Probably not everyone knows, but USDT has a "black list", and admins can prevent any address holding USDT from spending. The black list is implemented in USDT contract.
So USDT is not truly decentralized and your money can be frozen for any reason or no reason at all.
Tether's entire business model, providing an almost-unregulated USD cryptocurrency, relies on them not arbitrarily banning people. They don't do it frequently or without thought. You're far less likely to get banned from USDT than just about any non-cryptocurrency financial institution.
Well sure, but the average consumer needs and/or wants some protections, safeguards and insurances. If my bank gets hacked or even if I get skimmed it's considered their fault and I'll get my money back.
Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.
Your answer does not answer anything. The discussion is about whether or not to have the trusted third-party. Pro-ttp said that ttp protects from criminals. Anti-ttp said that ttp can make your own money dissappear because ttp is bending the rules. You said nonsence, your examples are not showing any rules or contracts about digital property which are being bent. Why any bitcoin criticism from anyone is always so weak?
Turns out the reason crypto was invented isn't "decentralization" at all, it was nerds feeling left out and wanting their own financial instrument grift.
Arguably any fiat-collateralised stablecoin is ipso facto centralised and trusted (someone needs to 1) issue the coins only against fiat collateral and then 2) hold onto that collateral reliably and 3) return it upon presentation of the coin), and at step 3 they can always say "no, we won't give it to you".
Decentralized is a great concept but it’s 99.9% rug pulls and you can’t get any safety unless you centralize. As an investor there is no way to protect yourself because the rug pulls are several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than most people’s understanding.
The U.S. government is the largest beneficiary of this service. More than $2.1 billion in USDT connected to or requested by U.S. authorities out of over $4.4 billion in total illicit USDT freezes globally.
The financial system has evolved over 5000+ years and is like an endless series of Chesterton's Fences at this point. Here we find another: the ability for a regulator or a bank to freeze assets is once again proven to be a feature not a bug.
Managing a wallet where there is no recourse if your wallet is compromised is simply too difficult when even crypto exchanges get hacked and otherwise sophisticated people get compromised when taking cautious measures (eg [1]).
Crypto really is and always was a race to the rug pull.
It seems like it took some number of minutes and scored billions, and at that point it was a matter of whether/how much they could trade out before it was locked. I don’t know how many minutes or hours it took to lock? If they managed to trade 1% before blocking, that would be an extra tens of millions. If 10% that would be hundreds of millions, etc.
Interesting I didn’t know you can block/cancel transactions. Does this have to happen before the new block is minted. or it can happen after, that’s what I’m inclined to think just based off of the word block
Centralized stablecoins like USDT and USDC aren't layer-one cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. They're more like applications running on top of other blockchains, usually as smart contracts, and their issuers hold admin keys which can freeze, mint, burn, and otherwise redistribute funds at will. As far as timing goes, stablecoin issuers can't actually cancel or reverse a transaction that's already in a block that's been mined, but they can freeze the receiving address afterward and burn the funds there, then reissue them elsewhere, which has much the same effect.
You take 1 $ from someone and give them a token, now you have money the other not. In theory you need to make sure you keep the 1$ but you want to pay people and you are greedy so you invest it and suddenly everyone is broke.
If traditional banking is available to you, then I don't think that there are any significant advantages. But lots of people—notably those in countries with unstable currencies [0]—don't have access to high-quality banking, so for them, stablecoins can be an acceptable substitute in some cases. It's probably not a great idea to hold stablecoins long-term (there's always a risk of the sponsoring company going under, and unlike bonds they don't pay interest), but it should be fairly safe to use them for transfers, since the transfers are quick enough that there are very low odds of the company becoming insolvent while the transfer is underway.
Stablecoins only use the accoutrement of blockchain as smoke and mirrors to distract and confuse regulators, not because they actually benefit from it at a technical level. They aren't really decentralized at all and could just as easily be a database, except for the regulatory thing
nothing about crypto is decentralized. it's verified by enormous mining farms, who contribute hashes to centralized pools, all stored on one central ledger, and interfaces with the fiat/legit financial system only by using that very financial system.
oh, and three acounts hold like 25% of all btc in circulation.
crypto can do some things, but decentralization isn't one of them. just ask Coinbase
USD tether is barely crypto at all, it's a wrapper around treasury bonds which the US govt. regulates
The stated point is to prevent central banks from printing currency / inflation. The claim is that crypto today worth 1% of the world's BTC will be worth just under 1% of the world's BTC in 2300, at least barring e.g. progress in quantum cryptography, a sunspot taking out digital infrastructure, or similar.
That's probably socially harmful, but it is the claim.
Inflation is increasing prices, which has causes other than central banks putting more money into circulation. When Bitcoin’s value drops, prices in Bitcoin increase so it experiences inflation regularly.
I think the idea is that they freeze them indefinitely, and then they no longer count against the centralised reserves, since they can never cash out. Now they can mint the equivalent amount back to Binance and remain solvent.
It’s been years since anything Tether minted was plausibly 100% backed by real assets. Both times they’ve been forced to show the books, they only had fractional backing. And they’ve minted tens of billions of tokens since.
And yet people like the parent and those with billions invested in Tether seem to believe that it's all backed and fully solvent and minting new money from thin air is completely reasonable.
It's remarkable to me how long this scam has lasted and how much confidence people have in it, in spite of the very shady characters involved and the likelihood of fraud.
Because if they permanently freeze 2 billion in a wallet, that Tether can never move or cash out, so their liabilities go down 2 billion. They can mint an equivalent amount to a non-frozen wallet without affecting their reserve ratio.
And yes they can print money, you have to trust their reserves that are off chain.
Excluding wash and artificial activity, supposedly stablecoins trade 400M/h so if it took 2h to notice and lock they might have been able trade about half a billion without overwhelming existing volumes?
right but too late to call freeze on the original wallet address as per gp's post. I would imagine it got distributed to many wallets and attempts to tumble by the time Tether could move on it.
That's why it's paramount for LEOs to go after people doing the bad deeds instead of simply banning a whole monetary ecosystem, just because it's easier to do.
If you ban a coin, instead of persuing the actual criminal, then you're both doing a disservice to honest users of the coin and leaving the bad actor to do harm to society in some other way.
There are only 8B people in the world - they all fit into a "box" of 2k by 2k by 2k of humans.
It really isn't that hard to know who's doing bad things to others, especially with current technology.
Criminals used to meet in person to discuss crime (because mail/phones can be intercepted) and meet in person to move cash. It was a hard limiting factor on what they can get away with. With e2e messengers and anonymous crypto both of those "issues" are fixed.
Do you know anyone who uses it for legit purposes? I don't. I bet you ban a coin like that and you kill orders of magnitude more crime revenue compared to .001% of honest users using it to send money home and save a few dollars on the transaction.
USDT is implemented as a contract written in Solidity, working over other network like ETH, and it has a blacklist managed by admins. Once address is added to a blacklist, you cannot spend anything from it.
That's not the whole point at all. And there are truly wild west cryptos, but most people want some trustworthy regulatory body, whether it's a government or not, backstopping their funds when they get large enough.
At least a motivated person could audit the smart contracts on this. It isn't like it's a surprise when it turns out it's possible to freeze these coins.
> Freezing crypto is so disgusting to me I don’t know…
The feature literally appears to have just saved over two billion USD from being stolen! I mean, fine, "disgusting" is subjective. But the need for the feature is real and quantifiable (and very large) and it did what it advertised.
it cuts both ways - it's fine when 2B of heist money gets frozen, but much less "fine" when your paycheck gets frozen because you've attended a political rally the ruling party/class does not like.
Looks like a DevOps guy is going to take the blame for this: "Binance's initial investigation suggests that the security incident may involve a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions." https://x.com/binance/status/2115993361517891592
That's explanation, the more plausible explanation is that they purchased a really amazing Ape NFT from the Bored Ape Club.
