5 ms·

do we really think that an entire nation state is unable to set up the apparatus to cheat a few measly KYC checks? coin to coin exchanges do not require KYC, s

do we really think that an entire nation state is unable to set up the apparatus to cheat a few measly KYC checks? coin to coin exchanges do not require KYC, so hypothetically if they can beat KYC (which surely they can) they wouldn't even need to be depositing the actual coins they stole.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
The point of KYC isn't to make fraud impossible, but to make it expensive.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  Isn’t “expensive” only a problem if your cost basis is >$0 ?
  - colejohnson66 2y ago
    still requires upfront cost. If that’s priced out of reach for most people, it’s still a deterrent.
    - permo-w 2y ago
      right but N Korea is not most people. hacking is one of their primary industries. they almost certainly already have systems in place for this
      - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        Systems are expensive. That's the point.
        permo-w 2y ago
        yes, but they're not expensive if you already have them in place and you're a nation state with essentially free labour. once again, we're not talking about some random clowns who've accidentally stolen a usb stick with these coins on it, we're talking about this article assuming that North Korea cannot circumvent KYC
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    It cost them something to train the groups that stole those coins; training, their higher standard of living, etc.
    - permo-w 2y ago
      your guess as to what % of $1.5bn that would be?
      - rtkwe 2y ago
        A few tens of millions maybe? Just a shot in the dark though.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    North Korea's cost basis is >$0. They have limited numbers of hacks per year that they can perform, and every road block in between the hack and unrestricted dollars will drain a couple percent of the profit, add a couple percent chance that they get caught or scammed while trying to launder the money. All or these have costs and reduce the take-home profit for Russia.
    - permo-w 2y ago
      even if you conscion the frankly risible assumption that they don't already have systems in place to do this, are you seriously trying to suggest that setting up a system to beat some KYC checks is going to put any kind of a dent into billions of dollars? I feel like you're struggling to grasp that I'm not saying "muh KYC is useless", I'm saying that this article doesn't seem to understand that it's useless in the face of a nation state for whom hacking is a major industry
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Notably, North Korea only made hacking an industry after it's "SuperDollar" USD counterfeiting industry became too expensive and difficult to run because the USD had a design update that introduced significant security upgrades. You would think "just manufacture cash" would also offset billions and yet it didn't really. End result, there are way fewer counterfeit USD in circulation now.
        permo-w 2y ago
        I suppose the difference is that counterfeiting currency requires very rare information, some very specialised machines and [something similar to] whatever the hell dollars are made out of. you could put a few motivated and intelligent teenagers in a room with a laptop for a few days and they could probably find multiple ways to crack KYC. the same is not true for counterfeiting currency.
- ZeroTalent 2y ago
  KYC is easy to beat on most platforms. look into stealer logs, as in the cybersecurity terms— you get the victim's cookies and passwords and often can bypass 2FA. Often, they have enough information to beat KYC.
  - verteu 2y ago
    Depends on the scale. Withdrawing millions of dollars to a bank account will require more than the median user's cookies, passwords, & 2FA.
- permo-w 2y ago
  you're just repeating a stock phrase you've heard here without any actual regard for the discussion being had
anonym29 2y ago
Of course not. But it's still more work than passing the KYC checks on US Federal Reserve notes (there are none at all), or just printing fake US Federal Reserve notes that are so good it forces the Bureau of Printing and Engraving has to do expensive redesigns. Of course, America's own CIA has been long suspected of doing the exact same thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar if you want to learn more.
- magnuspaaske 2y ago
  The problem with counterfeiting dollars is that it only works until the design is changed and it's hard to transfer your capabilities. On the other hand hacking is convenient since it can be use for political leverage, espionage and similar.
  - bilekas 2y ago
    Also I’m not expert but washing a significant amount of cash seems extremely more difficult than the Hacking enterprises?
  - anonym29 2y ago
    The problem with hacking is that it's far easier to patch a vulnerability than it is to redesign a currency note and reissue new batches of them across an entire printing press while removing the old ones (some real, some fake) from circulation very slowly. Also, Bitcoin has never had the counterfeiting problem of currency notes, largely because there's no such capacity for bad actors to create or issue counterfeit Bitcoin, as Bitcoin backed by mathematical work that must be performed to in order to mine/"mint" new Bitcoin, unlike US Federal Reserve Notes, which are backed by nothing more than an Intaglio printing press, some engraving plates with publicly-available designs, and 3D security ribbons, ribbons featuring ink that is visible under a blacklight (you can find which chemicals exhibit this property on Wikipedia), some paper, and some linen. Oh, and every single one of those ingredients are are produced by a third party (NOT the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving), who all solemnly pinky promise they don't secretly keep and distribute any extras :)
  - 2y ago
verteu 2y ago
> do we really think that an entire nation state is unable to set up the apparatus to cheat a few measly KYC checks? To withdraw a few thousand dollars? Easily. To withdraw 5 billion dollars of fiat? You'll face much more than "a few measly KYC checks."
- permo-w 2y ago
  first of all it's 1.5bn, second of all they're obviously not going to withdraw it all in one account, they're going to find the absolute limit you withdraw from one account without hitting serious KYC, and then do that however many times they need to to withdraw the money

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

The point of KYC isn't to make fraud impossible, but to make it expensive.

