3 ms·
It’s very hard to take this claim seriously in this thread, which details a huge (and somewhat obvious) security vulnerability in a currency worth at least $600
by uncomputation 5y ago
It’s very hard to take this claim seriously in this thread, which details a huge (and somewhat obvious) security vulnerability in a currency worth at least $600m (an amount anyone would assume is “first-tier”).
- crypt1d 5y agoYeah I can understand that. Once you dive into crypto however, you quickly realize that $600m is just not that much money (especially not if we are talking about digital assets valued at current ticker price). And that lots of money isn't necessarily the right measure of quality of the project.
- fny 5y agoLol, even 1% of $600M is $6M. That's a lot of money. You'd have to have garbage liquidity to only get back 1%.
- christkv 5y agoIt’s valued at 600 million that does not mean it can be liquidated for 600 million.
- smaryjerry 5y agoThat is literally what that means. Market caps are what they are because everyone who thinks it is worth less has sold and everyone who thinks it’s worth that or more will buy. There’s some outliers but in general these coins are trading their entire market cap over the course of maybe a month or less. Liquid generally means short term, if you can sell it for cash in under a year then it is liquid. Sure if you tried to sell all coin today in the same minute you won’t find a buyer but over a month this happens all the time.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hjorthjort 5y agoI had never heard of this bridge before the attack. The fact that a project manages to attract half a billion in capital unfortunately doesn't say all that much, since so much capital is flowing in so fast to every project with a pulse. And the bug wasn't really obvious, although the lack of input sanitation is something an auditor (given enough time) would probably point out.