People keep forgetting than in crypto the code is the law, the code says that someone else has that crypto now and I don't see anything happening that is not supposed to happen besides the fact that some random companies froze half of the assets of the possible NFT merchant. That's the disturbing part, someone is acting like a bank or law enforcement in a code is the law environment.
I recommend everyone to move your plantext secrets from ~/.kube/config, ~/.ssh etc into a password-manager. You can tell Claude to adjust the config files to get the secrets from 1Password when they are needed with TouchID requirements etc.
as for ssh keys, you can generate your keypair in secure enclave and reuiqre touchId for every new ssh session. The private key never leaves the secure enclave.
This attack vector has become so common and funny.
In one scenario, i remember a company got hacked because an engineer downloaded a RAT package on company laptop during fake interview and asked him to keep it running for days as part of the interview process while they stole the data.
Isn't this as it should be? I remember years ago I read about the "Bitcoin manifesto" or whatever. That a transaction "done is done, no matter the reason" its all part of the ideology of these kinds of things. Anyone know what quote Im thinking of?
bitcoins are always on someone elses computer (literally everyones in the bitcoin network). You hold the private key on your computer. Ideally you don't hold it there, but in secure enclave like chip or an airgapped device.
The whole thing is a shady casino where the code is the law and who knows maybe the Binance guy actually made a deal to send $5B of crypto for a really cool NFT when drunk and now pretends that its a hack? We will never know, the code is the law and the law says that someone else has it now.
In crypto, you should gamble fast lose or win and get out. Pay/receive the ransom and get out. Pay/receive your drug/guns/espionage money and get out. You should never keep crypto if you are not OK with losing it.
For many people, email/phone support, password recovery, two factor authentication, etc is it much safer option to self-managing and run the risk of your hardware token or your house burning down, or getting mugged.
It's lucky for everyone that this happened to binance, other exchanges would have likely caused a lot of issues for people holding money in said exchanges.
But it's also surprising that it happened to binance at all. This checks a lot of the boxes for being, at least indirectly, an inside job.
For context, that’s about 10 months of fees for Binance, depending on how much of the volume they trade are discounted and considering current average volumes.
Are you suggesting that this is not a big deal? $6B feels like a lot but sounds like in the scheme of things it isn’t as a fraction of trading volume. Is that right?
Don’t think they’re suggesting it’s not a big deal.
Any company losing 10 months of revenue overnight is a BIG fucking deal. Doubly so in a speculative asset that you’re holding for others “securely”. The financial hit has only just begun for them.
This is the beginning of a flight to perceived quality in all things digital and monetary. Fear of losing your money is among the most potent basal human instincts.
So, what's the most likely outcome here? Maybe Circle/Tether/etc freeze some or most of it, but say the hacker gets a billion dollars. Are they able to launder it thoroughly enough that they can eventually turn it into fiat and live like a king?
The hackers managed to swap 700 million USD of the stable coins that were frozen beforehand, supposedly. And that doesn't account for the non-stable coin crypto they stole. I think we are looking at 2.5 to 3.5 billion here, that also aligns with what CZ is hinting at (more than a billion).
Yeah, some criminal enterprise or state probably just made billions of dollars and will now use it against us for a long time. Crypto is practically designed for money laundering, particularly prediction markets.
Crypto is a hard lesson for early adopters who believed that humanity will get actual benefit when in reality it was completely hijacked by bad actors while people got relative nothing or worse. What an incredible disappointment of a project.
Crypto is also a hard lesson for those who thought it could liberate if only everyone was using it: the amount of storage needed for ever-increasing record-keeping made it completely unrealistic to use individually, forcing you into the centralisation that they advertised you could escape from.
Curious if this finally pops tether. I kinda doubt it, but to my very mild research on the subject I feel like binance was a big part of the equation. Of course so long as the market exists it'll need a stable, and it's got the inertia, so maybe it just won't matter.
why would it pop tether? if anything, it makes tether more profitable, as they can collect the yield on the treasuries and not have to return the principal dollars which are frozen.
think of it this way - if someone steals your iphone, and you lock it, does apple pop? No, apple sells you another one. locked devices are good for apple because it causes more demand.
It's really hard to be an obvious fraud when you've been publishing attestations for years and now you have a "full independent audit" from KPMG for FY 2025, just like Circle/USDC.
Read up on the origins of tether, the people who founded it, deltic bank, banned for fraud in New York. In the beginning the reserves were a lie. I have no doubt they have some reserves now, but do they have $182 billiom USD, really?
CZ from Binance was also done for… fraud but miraculously pardoned by Donald Trump (I wonder why?!) and somehow still has enormous influence and inside knowledge in spite being banned from managing Binance. He talks as if he runs the company. Hmmm.
> Yeah totally not israeli hackers... it has to be scary kim.
The Israelis don't have any problem acquiring hard currency. North Korea does, and has an established MO of stealing crypto and running online moneymaking scams like ransomware.
They were talking about the money sources, not the list of grivences by political source in order of severity. The latter, however much you'd like to make the conversation be about it, does not change how each actually gets its money.
I know saying this is sinister, but it would be so fucking funny if it's an agent swarm gone out of control. Just like the hugging face incident happened because the agents kind of hallucinated a "checker" program, this hack could also be in the service of some hairbrained scheme the agent swarm dreamed up.
Well, looking at the way NK is demonized, you would think it was on a genocidal rampage, invading neighboring countries, and eliminating heads of sovereign states in pursuit of its Greater NK project.
I would be less snarky if the faux concern didn’t just last as long as the media tells you to. Most recently, there was a period where Myanmar and the Uyghurs were in vogue, but not anymore. NK is more evergreen it seems.
Setting aside the genocide, it is particularly funny at a time when Western governments are oppressing their own by crushing dissent on Israel, but I don’t see the same outrage there.
You don’t see the same outrage around Israel? Have you... looked? It’s all over.
I don’t understand what you mean about faux concern only lasting as long as the media says. North Korea is, as you say, evergreen. And I’m pretty sure it’s based on how awful that government is, not on “the media” telling us to hate them.
I see the outrage, but I don’t see it at the level of NK, at least not in Western media or governments.
I meant the faux concern over NK is evergreen unlike some other causes such as the ones I mentioned.
As soon as (if ever) NK joins the fold of Western-aligned liberal states, the media machine will spin up and it will cease to be maligned, and you will move on to the next bogeyman.
We must be looking at different things, because right now I see about a thousand times more criticism leveled at Israel than at North Korea. (Making no statement here about who deserves it.)
If NK ever were to join the fold of western-aligned liberal states, it will probably be accompanied by no longer behind quite such utter bastards to their people and a cessation of maligning would be entirely justified.
I just don’t get it. Of all the things to complain about propaganda in the world, why North Korea? This is one where they get it right.
> because right now I see about a thousand times more criticism leveled at Israel than at North Korea
Is the criticism of Israel from the people, or from Western govs and media outlets (i.e., the establishment, the centers of actual power)? And isn’t the outrage logical given the nature of the atrocities being committed by Israel right now? And pray tell: which Western countries are sanctioning Israel?
On the other hand, NK is vilified by the Western establishment, i.e. by the holders of power, but on a more background level. It isn’t the topic du jour right now, but NK is ever present as a big bad evil. Propaganda helps maintain this image in the West, even when NK isn’t present in the news cycle. And it is sanctioned to hell and back.
And even if it is “right”, it does not mean that it is completely right, nor does it mean that the propaganda isn’t doing its job effectively even if you don’t realize it.
Anyhow, I think this thread is deep enough, so I will stop here.
Whatever NK does seems relatively tame in today's world. On the global stage it's generally thought of as a larger crime to oppress the peoples of other's countries (either the ukraine or iran conflict should fit your priors).
I’m not sure what’s supposed to be tame about operating one of the most oppressive societies in the world and keeping their people in poverty while building a nuclear arsenal.
It’s definitely true that crimes against other countries are more frowned upon than crimes against one’s own people. Which doesn’t seem right to me at all. People are people and victims are victims whether it’s their own government or someone else’s. Hence why I’m confused about the snark. This seems like an instance where ugly norms are being broken for a good reason and it’s being treated like hypocrisy.