Scoundreller 2y ago
Isn’t “expensive” only a problem if your cost basis is >$0 ?
- colejohnson66 2y ago
  still requires upfront cost. If that’s priced out of reach for most people, it’s still a deterrent.
  - permo-w 2y ago
    right but N Korea is not most people. hacking is one of their primary industries. they almost certainly already have systems in place for this
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      Systems are expensive. That's the point.
      - permo-w 2y ago
        yes, but they're not expensive if you already have them in place and you're a nation state with essentially free labour. once again, we're not talking about some random clowns who've accidentally stolen a usb stick with these coins on it, we're talking about this article assuming that North Korea cannot circumvent KYC
- rtkwe 2y ago
  It cost them something to train the groups that stole those coins; training, their higher standard of living, etc.
  - permo-w 2y ago
    your guess as to what % of $1.5bn that would be?
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      A few tens of millions maybe? Just a shot in the dark though.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  North Korea's cost basis is >$0. They have limited numbers of hacks per year that they can perform, and every road block in between the hack and unrestricted dollars will drain a couple percent of the profit, add a couple percent chance that they get caught or scammed while trying to launder the money. All or these have costs and reduce the take-home profit for Russia.
  - permo-w 2y ago
    even if you conscion the frankly risible assumption that they don't already have systems in place to do this, are you seriously trying to suggest that setting up a system to beat some KYC checks is going to put any kind of a dent into billions of dollars? I feel like you're struggling to grasp that I'm not saying "muh KYC is useless", I'm saying that this article doesn't seem to understand that it's useless in the face of a nation state for whom hacking is a major industry
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Notably, North Korea only made hacking an industry after it's "SuperDollar" USD counterfeiting industry became too expensive and difficult to run because the USD had a design update that introduced significant security upgrades. You would think "just manufacture cash" would also offset billions and yet it didn't really. End result, there are way fewer counterfeit USD in circulation now.
      - permo-w 2y ago
        I suppose the difference is that counterfeiting currency requires very rare information, some very specialised machines and [something similar to] whatever the hell dollars are made out of. you could put a few motivated and intelligent teenagers in a room with a laptop for a few days and they could probably find multiple ways to crack KYC. the same is not true for counterfeiting currency.
ZeroTalent 2y ago
KYC is easy to beat on most platforms. look into stealer logs, as in the cybersecurity terms— you get the victim's cookies and passwords and often can bypass 2FA. Often, they have enough information to beat KYC.
- verteu 2y ago
  Depends on the scale. Withdrawing millions of dollars to a bank account will require more than the median user's cookies, passwords, & 2FA.
permo-w 2y ago
you're just repeating a stock phrase you've heard here without any actual regard for the discussion being had

anonym29 2y ago

Of course not. But it's still more work than passing the KYC checks on US Federal Reserve notes (there are none at all), or just printing fake US Federal Reserve notes that are so good it forces the Bureau of Printing and Engraving has to do expensive redesigns. Of course, America's own CIA has been long suspected of doing the exact same thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar if you want to learn more.

magnuspaaske 2y ago
The problem with counterfeiting dollars is that it only works until the design is changed and it's hard to transfer your capabilities. On the other hand hacking is convenient since it can be use for political leverage, espionage and similar.
- bilekas 2y ago
  Also I’m not expert but washing a significant amount of cash seems extremely more difficult than the Hacking enterprises?
- anonym29 2y ago
  The problem with hacking is that it's far easier to patch a vulnerability than it is to redesign a currency note and reissue new batches of them across an entire printing press while removing the old ones (some real, some fake) from circulation very slowly. Also, Bitcoin has never had the counterfeiting problem of currency notes, largely because there's no such capacity for bad actors to create or issue counterfeit Bitcoin, as Bitcoin backed by mathematical work that must be performed to in order to mine/"mint" new Bitcoin, unlike US Federal Reserve Notes, which are backed by nothing more than an Intaglio printing press, some engraving plates with publicly-available designs, and 3D security ribbons, ribbons featuring ink that is visible under a blacklight (you can find which chemicals exhibit this property on Wikipedia), some paper, and some linen. Oh, and every single one of those ingredients are are produced by a third party (NOT the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving), who all solemnly pinky promise they don't secretly keep and distribute any extras :)
- 2y ago

verteu 2y ago

> do we really think that an entire nation state is unable to set up the apparatus to cheat a few measly KYC checks? To withdraw a few thousand dollars? Easily. To withdraw 5 billion dollars of fiat? You'll face much more than "a few measly KYC checks."

permo-w 2y ago
first of all it's 1.5bn, second of all they're obviously not going to withdraw it all in one account, they're going to find the absolute limit you withdraw from one account without hitting serious KYC, and then do that however many times they need to to withdraw the money