5 ms·

A 2012 Bitcoin hack victim was none other than a lead developer of Bitcoin. Back then, they ran a Bitcoin faucet on it that gave out a paltry 0.25 Bitcoin at a

A 2012 Bitcoin hack victim was none other than a lead developer of Bitcoin. Back then, they ran a Bitcoin faucet on it that gave out a paltry 0.25 Bitcoin at a time. I never bothered to jump through those hoops for like a dollar (now about US$10k): http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/03/bitcoin-faucet-hacked.html?m=1 http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/03/bitcoin-faucet-hacked.... He only lost 5 bitcoin (like $20 then or $200k today), but another lost 3100, or around… $124 million today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66916.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66916.0 They ran a Bitcoin mining pool and this hack motivated them to create a hardware wallet: https://blog.trezor.io/how-trezor-was-born-from-a-hacking-attack-that-affected-slush-pool-7a538f03fd8f https://blog.trezor.io/how-trezor-was-born-from-a-hacking-at...

glofish 5y ago
somebody please explain to me how is it possible that the owner reports losing $124 million, then they casually mention in the reply that: no problem, I'll just cover it with my own money ... (another recent story on ether hack had the same "resolution" the organization just chose to replaced the losses) ... where is that money coming from? does not seem real
- dsl 5y ago
  Because back then the price of bitcoin was much lower. It is $124 million in today dollars, like $1,000 in back then dollars.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  That’s what it would be worth now. Was worth like 1/10000th of that back then. They probably covered it with their previously earned holdings that could have been another fraction of that.
- saghm 5y ago
  I imagine they repaid the value of the bitcoins at the time, which would have been a lot less
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vel0city 5y ago
  The 3,094 BTC stolen happened in 2012. The price of BTC in March of 2012 was ~$3-5 USD, so ~$15,500K on the high end and ~$9,300 on the low end.
tempnow987 5y ago
Wow, that some major root level compromise at linode. It's interesting how quiet they kept these things in those days.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  One of the many reasons every country needs more serious, standard, and mandatory public disclosure laws for cloud infrastructure breaches.
  - folmar 5y ago
    Looking from the end user end it seems nice, but will soon be weaponized in all possible mannar, sloppily executed, and too much data to ingest. For reference there is mandatory disclosure of (serious) data breaches in the GPDR and it's very uncommon that the disclosure actually occurs.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      Target should have had difficulty surviving as a company as a result of penalties-if-not-prison for their 2013 breach, but we see what happened there.
      - bigiain 5y ago
        Should that same existential penalty be applied to every company who had Log4J running in prod a few months back? That was a much more widespread root compromise...
        lallysingh 5y ago
        Vulnerability != Compromise
        rhizome 5y ago
        Not comparable. Log4j was a vulnerability in the software, not leaving their shit open and and putting all their cash registers on an intranet available to the internet. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/09/inside-target-corp-days-after-2013-breach/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/09/inside-target-corp-days-...
ipaddr 5y ago
The one thing I don't understand is if that many coins were stolen and every transaction is traceable shouldn't there be a trail? The owner has 124 million reasons to find those coins. Is the ability to track past transactions not as possible as it seems?
- ludamad 5y ago
  You can track, but large amounts merge with small and disperse as they hit brokers etc. If your claim to someone is that their BTC is 0.01% stolen, it's not so strong. Faster you act, more you can do
JohnTHaller 5y ago
That makes it a little over $12,000 at the time. Which is likely why there was no big hubbub about it.

glofish 5y ago

somebody please explain to me how is it possible that the owner reports losing $124 million, then they casually mention in the reply that: no problem, I'll just cover it with my own money ... (another recent story on ether hack had the same "resolution" the organization just chose to replaced the losses) ... where is that money coming from? does not seem real

dsl 5y ago
Because back then the price of bitcoin was much lower. It is $124 million in today dollars, like $1,000 in back then dollars.
Scoundreller 5y ago
That’s what it would be worth now. Was worth like 1/10000th of that back then. They probably covered it with their previously earned holdings that could have been another fraction of that.
saghm 5y ago
I imagine they repaid the value of the bitcoins at the time, which would have been a lot less
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vel0city 5y ago
The 3,094 BTC stolen happened in 2012. The price of BTC in March of 2012 was ~$3-5 USD, so ~$15,500K on the high end and ~$9,300 on the low end.

tempnow987 5y ago

Wow, that some major root level compromise at linode. It's interesting how quiet they kept these things in those days.

ethbr0 5y ago
One of the many reasons every country needs more serious, standard, and mandatory public disclosure laws for cloud infrastructure breaches.
- folmar 5y ago
  Looking from the end user end it seems nice, but will soon be weaponized in all possible mannar, sloppily executed, and too much data to ingest. For reference there is mandatory disclosure of (serious) data breaches in the GPDR and it's very uncommon that the disclosure actually occurs.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    Target should have had difficulty surviving as a company as a result of penalties-if-not-prison for their 2013 breach, but we see what happened there.
    - bigiain 5y ago
      Should that same existential penalty be applied to every company who had Log4J running in prod a few months back? That was a much more widespread root compromise...
      - lallysingh 5y ago
        Vulnerability != Compromise
      - rhizome 5y ago
        Not comparable. Log4j was a vulnerability in the software, not leaving their shit open and and putting all their cash registers on an intranet available to the internet. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/09/inside-target-corp-days-after-2013-breach/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/09/inside-target-corp-days-...

ipaddr 5y ago

The one thing I don't understand is if that many coins were stolen and every transaction is traceable shouldn't there be a trail? The owner has 124 million reasons to find those coins. Is the ability to track past transactions not as possible as it seems?

ludamad 5y ago
You can track, but large amounts merge with small and disperse as they hit brokers etc. If your claim to someone is that their BTC is 0.01% stolen, it's not so strong. Faster you act, more you can do

JohnTHaller 5y ago

That makes it a little over $12,000 at the time. Which is likely why there was no big hubbub about it.