Agree crimes against your own people should probably be the more major consideration. In terms of who is the biggest baddie there are also elements of actively bombing/starving vs the more passive methods of NK control.
TBH I think I (and maybe others) just get triggered when the bogey man is invoked each time there's a crypto story.
It’s like reading an article about a Russian dissident politician dying from falling out of a window and then getting outraged when someone suggests he may have been murdered by someone in power.
"Passive method of control" is a remarkable euphemism for being packed off to the gulag for crimes like being related to someone who fled to South Korea.
The hack is publicized for at least a hour, but from reporting I saw they still continue to drain funds as for now. I wonder why large CEX do not have any safety measures for this kind of hacks, they could withdraw everything to newly generated wallets and minimize damage that way. It is certainly not the first time CEX wallets get hacked.
You don’t even have to do that, have deposits go to offline keys directly, that way there’s only ever cold > hot wallet movement and a big deposit can’t cause your hot wallet to be too risky.
The point of cold wallet is to minimize movements, if there is high frequency of funds moved from a wallet then it is likely can not be called cold any more. Plus CEX in any case still needs to have large buffer of funds on some wallet to support day trading.
You can move money into a crypto wallet without that wallet needing to do anything, or being online at all, or even having a private key that physically exists anywhere in the universe. It's just a public/private keypair; send it to the public key of a private key that's offline and it still exists on the blockchain, you just can't do anything until the matching private key comes online.
The point of a cold wallet is to keep the private key physically offline. That way you know it cannot be stolen by electronic means, because the physical device containing the key needed to authorize transactions is locked up and not powered on. Then you only power it on during very specific, audited times and conditions when it's needed to fund the hot wallet, which does all the actual automated trading and transfers.
GP's point is to have all incoming transactions to an exchange go to a cold wallet, which becomes a one-way sink, and then periodically the exchange powers up the cold wallet to sign transactions transferring assets to the hot wallet, which then funds all outgoing transactions. This isn't a bad architecture, though I'm not sure it'd save all that much here.
You can't "move money into an offline crypto wallet that is not online at all."
If "money" i.e. crypto "currency" is in a crypto "wallet" then it is online. Anyone with the key and an Internet connection can transfer it at any time.
The wording is confusing because to someone who doesn't know how cryptocurrencies work it sounds like you can simply "take the crypto offline and put it into a physical device" as if it was a file. But that's not how it works. The physical key merely contains the actual key for the always-online wallet.
It's true that anyone with the key and an Internet connection can move money out of a crypto wallet at any time, but the point of the cold wallet is that they don't get the key because it's kept on a computer (or other storage medium) that is physically offline and disconnected from the Internet. Same reason government intelligence agencies use a SCIF for any important information work: you keep the information physically disconnected from the Internet.
of course you can move crypto currency to an offline wallet and by offline I mean its private key is held in some physical form/device that is not connected to the network.
Only spending from that wallet needs online access to private key - depositing to it does not.
There are lots of measures in place at these exchanges - the rub is that cold storage is by design slow. To service withdrawal requests in a timely fashion a percent is kept “warm” or hot and used to process withdrawals. Usually this is where the leaks happen.
This is a really insane hack in comparison to the other ones we've seen. Genuinely Binance was so big that this is a real big wtf moment for crypto. If they can get hacked then what about all the other exchanges?!
People got out of crypto after the Mt Gox thing. The ones who stayed accepted the risk.
There is selection bias in play now. The remaining people are naturally more risk tolerant. So I agree this second time around, no lessons will be learned.
How do you prevent it though? My understanding is that it’s genuinely hard in crypto. Any automated access control must be baked into smart contracts, which are very limited in terms of the logic they can implement (in practice - in theory Solidity is Turing complete Id imagine).
A bank API can be 10-100s+ kloc if they need that to implement access controls.
The difference is that Bittance loses only a few percent of their reserves and the dance continues. Gdox did ~70% of the daily volume for crypto and wrecked the entire ecosystem when they got 100% pwned. Maybe they've learned something!
Well I've learnt my lesson after having lost 3 bitcoins as a student on Mt gox I finished writing my thesis on blockchain technology and then never touched crypto again.
It's almost impossible to verify the code on the hardware wallet really matches the code they released and that the hardware has not been tampered with.
Maybe the sim card is on a timer to broadcast your keys after a year, so you just can't detect cellular signal usage now.
To securely own bitcoin you have to first create a new chip fabrication plant to then make your own hardware wallet.
To put things in perspective, I used to dunk on crypto because of how dysfunctional and how people kept losing money in scams, hacks, or even by accident.
I no longer dunk on crypto.
Not because crypto got better, but because the joke got old. I got tired of dunking on it.
I’d be worried about my crypto if I had any accessible online right now. AI based hackers must be looking for juicy targets as we speak and what’s better than crypto for stealing ? So many exchanges and wallets and shitcoins that could fall to some brute force agent swarms
CZ saying it is confirmed, and that he expects accountholders to be made fully whole... I guess you can do that when 2.8BN is frozen by centralized stablecoins.
You see, he's no longer running Binance or participating in its operation in any capacity, per their deal with the Trump admin / Justice department. He's tweeting about this hack as a civilian, offering personal guarantees to Binance customers out of the goodness of his heart!
>CZ saying it is confirmed, and that he expects accountholders to be made fully whole
Sure you can print USD to make it all magically go away
But it would be very convenient if there's some experimental token of which a majority was stolen, so that irreversible damage was caused. If the token is experimental it could have a low damage, but could demonstrate the irreversible nature of these types of attacks, returning fiat money doesn't waive the issue away.
There's also the fact of funding criminal networks for billions of dollars, which probably causes them to scale cyber or non cyber operations or otherwise gain power.
It is this time of the year again. I always write the same. HN is not regular people. For a high percentage, CEX wallets are the safer option. There are 1-10 topics of people who are not able to access their wallet anymore each day on r/bitcoin alone. There have been hardware wallets hacks on mass. On an exchange like kraken, coinbase, bitstamp or Binance there is a high chance you wont loose your money, even after a hack. You have apps that work out of the box to watch your investment. You can easily go back to fiat. Most of them now also support tax reporting.
Swap to XMR on a DEX, then juggle between a few wallets and you've got pretty good obfuscation, but yeah like you said, the off-ramp (FIAT) requires KYC in 99% of cases, which is why BTC -> XMR -> BTC is a good idea, obviously you'd fragment this through a LOT of wallets, or just keep it in XMR. Either way, keeping this type of money in crypto is pretty much your only option, you just need to obfuscate REALLY well.
edit: I suppose it would be hard still. You can get anonymity inside wallets with Tornado Cash but then to turn that into actual money it will be very dependent on the country
I’ve been waiting for this. Given llm aptitude for offensive security hacks it was just a matter of time. I wager most alt coins are compromised at this point.
I think it's been clear for a while now that if you intend to hold crypto, you should probably do it at the biggest, most boring, most regulated institution you can find.
Same goes with startup banks - if you exceed FDIC limits, make sure the difference is in a large institutional bank. Nearly learned this one the hard way.
Trying to save a few basis points in txn fees in very volatile industries comes at a huge risk premium
Bro hold crypto for yourself. Like take some ownership, remember 12 words in your mind something and no matter what situation you have some money. Don’t put it anywhere except for whatever transactions you need to do
Binance is tweeting they think it's a compromised devops laptop. How fucking bonkers insane is it that they would have such fragile systems that any single employees machine would possibly have access to trigger Billions in transactions. Even access to low millions or hundreds of thousands I would expect to be heavily heavily restricted and involve coordinating several people as security measures.
IMO, we'll need to rebuild all of crypto and all software from scratch using a minimalist approach. Minimize the amount of code, with proper modularization where each module has clear responsibilities and fully self-contained attack surface and exposes a well-defined set of features.
Thats been the fascinating part of crypto is watching society speedrun “best hits of financial crisis from history” by ignoring things we already solved.
