an inherently intractable problem.

chrononaut 9y ago

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how tracking coins typically happens, but if "tainting" the coins effectively prohibits the actors from withdrawing at their perceived value, how would this work if the actor decided to send the vast majority coins to many random, arbitrary accounts? (e.g. arbitrarily sending coins to everyone who has committed a trade on some exchange in the last X days.) Would enough information be known to allow an actor to enumerate arbitrary public addresses thus use this to attempt to hide in the crowd?

jnbiche 9y ago
> how would this work if the actor decided to send the vast majority coins to many random, arbitrary accounts? (e.g. arbitrarily sending coins to everyone who has Then they'd have to take those coins off the blacklist, or else prepare to deal with an increasingly intractable tracking problem. Ethically, that would be the less bad option, since the thief would be deprived off the income, even if it's not returned to the victim.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  What if a portion of those sent coins are sent to attacker-owned wallets?
  - jowsie 9y ago
    Crypto laundering seems pretty interesting.
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    If it's a non-negligible amount compared to other wallets, that would be pretty easy to track down. I mean, you'd look at new wallets compared to existing wallets.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      The attackers can still poison new wallets that appear on the chain - either you effectively shut down new wallet creation, or let the attackers possibly spend their coins.

ReverseCold 9y ago

The hacker can still move coins around on chain, they just can't turn it into fiat (since they broke a real law by a real government, they can't be given the fiat.)

debt 9y ago

Stop! You're using reason and logic! You sound rational!

josu 9y ago

I wonder what would happen if they did an airdrop of part of those stolen coins in some random wallets. Like $1M USD each for random 100 lucky winners. Would they be able to redeem them?