4 ms·

I believe around February ‘20, a large Microsoft security issue was revealed, their stock was up 2%. A counter example would be Ubiquity that did drop, after t

I believe around February ‘20, a large Microsoft security issue was revealed, their stock was up 2%. A counter example would be Ubiquity that did drop, after the article by Krebs was released. Generally, bugs, even catastrophic ones can be an excuse to sell a position but never cause a sell-off. At least that has been my observation.

elpakal 5y ago
Anecdotal but I feel like investors in equities are probably pretty different than investors Krypto.
- bardworx 5y ago
  You’re not wrong.
TecoAndJix 5y ago
SolarWinds tanked after their news and still have not recovered
- bardworx 5y ago
  I mean, they had a forward P/E ration of like 22, which was overvalued. They’re a more respectable 13x, it seems. But that’s the idea…SWI was overvalued, and when the hack came, they sold off. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that any overvalued company will sell off on bad news but “good” companies will hardly budge. P.S. I do believe that Coinbase would sell off on similar news, for a myriad of reasons. But I’ve been wrong enough times that I wouldn’t put money on it.
rubyn00bie 5y ago
Cryptocurrency is a different type of asset than a stock when it comes to (technical) security problems and thus has a vastly different risk profile than a stock. If Microsoft has a security issue, it _may_ affect _some_ users, they are still generating revenue and likely have insurance to cover some of the worst possible situations. Courts provide ways to assist in the real life "undo" button. There is no (technical) security issue, I am aware of, Microsoft could encounter that would cause it to immediately fold without nearly fathomable levels of coordinated negligence or World War against Microsoft. If cryptocurrencies have a security issue, the entire asset can be irreversibly destroyed with _nothing_ of value left over. Imagine a cryptocurrency called $41TC01N (ShitCoin) has a zero-day that allows any wallet to be trivially compromised, by the time people take action or even understand the nature of the issue-- the attacker could have emptied and exchanged nearly every wallet on the network. The ones left with funds would be worth nothing, because the value has been irreversibly transferred outta the asset. There was a cryptocurrency of some kind recently that is only in existence because the hacker graciously gave it back. Like, I'm pretty sure, long-term decentralized currencies aren't going to end up as cool as people think they are... distributed ledgers might be, for archival purposes, but like... I ain't seen anything even mildly useful but crappy-DRM, err my bad, I mean NFTs be executed on the blockchain.
- trevyn 5y ago
  With an attack that bad, everyone agrees to apply the patch and roll the network back to the block before the attack. The real hit is to the exchanges, but they’re aware of the risk and typically have procedures and enough buffer to deal with this. The real value is in the code, the minds of the users, and the ledger itself.
  - nfin 5y ago
    what if everyone can trivially sign a message showing he is the (suppoesedly) rightful owner of an asset in that previous block (or earlier)? That is what would happen if there is a huge security hole (like private keys were generated by a broken RNG… This has actually partially happened in bitcoin [not in a grand scale, but for individual users with some wallets], some coins have been stolen and others given back by white hat hackers like /r/joehoe, … It could be given back, because the errors were either in RNG or similar, and the crypto used was not fundamentally broken. But the day this would happen, a battle tested crypto completely broken overnight… which is very seldomly the case, then no way to know who was the rightful owner… if anyone can sign an equal valid message). But yes you are right, in other cases that are more likely to happen, things would not break for everybody all at once
edoceo 5y ago
RBLX offline for days, still in good shape.

elpakal 5y ago

Anecdotal but I feel like investors in equities are probably pretty different than investors Krypto.

bardworx 5y ago
You’re not wrong.

TecoAndJix 5y ago

SolarWinds tanked after their news and still have not recovered

bardworx 5y ago
I mean, they had a forward P/E ration of like 22, which was overvalued. They’re a more respectable 13x, it seems. But that’s the idea…SWI was overvalued, and when the hack came, they sold off. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that any overvalued company will sell off on bad news but “good” companies will hardly budge. P.S. I do believe that Coinbase would sell off on similar news, for a myriad of reasons. But I’ve been wrong enough times that I wouldn’t put money on it.

rubyn00bie 5y ago

Cryptocurrency is a different type of asset than a stock when it comes to (technical) security problems and thus has a vastly different risk profile than a stock. If Microsoft has a security issue, it _may_ affect _some_ users, they are still generating revenue and likely have insurance to cover some of the worst possible situations. Courts provide ways to assist in the real life "undo" button. There is no (technical) security issue, I am aware of, Microsoft could encounter that would cause it to immediately fold without nearly fathomable levels of coordinated negligence or World War against Microsoft. If cryptocurrencies have a security issue, the entire asset can be irreversibly destroyed with _nothing_ of value left over. Imagine a cryptocurrency called $41TC01N (ShitCoin) has a zero-day that allows any wallet to be trivially compromised, by the time people take action or even understand the nature of the issue-- the attacker could have emptied and exchanged nearly every wallet on the network. The ones left with funds would be worth nothing, because the value has been irreversibly transferred outta the asset. There was a cryptocurrency of some kind recently that is only in existence because the hacker graciously gave it back. Like, I'm pretty sure, long-term decentralized currencies aren't going to end up as cool as people think they are... distributed ledgers might be, for archival purposes, but like... I ain't seen anything even mildly useful but crappy-DRM, err my bad, I mean NFTs be executed on the blockchain.

trevyn 5y ago
With an attack that bad, everyone agrees to apply the patch and roll the network back to the block before the attack. The real hit is to the exchanges, but they’re aware of the risk and typically have procedures and enough buffer to deal with this. The real value is in the code, the minds of the users, and the ledger itself.
- nfin 5y ago
  what if everyone can trivially sign a message showing he is the (suppoesedly) rightful owner of an asset in that previous block (or earlier)? That is what would happen if there is a huge security hole (like private keys were generated by a broken RNG… This has actually partially happened in bitcoin [not in a grand scale, but for individual users with some wallets], some coins have been stolen and others given back by white hat hackers like /r/joehoe, … It could be given back, because the errors were either in RNG or similar, and the crypto used was not fundamentally broken. But the day this would happen, a battle tested crypto completely broken overnight… which is very seldomly the case, then no way to know who was the rightful owner… if anyone can sign an equal valid message). But yes you are right, in other cases that are more likely to happen, things would not break for everybody all at once

edoceo 5y ago

RBLX offline for days, still in good shape.