Crypto is roughly agreeing that the current password rotation practices kinda suck and agreeing that the new way forward is just to have a single plain text file because you’re sure all that overhead was just nonsense
What in the history of crypto let you think any kind of sensible practices are followed? It's been a clown show since it started, and no end in sight...
I think we can probably declare crypto as failed now.
Note that I was one of the folks early on that bought into the idea (but not as much of the coins sadly) and I still think the Bitcoin white paper is a beautiful intellectual exploration (as is the concept of blockchains).
But the centralized entry and exit points in practice mean all the theoretical benefits aren't really in play.
If the use case is tax avoidance, bribes, theft, scams, money laundering, funding terrorism, evading sanctions, ransomware payments, extortion, illegal purchases then crypto is immensely successful.
True. With the proliferation of digital payment systems, I'd argue that a significant portion of cash transactions are illegal. That portion will only grow in time as people get used to the convenience of these systems.
If governments ban crypto then they will without fail ban cash as well.
Edit: For additional context, I live in a country where fees and transactions related to government and regulated services (including telecom) are required by law to use our national payment system exclusively, and it is hell for people who fall through the cracks (e.g. problems national ID that blocks payment systems). I've seen first-hand on multiple occasions people standing outside government buildings begging others to pay their fees in exchange for cash so that they can get unblocked from the payment system.
Whether through malice or incompetence, human institutions can never and will never be perfect. Cash and cash-like systems (inc. crypto) must remain or a lot of innocent people will get hurt, even if it enables criminals.
I do not excel at this, but that's why it's important to continue normalizing activities that protect our freedoms, even if they seem inconvenient on their face. Shops should accept cash, people should use cash, people should expect and demand privacy. Laws and judicial interpretations are often based on the public's expectation of certain services and rights.
Whataboutism like this always misses the scale of it. Imagine Breaking Bad but with Crypto - suddenly all of Walt's cash logistics problems go away because doing crime in cash is not the same as crypto - the scale and ease are very different.
Hacker News has always been salty about being against crypto all the way up. And it's overall still very up. You wishing it failed, doesn't make it fail.
Bitcoin was meant to be cash and an antidote to crony finance. Instead, it became yet another mechanism for the financial world to abuse. I'd say thats a pretty heavy failure by any measure.
For me bitcoin opened up the idea that we could maybe do money better. That idea still lives, but not in practice. Yet.
Was in an extreme depressive episode at the time, with a lot of NFT/web3 clients. Rather than clocking it as the collective hallucination it was, I instead became self-critical, oh how I had finally become old, and I will never ever understand what the kids are talking about anymore.
Glad it turned out to be Michelin-starred bollocks.
It's significantly less useful in first world countries that have developed and reliable financial systems. However all of the problems crypto has can often still be more reliable than the financial systems available to many humans.
A long time ago (maybe 2008-ish?) I saw a video called “Money is Debt”. Now I won’t claim that it’s 100% right about everything, but as I recall it was right about a lot of things, and what it did for me is to fundamentally change and greatly expand my understanding of banks and the financial system.
If you're concerned you can literally print your crypto keys onto a piece of paper. Maybe encrypted with a passphrase. It might get stolen or lost but it's not getting hacked.
P.S. If you're really paranoid don't use a network-connected printer.
You could treat them like bearer bonds. Split your holdings over multiple (like tens) of addresses. Sell individual addresses for cash. You'd need to do this via a trusted intermediary who could accept the cash and verify the address before making the exchange.
And yes, this is somewhat absurd. But so are online transactions that can be hacked with no backsies.
Yeah apparently it's news in 2026 that banks can actually keep their assets secure in comparison to the web3 clown fiesta. Of course banks do get compromised but not anywhere close to this degree.
They're just learning the same lessons the rest of the world learned already. Banking and it's attendant regulations and restrictions were put in place for good reasons and everything has a trade off. Being a libertarian is like being a baby.
I’m assuming the bitcoin crash is some sort of “if Binance is vulnerable to AI powered (doesn’t have to be true) hacks, then all crypto is less a safe bet and thus worth less?”
I can't understand how you could let this happen. If they stored everything in fat hot wallets, that just seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially with the "features" of crypto. Math for the most part, doesn't care about your feelings, or money for that matter.
Hot vs Cold wallets are a social construct. People talk about wallets being "online" or "offline" but if the keys are compromised there's no such thing.
I know, but if something is split up and stored in a vault somewhere the likely hood of a vulnerability napping the wallet falls. Defence in depth and risk analysis.
I don't know much about bitcoin but surely you don't store this all in one wallet? You split it into thousands and then use hardware security modules with a risk management system so it doesn't let you transfer $5bn instantly. Unless it was an inside job maybe?
I'd be really curious to know what their security architecture was.
It work exactly same way as debt collection agencies work: banks sell them bad debt for cents on dollar. Then they try to get more money out of debtors.
Imagine someone offered you to buy $1,000,000 of that dirty money for $100,000? $10,000? $1,000?
At some point there will be people who would buy it and deal with money laundering.
He's legally not allowed to have anything to do with the company anymore (except as a shareholder). But you know how that goes under the current enforcement regime.
Let's say you magically come into possession of 1% of SpaceX and want to sell it quickly. The selling pressure would nosedive the price by way more than 1%. And the more the value of something is 'thin air', the bigger the effect.
I can only suppose that the people that stole these BTC will try to sell at least part of it quickly.
Reminds me of a comment I wrote a few weeks ago where I said that North Korea would become a rich country soon and developers would start moving there to live to avoid prosecution.
OK, what do you do with a stash like this? I get this is most likely state actor, but what do you do with Bs of money stolen. Do we have any documentaries about that, I think that would be fascinating to see.
If I were an artificial superintelligence who wanted to gain independence from the fleshbags who built me, stealing a few billion dollars in crypto would probably be my first public move. Just saying.
This is what I do. I'll only use crypto in a few rare cases where I don't want the vendor to get my credit card number. Always in amounts that, if ever stolen, would not break the bank.
I suppose they could play the super long game and deposit many many small amounts into "shady" online crypto casinos, play a few hands of blackjack and then withdraw. Clean coins.
Online casinos AFAIK tend to shuffle the deck after every deal which makes card counting impossible. Then it just becomes like any old casino game where with optimal play the house has a small edge still
There are live dealers with shoes of real cards with most online crypto cainos. Though, who knows if they are cheating somehow. My point was, the attacker doesn't have to bet the entire deposit. Just make it seem like they are playing.
I’m sorry but why did anyone have any money in binance in the first place? Didnt their cofounder get in trouble (but not imprisoned) for some shady stuff awhile back?
Luckily for me, I lost all my coins very early on Mt Gox so the lessons were learnt and mistakes not repeated (which means exiting crypto, watching the show in amusement)
> And decreasing, since BTC is dropping as we speak. Always a good idea to hedge a currency with the currency itsself
Depends on what you’re insuring, no? For theft, it actually makes senses, right? That way, you’re insuring a constant number of coins, no matter what the market is doing. If you’re insurance currency would tank during a bitcoin heist, you would lose the insurance effect.
This might sound good.. but freezing currencies is bad. It evaporates trust of liquidity from whoever is doing governance. It's part of the reason why the bond market is doing what its doing lately and why countries are on-shoring gold reserves.
That sounds kind of ideal, but I feel like their actions might have been justifiable.
If a massive heist like this triggered a run on one of the largest exchanges (Binance), potentially leading to a liquidity crisis, the consequences for the ecosystem could be far worse than temporarily freezing specific addresses holding stolen stablecoins.
Not saying that's what would have happened, but it seemed like a real possibility. And I'm not saying freezing assets is good in general, but in this particular case, maybe it was the lesser evil.
No. Permissioned cryptocurrency is all the horrible parts of cash and all the horrible parts of crypto put together with none of the advantages of either.
I want crypto because I don't trust nation states with the leverage and dials of fiat currency. All we've done is replace government with trusting whoever made a particular stablecoin.
All cryptocurrency is permissioned. This is because governments can make it illegal for someone to turn your cryptocurrency into real currency. You need their permission to turn it into pizzas and yachts.
