10 ms·

You do have to trust yourself to have 100% flawless security because one slip and you lose that $1B to a Chinese hacker with no hope of ever getting it back.

by erfgh 6y ago

gruez 6y ago
It's not limited to cryptocurrency. eg. companies losing millions from phishing https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/phishing-email-scam-stole-100-million-from-facebook-and-google.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/phishing-email-scam-stole-10...
- andrewzah 6y ago
  The point is that there are options available to you when you use i.e. a credit card to spend money, versus bitcoin. With btc you will never, ever have a chance of getting it back once it's spent or if someone takes control of your wallet. To be fair, debit cards and wire transfers have a similar issue. However there are still ways to get your money back in some situations.
aey 6y ago
Not quite. You can bribe the miners with your old private key if you act fast enough :)
- lenwood 6y ago
  How do you contact a miner? Can you give an example of this? I've read this before but I'm curious to learn more specifics.
  - timcc50 6y ago
    You would need to know them personally. There are lots of big mining farms around the world, and many smaller ones. You would need to be friends with the big ones to pull anything like this off.
    - ypcx 6y ago
      And people would start losing trust in the network if this was happening, thus the value of the currency would start dropping, thus all the network participants including the miners would be in a losing position in the long run, which is not what you are looking for after you have invested money in the mining equipment and the whole operation. That's why the total "hash rate" (the computational effort spent by all the participating miners) is in direct relation to the perceived value of the currency.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Assuming miners are smart, you can 'bribe' them without ever speaking to them. Your coins have been transfered to Mr Evil in block number 6000. Simply publish a transaction which pays your $1B in bitcoins to another address you control with a $200M transaction fee. Any rational miner who sees this will decide to 'undo' Mr Evils transaction and all that occur after it by acting as if those transactions don't exist. They will mine your new transaction as part of a new block number 6000, and pocket the $200M for themselves. However, they will need to make sure their block number 6000 remains part of the chain. By the time they've done this, block number 6001 and 6002 have been mined on top of Mr Evils transaction in block 6000. That means someone must mine block 6001 and 6002 again, at significant computatonal cost. To do that, the miner who mined the new block 6000 can incentivise others to work on top of their block by paying the 200M to themselves, but again with a big fee. The above only works if all miners are rational, and have coded this strategy into their mining pools. Are there examples of this happening in practice? (There will be public evidence of it in the blockchain).
    - sukilot 6y ago
      I presume double spends happen often, as people try to trick counterparties who don't wait long enough for transactions to settle. Note that neither branch of a double spend is the "real one" (the feelings of the double spender don't matter), only the future development of the chains picks which is real and which is fake. It's basically equivalent to putting a bank check in one envelope, and another check in another, for a total that overdraws your account, and then sending them out to pay people. It's unknown which payment is invalid, until later.
    - aey 6y ago
      Bitcoin is a fascinating thing. People think this is a bug, but I think it's a feature. The cost of physical settlement and risk is measurable and transparent to everyone involved. If you think that a bank transfer has less risk, you are not looking in all the right places :)
thekuanysh 6y ago
Why do you have to add “Chinese”?
- beaner 6y ago
  Who cares? It could be anything. Random descriptions add flavor. Bitcoin is also popular in China anyway.
  - ttam 6y ago
    As a Chinese, I care.
    - beaner 6y ago
      Would you have cared if they said "Russian hacker"?
  - ska 6y ago
    > Random descriptions add flavor. That's not flavor.
  - MathCodeLove 6y ago
    Not Chinese, I also care. That comment is an example of subtle racism. Image the following comment: "You better buy a good bike lock, else you're at risk of having it stolen by a black man." A comment like the one above would spark near universal outrage at the commenter, and with good reason. It's racist, and the original comment here is the same. Unnecessarily racist.
    - tossmeout 6y ago
      You're incorrect. Chinese is a nationality, not a race, which means this isn't racism. An accurate description would be that this is stereotyping on the basis of nationality. As such, a more accurate comparison than "black man stealing a bike" would be to something like a "Nigerian scammer," which is an archetype I don't think most of us have a problem with. Other examples I never see complaints about: "Russian hacker," "American imperialist," etc.
staplers 6y ago
This happens all the time with wire transfers. It's no different. Banks don't care. Example: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida-woman-loses-61000-in-wire-transfer/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida...
- remmargorp64 6y ago
  I don't understand how banks can claim to have federal FDIC-insured protection of $250,000 per depositor if they don't actually reimburse you when a simple wire transfer fraud happens??
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Because the insurance is against the bank being unable to pay deposits due to bank insolvency. The FDIC does not insure depositors against wire transfer fraud.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - remmargorp64 6y ago
      I did some more research and it looks like the EFTA (Electronic Fund Transfer Act) protects electronic funds transfers (EFTs) in bank accounts, not the FDIC. https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828 https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828
- dwighteb 6y ago
  I didn't see where the banks are at fault in the above article. It appeared that the woman received a fraudulent email on where to wire the money. This fraudulent email did not come from the banks. So, how could they be liable if she provided them bad information? GIGO. I'm not saying banks care, just this article doesn't highlight that very well.
  - 6y ago
co_dh 6y ago
why Chinese hacker? Discrimination.