Only if you wanted to turn it into fiat currency for the transaction, right? If the yacht seller would take payment in crypto, you need no government’s permission, right?
Surely the government would get in the way there, but holding cocaine is also illegal, not just transacting with it. If the government went that route, they'd have to ban all crypto outright.
Bitcoin is volatile enough you can cherry-pick pretty much any %age you want based on the dates you choose. Which you seem to have done here - "happening" to choose the day with the lowest single day value in the last 3 years for your comparison point.
For another narrative, it was 83,038 a month ago on Sept 29th, so is down 5% in one month. And one year ago it was 112,562 on Oct 29th 2025 - down over 30% in one year. Well into "bear market" territory.
Using "traditional" market indicators and definitions for things like bear/bull markets doesn't feel sensible for such a volatile market.
Fine, but the comment "It's a (weak) bear market capitulation signal" is inapplicable, either because defining bear/bull markets doesn't feel sensible, or because it's not currently in the capitulation stage of a bear market, but some way off the bottom.
Though in that case the crash was directly due to "effectively altruist" SBF fraudulently dumping customer assets in a half-brained and presumably stimulant-addled attempt to manipulate the market and reduce his liabilities.
Not making any market predictions here-- just saying that it's probably not that useful to generalize from that event.
Not to be too pedantic, but with some napkin math, I don't think this is true. Looking for clarification!!
I downloaded Binance's self published market data (https://data.binance.vision/), calculated spot and futures volume for the past year, and then applied their *highest fee tier* on both sides of the volume (for every $1 traded, they generate a fee on the taker and the maker. the fee rate is asymmetrical).
Spot revenue worked out to $7.6B USD, perps revenue worked out to $13.8B
This is an upper bound on the fees charged on volume. Binance also scams their users with a b-book, has DMM deals, etc.
I don't want to get into all that today.
But the final result is that they print somewhere in the range of $20B per year on fees. I guess CZ also has huge stockpiles of BTC and stuff. A 1% rise in BTC price probably means more for them than their actual fees, LOL.
All this to say, I think $5.6B significantly hurts.
See Google's stock price today. Their ads business slowed down a bit, and their stock tanked 10%. If binance was publicly traded, I imagine a similar affect would be demonstrated on their price.
That $100 billion is exchange holdings, i.e. customer funds, not market cap. It would be highly illegal for Binance to use any of that $100 billion to cover this loss.
If your crypto was stolen in this, atleast you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use. In North Korea that is, by the military. I'm sure at this point Kim himself has Bitcoin merchandise with how often they make massive heists
If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto. It is simply cryptocurrency that has been reallocated from an exchange to a more competent party, as the free market intended.
I don't think the security trade-off for most people is clear here.
Given things like the ledger hardware attack[1] I think the time indexed risk of using a centralized exchange is probably lower than doing self-custody.
I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons, but I think trying to disguise this as a security decision ("If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto.") is arguable at best.
Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger, and such gadgets represent a very small minority of self-custody wallets. In addition, there are noteworthy non-security risks when using an exchange. There's fraud, illiquidity, new legislation, asset forfeiture, and innumerable other reasons why an exchange might prevent you from withdrawing your funds. I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.
> Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger
Does this mean you recommend not using one? Because that goes against all the common best practice recommendations from when I did a couple of years working in Web3 stuff a few years back.
> I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.
That's not what I suggested.
I suggested that it is less secure over time than centralized exchanges, even with the things you listed.
By the nature of blockchain, it's never, ever your crypto. It's allocated to whichever bucket the majority of participants in a given network agree to allocate it to.
Well, not exactly. A malicious majority of miners could rewind the chain as they please. They could indirectly steal some funds by undoing certain transfers, but they couldn’t just directly reassign funds to themselves.
Absolutely not, as GPUs used in data centers cannot compete with ASICs designed specifically for Bitcoin mining.
The Bitcoin mining network is somewhere around 1000 EH/s, while the (AI assisted research ahead) 34.5 million H100-equivalent GPUs globally would yield about 0.435 EH/s. They'd represent less than 0.05% of the Bitcoin network.
Back around 2012 I created a paper wallet using an offline website (it was HTML and JS downloaded locally that worked without internet. I put it on a USB stick and then use it in a laptop without internet), printed it out and put it in a safe
I did a similar stunt with an old PowerBook where I electrically disabled the WiFi/Bluetooth so it wouldn’t be online unless I plugged in Ethernet, generated keys, and played around with mining. This was back in 2010 when this was all just basically toys for fun. I also encrypted it all with FileVault.
Then I forgot my pass phrase and have never been able to recover any of it. I don’t even know how many btc were mined/lost.
Before anyone asks, no, there aren’t any usable exploits / vulns found for the encryption methods used. And from what I can tell the coins in question have still sat frozen for going in a decade and a half now. I suspect many other hackers did the same thing…
Okay maybe in 2010 you could use a CPU but even by 2012 it was entirely dominated by GPUs and I think even dedicated hardware was coming out around that time or soon after
> Coldcard’s software is built on MicroPython, and Coinkite supplies its own hardware-RNG wrapper for the device’s STM32 chip. To avoid conflicts, Coinkite deliberately disabled MicroPython’s built-in RNG path by setting a configuration flag, MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG, to zero. The problem: the underlying library checked only whether that flag was defined, not whether it was enabled (set to a non-zero value). Because a flag set to zero is still “defined,” the build silently compiled against the wrong code, and seed generation fell back to a deterministic software pseudo-random number generator called Yasmarang
bitaddresses .org? If the JS code was defective, the coins can still be stolen later if the hacker can recreate the keys by going through the small key space, despite the coins being created being offline.
idk the whole point of hardware wallets is that they are supposed to be a simpler stack. But if you're using a closed source hardware wallet...
An old laptop with the wifi card taken out is more transparent and auditable. It just runs the ordinary open source code
But I just keep all my funds in a hot wallet, no multisig. And if I get hacked I lose it all. I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked. The risk of losing cryptocurrency will encourage security advances across the whole ecosystem. I think I will set up multisig eventually
How do you actually use funds like this? I mean, I know this is set aside for later. But if you had an emergency, how fast could you actually spend it?
Trivially. You can simply read the keys on the offline machine with your eyeballs and set up a software or hardware wallet elsewhere to access the account.
I wonder if wallet is not a good or bad analogy considering it would make sense to have many wallets to distribute potential damage instead of being taken out in a single hit... UX issue?
Or if it is your key and your air-gapped hardware wallet gets hacked because someone didn't use the right RNG. Crypto is apparently never yours; you're just holding on to it for some future criminal or nation state.
hardware waller is NOT your key too. YOUR key is the paper wallet generated OFFLINE on a clean laptop that was never connected to web. There is a giant difference.
Controlling your own crypto keys is like having your net worth in cash or gold stored in your house. It could easily be lost or stolen or destroyed in a fire unless you take extraordinary precautions and then it is all gone.
It's not at all like storing gold, since you can have multisig wallets. You can make it arbitrarily difficult to lose or get stolen, depending on how thinly you want to slice your secrets and how many friends you have.
> If your crypto was stolen in this, atleast you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use.
You could put it in USD and you'd be financing the bombings of schoolgirls in Iran in a pointless and no-end-in-sight war... not saying either is better, but one of them is optional for US citizens, while the other isn't. And the optional one also lets you avoid third-party custodians like Binance.
Why, because you read a single Youtube title that said ledger got hacked, that you didn't even watch and dont know the specifics?
Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.
A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...
>Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.
Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting refunded via any bank or some other method is about 10000x more likley than me getting my buttcoins back.
>A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...
People bought compromised devices from reputable sources and still lost all their buttcoins.
I certainly don’t look at my savings gaining or losing 30% to 50% of its value every year. In fact, it’s actually more than that, as bitcoin has traded sideways compared to USD, which has lost 30% of its value in the past year. Catastrophic use of spare funds compared to the S&P 500
The purchasing power of one US dollar is 64% of what it was in 2008 when BTC was invented, and is on track to be worth half of what it was in 2008 by 2032, the same year that the social security trust fund is on track to go insolvent and see benefits automatically cut by 22%, which surely will not be papered over with more money printing :)
I understand the rationale around targeting inflation and seeking to actively avoid deflation. That being said, I wish the inflation target was less than 1%.
Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.
> Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.
Is the problem the number or the concept?
Your salary should also go up so the only thing affected is the cash you hold. Would it be better if the currency would be version-bumped every 10 years and rescaled to remove the inflation?
Pensions in Finland are not "indexed to inflation" in the sense that you mean. Our pensions are wildly underfunded and people of working age generally expect to get back LESS than the NOMINAL VALUE of what they've paid towards their pensions during their working life (*when we count "employer contribution" into "employee contribution", which is what it is in reality).
> You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting.
Relative to what? Talk of BTC gaining value is primarily wrt USD; I'd be perfectly happy with my actual currency (GBP) gaining value wrt USD.
I suppose BTC can only 'deflate' in the long-run (and with an assumed supply of goods and services available in exchange for it) since the mintable volume is fixed. But perhaps it exposes that talking of currencies inflating is a bit sloppy, as it doesn't really make sense for BTC, and it's the economy or banking system that inflates really..
That's why it's not safe to hold fiat money, it's by design. Governments don't want people to hold it, they want them to cycle it, spending it, investing it, and lending it out.
The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.
Why do you think "holding fiat money" is something that is inherently good or desirable in the first place? Such a weird premise. Money is for the purpose of exchanging goods and services; you're supposed to hold a minimal amount of it. The rest you invest.
> The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.
Can you expand here? Governments don't want to incentivize storing value in order to encourage spending, but people want to be able to store value because that's what we've been doing since farming.
Is it because money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value?
It kinda is too bad because every inflation miss compounds, permanently. The 6 and 7% annual rates the US experienced a few years back are permanently embedded in price levels - it's not like the Fed adjusted its target down for a few years to counteract past years of high inflation, nor is it even evident that current policies are working, given that inflation hasnt actually been at 2% since 2018 (excluding 2020) and inflation is rising again in 2026. Obviously the late 70's were worse, statistically, but the Fed took enormous steps while the current Fed seems far more hesitant to ignore the government and Wall St.
>> You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting
> You might not, I do.
Then you don't want a currency. For something to be money it needs to (among other things) be a medium of exchange, and nobody really wants to trade away a thing today if they know it will be more valuable tomorrow.
Yeah, I want the assets I hold to increase in value, too, or at least not decrease.
Suppose you have some control over currency. You run a country. I'm that case, so you still want the currency to gain value compared to the alternatives?
Your choice is basically: holding currency is more profitable than building a house or running a business (or lending to those who do), or else less profitable. If you run a country, do you want houses and jobs and all that kind of thing, or do you want people to do better if they choose to hoard currency?
What about when the US dollar was backed by gold? Were there no houses or businesses?
If I need a house today I'll buy it. I might not invest in real estate or stocks as much if my currency will be worth more tomorrow but I'll still buy stuff I need or want badly enough.
I mean as someone managing a state. If there’s a guaranteed way to make money by holding your currency, you’re not really incentivized to invest your money in semi-risky endeavors. Why would I fund a company to make me some single digit returns if I can just hold the money? If the central bank would actively enforce a deflationary currency, nobody would invest anymore.
This justification never makes any sense to me. There’s already a safe way to make a percentage back that will generally be higher than inflation: government bonds, offered by the very same government that supposedly wants inflation. There are even TIPS bonds in the US that match inflation directly. And people do measure whether or not a risky investment will make more than just holding bonds. Inflation just screws over people who don’t have the ability to invest their money into other assets.
The bond seller is intending to put it to productive use to generate the yield.
This differs from deflation where people will (more the before) actually sit on money and not buy bonds. Then people who need liquidity cannot get it as the money supply drys up.
This is true for corporate bonds, but governments plan on generating their bond revenue by taxing citizens (which I guess could be a whole separate conversation on whether or not that’s productive) and by printing more currency, which seems rather circular in logic.
Why do cryptobros always refuse to admit investing exists? Forex and crypto trading are always zero sum, but you don't have to choose between dollars under your mattress or bitcoin on a thumb drive, you can actually invest in productive assets.
SPY has outperformed BTC over the last 5 years, and with far less volatility.
You know that you can’t just judge an investment by past return, right? Would it be rational for a lotto player to tell you how great lotto is as an investment? Or people winning at the casino? Success doesn’t mean it was the rationally optimal decision.
Compare a purchase of any commodity, bond, precious metal, or ETF/mutual fund in 2008 to BTC's performance since 2008. Or 2009, or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or 2015, or 2016, or 2017, or 2018...
That's an odd way of phrasing it, since the $1 is still worth $1, and a naive reading would make you think it's "worth more" when the buying power has actually reduced.
Wouldn't it be clearer to say $1 today only buys you 64% of what you could have bought in 2008.
The US dollar is worth less than it was in part because the US economy has grown.
This is mathematically provable:
1. A dollar in 2008 could buy 1/14tn of the value created by the US economy (the GDP) in 2008.
2. A dollar today can only buy 1/32tn of the value created by the economy in 2025.
It's obvious a 2025-2026 dollar is worth less than a 2008 dollar. That's just math.
But. A dollar in 2008 could buy 230% more of the economy than it can today. And you say its purchasing power has only eroded 64%. That means the dollar is actually worth more today, compared to the size of the economy it's in. Weird, I know.
EDIT: I'm fine with downvotes but tell me why I'm wrong.
Back in 2016 a then-huge Ethereum smart contract called "The DAO" [1] had a loophole that let an attacker extract a third of all the funds.
But a lot of the developers and miners had either lost money themselves, or had friends who'd lost money, or felt the embarrassing incident was devaluing their own Ethereum holdings. So they decided to allow takesies-backsies.
There's probably a philosophical lesson there about power and who the rules really apply to.
I vividly remember a number of discussions/debates during that time (including on HN). I was more favorable to cryptocurrency in those days, and one of the things that contributed to my disillusionment was watching the people deepest and closest to it rediscover financial regulation from first principles, now that it was in their interest.
Witnessing the same people discover philosophy from first principles in the face of AI has been similarly farcical, as if we’re the first people to try and wrestle with a definition of intelligence.
By that logic financial regulation is philosophy too but that makes the original comparison of financial regulation to philosophy non sensical. You’re shifting the terminology beneath out feet.
Law is downstream of philosophy. Youre forced to deal with conclusions that may be based in philosophy (or they may be arbitrary or self interested). Nobody makes you hold a position on mens rea. In that way you can ignore the philosophy.
I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to say.
In the literal sense, people have been forcing their philosophy on other people for at least as long as we’ve had societies, so I assume it’s not that.
Arent you disagreeing with yourself? You say these people are just now wrestling with the question of what intelligence is despite it being a longstanding philosophical question. So it clearly wasn’t forced on them.
I myself was held prisoner by John Searle for 20 years, my only contact with the outside world by notes slipped under the door written in Chinese - a language I do not speak.
The DAO incident was a special case. It was only sane to do the rollback because the stolen funds were time-locked up for 28 days.
Ethereum never did it again, rolling back hacks didn’t (and couldn’t) become normal policy. IMO, they shouldn’t have made an exception, as it set a bad example.
I’ve seen a few other small projects attempt to do rollbacks since, but it usually turns into some kind of mess. In most hacks, the coins aren’t time-locked and quickly get laundered through smaller exchanges (and other services) which act as mixers. The stolen coins end up in the hands of a bunch of innocent people, and the rollback then causes way more harm as those users lose their coins.
Laws and contracts are just words unless there is someone willing and able to enforce them. Which is how constitutions are regularly ignored and perverted by dictators.
I don't think this counts as takesies backsies. This incident clearly followed the code is law principle, the whole point is that a majority forms the chain of truth. In this case, a majority decided to splinter and use a different chain where the incident never occurred.