You do have to trust yourself to have 100% flawless security because one slip and you lose that $1B to a Chinese hacker with no hope of ever getting it back.

by erfgh 6y ago

You do have to trust yourself to have 100% flawless security because one slip and you lose that $1B to a Chinese hacker with no hope of ever getting it back.

gruez 6y ago

It's not limited to cryptocurrency. eg. companies losing millions from phishing https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/phishing-email-scam-stole-100-million-from-facebook-and-google.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/phishing-email-scam-stole-10...

andrewzah 6y ago
The point is that there are options available to you when you use i.e. a credit card to spend money, versus bitcoin. With btc you will never, ever have a chance of getting it back once it's spent or if someone takes control of your wallet. To be fair, debit cards and wire transfers have a similar issue. However there are still ways to get your money back in some situations.

aey 6y ago

Not quite. You can bribe the miners with your old private key if you act fast enough :)

lenwood 6y ago
How do you contact a miner? Can you give an example of this? I've read this before but I'm curious to learn more specifics.
- timcc50 6y ago
  You would need to know them personally. There are lots of big mining farms around the world, and many smaller ones. You would need to be friends with the big ones to pull anything like this off.
  - ypcx 6y ago
    And people would start losing trust in the network if this was happening, thus the value of the currency would start dropping, thus all the network participants including the miners would be in a losing position in the long run, which is not what you are looking for after you have invested money in the mining equipment and the whole operation. That's why the total "hash rate" (the computational effort spent by all the participating miners) is in direct relation to the perceived value of the currency.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Assuming miners are smart, you can 'bribe' them without ever speaking to them. Your coins have been transfered to Mr Evil in block number 6000. Simply publish a transaction which pays your $1B in bitcoins to another address you control with a $200M transaction fee. Any rational miner who sees this will decide to 'undo' Mr Evils transaction and all that occur after it by acting as if those transactions don't exist. They will mine your new transaction as part of a new block number 6000, and pocket the $200M for themselves. However, they will need to make sure their block number 6000 remains part of the chain. By the time they've done this, block number 6001 and 6002 have been mined on top of Mr Evils transaction in block 6000. That means someone must mine block 6001 and 6002 again, at significant computatonal cost. To do that, the miner who mined the new block 6000 can incentivise others to work on top of their block by paying the 200M to themselves, but again with a big fee. The above only works if all miners are rational, and have coded this strategy into their mining pools. Are there examples of this happening in practice? (There will be public evidence of it in the blockchain).
  - sukilot 6y ago
    I presume double spends happen often, as people try to trick counterparties who don't wait long enough for transactions to settle. Note that neither branch of a double spend is the "real one" (the feelings of the double spender don't matter), only the future development of the chains picks which is real and which is fake. It's basically equivalent to putting a bank check in one envelope, and another check in another, for a total that overdraws your account, and then sending them out to pay people. It's unknown which payment is invalid, until later.
  - aey 6y ago
    Bitcoin is a fascinating thing. People think this is a bug, but I think it's a feature. The cost of physical settlement and risk is measurable and transparent to everyone involved. If you think that a bank transfer has less risk, you are not looking in all the right places :)

thekuanysh 6y ago

Why do you have to add “Chinese”?

beaner 6y ago
Who cares? It could be anything. Random descriptions add flavor. Bitcoin is also popular in China anyway.
- ttam 6y ago
  As a Chinese, I care.
  - beaner 6y ago
    Would you have cared if they said "Russian hacker"?
- ska 6y ago
  > Random descriptions add flavor. That's not flavor.
- MathCodeLove 6y ago
  Not Chinese, I also care. That comment is an example of subtle racism. Image the following comment: "You better buy a good bike lock, else you're at risk of having it stolen by a black man." A comment like the one above would spark near universal outrage at the commenter, and with good reason. It's racist, and the original comment here is the same. Unnecessarily racist.
  - tossmeout 6y ago
    You're incorrect. Chinese is a nationality, not a race, which means this isn't racism. An accurate description would be that this is stereotyping on the basis of nationality. As such, a more accurate comparison than "black man stealing a bike" would be to something like a "Nigerian scammer," which is an archetype I don't think most of us have a problem with. Other examples I never see complaints about: "Russian hacker," "American imperialist," etc.

staplers 6y ago

This happens all the time with wire transfers. It's no different. Banks don't care. Example: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida-woman-loses-61000-in-wire-transfer/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida...

remmargorp64 6y ago
I don't understand how banks can claim to have federal FDIC-insured protection of $250,000 per depositor if they don't actually reimburse you when a simple wire transfer fraud happens??
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Because the insurance is against the bank being unable to pay deposits due to bank insolvency. The FDIC does not insure depositors against wire transfer fraud.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - remmargorp64 6y ago
    I did some more research and it looks like the EFTA (Electronic Fund Transfer Act) protects electronic funds transfers (EFTs) in bank accounts, not the FDIC. https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828 https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828
dwighteb 6y ago
I didn't see where the banks are at fault in the above article. It appeared that the woman received a fraudulent email on where to wire the money. This fraudulent email did not come from the banks. So, how could they be liable if she provided them bad information? GIGO. I'm not saying banks care, just this article doesn't highlight that very well.
- 6y ago

co_dh 6y ago

why Chinese hacker? Discrimination.