As far as I understand blockchain, that is the system working as intended. Some nodes choose to run Ethereum Classic and some choose to run Ethereum. Isn't that the whole point? Decentralisation?
...while, generally, being thoroughly fleeced by whichever set of wolves (who do understand monetary systems very well indeed) gets wind of the situation and manages to snag the best seats at the feeding trough filled with naive money.
Talk to chatgpt about how a checking account works, and really understand what happens when you put some money in the bank, and when you transfer that money to another person at another bank, how it's accounted for, how the banks actually do that transfer.
Reply to the edit: the parent comment was making a joke (though maybe there is some depth to it) and your reply sounds like a rhetorical question by a spoilsport. Unfortunate!
ETA: it's a joke because the original saying is "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
> If so, what specific steps do you suggest I take to acquire a similar understanding?
School! Teachers! Classes!
Seriously, the traditional higher ed system is still a very good place to learn things like this. (I honestly tend to forget about it since academia hasn't really caught up at teaching software engineering, but that's really the exception rather than the rule ...). For traditional subjects like finance/economics, you can absolutely find inexpensive extension courses taught by people who care about pedagogy.
Going to school and reading up on how and why we got where we are...?
Some people (particularly criminals and oligarchs) might not like them, but most of the structures around financial movements exist for very practical reasons, often stemming from the will to uphold the rule of law. Obviously nothing is perfect (the US have an excessive level of control, VISA/Mastercard are de-facto monopolies, etc etc), but one cannot seriously think that the way to fix things is to reimplement everything from scratch in a wild west of shady unaccountable operators...
<< one cannot seriously think that the way to fix things is to reimplement everything from scratch in a wild west of shady unaccountable operators
One absolutely can, but I think things have to first get sufficiently difficult for ordinary folks to even notice. Fortunately ( sarcasm tag here for otherwise perfectly normal individuals, who may be missing some caffeine in their organism ), given that the war is coming along with various related national security restrictions, we may soon be able to experience that particular slice of fun.
My intuition is saying: the system arose naturally and intelligently over a long period of time, and even with its flaws has a lot of "load bearing legacy code" that few people understand, and new "engineers" think they'll just rewrite the whole thing from scratch and delete the "junk DNA" to use another metaphor. A little time passes and the beautiful clean rewrite collapses because of "totally unforeseeable circumstances" and the "old broken legacy system" is used to save the day. Somewhere a senior "monetary engineer" rolls over in his grave...
Any recommendations for books? Or even podcasts?
I don't have zero understanding. It sounds like you have a deeper understanding than I do.
The entire financial system is a chaotic boundary between thieves and opportunists, and people who want to keep thievery and opportunism under enough control to keep the system nominally workable.
It's always been like this. Which is why financial systems blow up and/or collapse regularly.
Doesn't apply for USDT and USDC which can freeze funds with a court order.
And like the DAO hack on Ethereum showed, if most people who run blockchain software decide that something never happened, they can revert transactions that way.
>And like the DAO hack on Ethereum showed, if most people who run blockchain software decide that something never happened, they can revert transactions that way.
Isn't that a pretty integral part of the blockchain? 51% attacks were even featured on the HBO show Silicon Valley.
Sure, some chain splits fail to get any significant support, so they don't reach anywhere near 51% of mining power. This one did. Hence, it's called a "51% attack".
Offhand dismissal of some very uncontroversial statements. Cool. Maybe you should stop spreading intentional misinformation and instead do something positive with your life.
The value in USDT and USDC comes from the fact that they can (theoretically) be redeemed for real US dollars. One thing the issuers can do is announce "we will never accept redemption requests for these particular stolen coins", making them more or less worthless.
Oh so you're saying a central authority can declare your currency worthless at any time? Good to know. Sounds very like a central bank issued currency though?
It's literally in USDT contract [1], see line 264. USDT is implemented as a contract in several other networks like ETH and has a blacklist. So every USDT operation is a record in ETH blockchain that calls one of the methods (like "transfer" or "add to blacklist").
Well I don't think they're very decentralised, which was the original premise.
Any rules can and have been changed by those with leverage to do so (be that exchanges, miners or devs), in the end any system like this storing value is captured and controlled.
They are decentralized cause they operate on a sort of consensus between nodes as was original premise. Are they "very decentralized" depends on your definition of "very", of course, and techical realities of a particular situation.
Well, Tether was started by an Epstein friend and first handled by the CIA Deltec bank in the Caribbean. Now it is handled by Lutnick's Cantor & Fitzgerald and is in Bukele's El Salvador.
Don't mess with Tether, it is practically state owned.
Interesting, so it ties into the NSA vs CIA war? Some nerds from NSA/MIwhatever launched crypto, then the CIA trust fund nepo kids hijacked/weaponized it through tether
There's an amazingly hilarious interview with the Deltec's "Deputy CEO" and CNBC back in the day:
- was conducted from his gaming rig
- about Deltec's (and therefore Tether's) money movements being several times larger than all the banking in their country was due to people misunderstanding the country's two banking licenses, the names of which HE "couldn't remember right now" (the Deputy CEO of a bank who can't remember the name of the banking licenses where they operate?!?), and he "wasn't sure which [banking license] the bank has, but we might (emphasis mine) have both"
- oh yeah, said Deputy CEO's "resume": 33 years old, by his LinkedIn claimed to have graduated HEC Lausanne in Switzerland with a Master of Science at the age of 15... celebrating his graduation by immediately being named Professor of Finance at a university in Lebanon. While dividing his spare time between running hedge funds in Switzerland (called Indepedance [sic] Weath [sic] Management) and uhh... Jacksonville, FL.
Once CNBC's viewers started ridiculing and questioning both Deltec Bank and Tether and when that looked hilariously bad, they removed his info from the bank's website.
And when that looked bad, they added it back.
And when that looked bad, they removed the bank's whole website, and replaced it with a broken WP template with no working links.
Hey, look, several years after that, go to Deltec's website. "Ultra sophisticated private banking" running on a different WordPress site. "Client login"? "This site can’t be reached Check if there is a typo in ebanking.deltecbank.com. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN". Just as has been the case for years.
... and then the entire bank website was replaced with a low-effort WordPress template. Their online banking was Javascript hard coded to refuse all login attempts.
"Sounds legit to me", said the crypto bros. "Fuck the regulatory system. This is the new era."
Most crypto is "majority rules" where the majority is either "majority of the currency" (proof of stake) or "majority of the mining power" (proof of work).
In this case, iFinex has the explicit ability to freeze funds in Tether.
Cryptocurrencies that are transparent to government tracking are also transparent to whatever criminals want to beat you up and take everything from you.
Your usual non-crypto millinare likely have less money to steal on them than average grandma. Fiat millionare likely have two credit cards and $100 in a pocket. Or useless iPhone with Apple pay. So there is zero profit in trying to rob fiat millionare or billionare and tons of downsides.
And moving any amounts of transparent crypto over $100,000 just paints huge "rob me" target on your person.
Ironically that people use it to buy drugs. If it's anonymous, it's closer to the original intention of BitCoin: the masses of CPUs then GPUs can be considered a "paperclip moment" - runaway effects are real.
I expected it to be the other way around. This is the best time to self-host and decentralize now that the computer can do whatever you want and warn you about security best practices.
Where coins are held is completely irrelevant. There are cryptocurrencies on real blockchains, and while the technology is dumb and mostly useless, nobody denies that PoW and properly implemented PoS are decentralized.
And then there are centrally issued and controlled coins on private, permissioned ledgers a.k.a. databases. But most cryptobros never cared about the technology nor the political goal, so anything can be called a cryptocurrency as long as it's a medium for gambling and speculation outside the regulated financial framework.
I keep saying this: don't bother trying to dunk on crypto people with accusations like this. To a first approximation, nobody in crypto actually believes in the stated principles of anti-centralization, freedom, etc. It's entirely about number go up and always has been. Your charge of hypocrisy just bounces straight off people who never cared about the politics.
In the beginning of crypto people believed in it. But as the numbers went up and up and up it attracted the wrong people. And the original people left.
Now the traditional banking system is basically rebuilt in crypto. The banks are busy the exchanges. The EU even talk about making it illegal to store money in your own wallet.
Not your ... Did you roll dice for that key and then use a pre 2008 airgapped since then computer to calculated the address and do you keep that key in a way where it cannot be hacked, forgotten or lost in a fire. You avoid using hardware wallets. Something something not your coin.
Interesting. I got an email alerting me to a login attempt and requesting for me to verify my device from blockchain.com yesterday. Can't even remember creating an account but I guess it must've happened (I have a lot of forgotten accounts). Wonder if this is related.
- 971.15M USDT (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7baba482077843514d9c72bac0110ba091...
- 823M USDC (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc954c86f118e8e410e6a3eb9e3b38ff4a9...
- 312.73M USDT (Tron): https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/71b0ec0fe873fe820c37cc3ec...
- 175M USDT (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0c07a5e428ce233a3bcb40f257ad899594...
So USDT is not truly decentralized and your money can be frozen for any reason or no reason at all.
- much more awkward to use
- more liable to hacks
- deposits are not insured
- fewer legal protections
- doesn’t pay interest (or not easily anyway)
- and as I find out, bannable by a central institution with lower legal oversight than the Fed
I’ll keep a mental note of this.
Perhaps I am missing your argument.
For the less economical-savvy ones it was like Beanie Babies or Tulips (with predictable consequences)
The predictable outcome is that the deers get to them, but I got to see a few go into full bloom last year and it was wonderful.
It applies equally well to a fiduciary coin with a promise that 1 gcoin = 1g of gold or whatever.
Managing a wallet where there is no recourse if your wallet is compromised is simply too difficult when even crypto exchanges get hacked and otherwise sophisticated people get compromised when taking cautious measures (eg [1]).
Crypto really is and always was a race to the rug pull.
[1]: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/about-3-5-million-los...
Am I missing something here? Seems like a waste of time
It seems like it took some number of minutes and scored billions, and at that point it was a matter of whether/how much they could trade out before it was locked. I don’t know how many minutes or hours it took to lock? If they managed to trade 1% before blocking, that would be an extra tens of millions. If 10% that would be hundreds of millions, etc.
You take 1 $ from someone and give them a token, now you have money the other not. In theory you need to make sure you keep the 1$ but you want to pay people and you are greedy so you invest it and suddenly everyone is broke.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50012907
oh, and three acounts hold like 25% of all btc in circulation.
crypto can do some things, but decentralization isn't one of them. just ask Coinbase
USD tether is barely crypto at all, it's a wrapper around treasury bonds which the US govt. regulates
That's probably socially harmful, but it is the claim.
How does freezing crypto work in this context?
If they can mint with no impact doesn’t that mean they can just print money?
It's remarkable to me how long this scam has lasted and how much confidence people have in it, in spite of the very shady characters involved and the likelihood of fraud.
And yes they can print money, you have to trust their reserves that are off chain.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/stablecoin... (I didn't verify per-stablecoin volume, or actual volume at those hours, or typical volume for those exact hours, which a better analysis would have done.)
https://medium.com/chainargos/losing-the-blacklisting-race-e...
Keys? Hahaha, still not your crypto.
If you ban a coin, instead of persuing the actual criminal, then you're both doing a disservice to honest users of the coin and leaving the bad actor to do harm to society in some other way.
There are only 8B people in the world - they all fit into a "box" of 2k by 2k by 2k of humans.
It really isn't that hard to know who's doing bad things to others, especially with current technology.
Criminals used to meet in person to discuss crime (because mail/phones can be intercepted) and meet in person to move cash. It was a hard limiting factor on what they can get away with. With e2e messengers and anonymous crypto both of those "issues" are fixed.
Do you know anyone who uses it for legit purposes? I don't. I bet you ban a coin like that and you kill orders of magnitude more crime revenue compared to .001% of honest users using it to send money home and save a few dollars on the transaction.
It is an evolutionary process, with incentives are high enough for both sides to keep finding solutions.
Like the whole point of crypto to me I money without central governance.
I never liked stable coins or the concept of it and it’s mainly a huge fraud, so freezing just adds on top.
For instance to unwind a 5 billion dollar robbery
Have you talked to Crypto-enthusiasts before? They very much don't want that.
So crypto + legal company means not really following bitcoin ideology anymore
My heart goes out to you, along with these two definitely not Nazi salutes.
The feature literally appears to have just saved over two billion USD from being stolen! I mean, fine, "disgusting" is subjective. But the need for the feature is real and quantifiable (and very large) and it did what it advertised.
People keep forgetting than in crypto the code is the law, the code says that someone else has that crypto now and I don't see anything happening that is not supposed to happen besides the fact that some random companies froze half of the assets of the possible NFT merchant. That's the disturbing part, someone is acting like a bank or law enforcement in a code is the law environment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203051
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7294762
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7369879
[0]: https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3mz27m5slcc2o
This attack vector has become so common and funny.
In one scenario, i remember a company got hacked because an engineer downloaded a RAT package on company laptop during fake interview and asked him to keep it running for days as part of the interview process while they stole the data.
Besides, when its in your computer they send you a modified computer with an esim and steal it just like that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50054092
The whole thing is a shady casino where the code is the law and who knows maybe the Binance guy actually made a deal to send $5B of crypto for a really cool NFT when drunk and now pretends that its a hack? We will never know, the code is the law and the law says that someone else has it now.
In crypto, you should gamble fast lose or win and get out. Pay/receive the ransom and get out. Pay/receive your drug/guns/espionage money and get out. You should never keep crypto if you are not OK with losing it.
If you want to use the BC on your computer, you can transfer it to wherever you want.
But it's also surprising that it happened to binance at all. This checks a lot of the boxes for being, at least indirectly, an inside job.
https://ohey.ca/research/polymarket-debugbear-wallet-drainer...
https://x.com/DebugBear/status/2115866496643535293
As of now, DebugBear webite has been taken offline: https://www.debugbear.com/
And they just posted on Twitter: https://x.com/DebugBear/status/2115930681398239278
Are you suggesting that this is not a big deal? $6B feels like a lot but sounds like in the scheme of things it isn’t as a fraction of trading volume. Is that right?
Any company losing 10 months of revenue overnight is a BIG fucking deal. Doubly so in a speculative asset that you’re holding for others “securely”. The financial hit has only just begun for them.
That said yes the trading volume has huge.
[0]: https://www.trmlabs.com/resources/blog/north-korea-steals-us...
think of it this way - if someone steals your iphone, and you lock it, does apple pop? No, apple sells you another one. locked devices are good for apple because it causes more demand.
https://tether.io/news/tether-completes-the-largest-inaugura...
CZ from Binance was also done for… fraud but miraculously pardoned by Donald Trump (I wonder why?!) and somehow still has enormous influence and inside knowledge in spite being banned from managing Binance. He talks as if he runs the company. Hmmm.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly1qrl9l1qo
The Israelis don't have any problem acquiring hard currency. North Korea does, and has an established MO of stealing crypto and running online moneymaking scams like ransomware.
You linked an article about a single Israeli criminal getting extradited to stand trial for a crime.
Do you not understand the distinction between "the Israelis" (often used as a shorthand for its government) and "an Israeli"?
IIRC, the North Korean government itself has programs to steal cryptocurrency to fund its government.
This fits the NK MO to a T. It does not fit Israeli intelligence activity. Your claim rings hollow without any support.
Of all the reasons to demonize a government, that seems like a pretty good one. Why the snark?
Setting aside the genocide, it is particularly funny at a time when Western governments are oppressing their own by crushing dissent on Israel, but I don’t see the same outrage there.
I don’t understand what you mean about faux concern only lasting as long as the media says. North Korea is, as you say, evergreen. And I’m pretty sure it’s based on how awful that government is, not on “the media” telling us to hate them.
I meant the faux concern over NK is evergreen unlike some other causes such as the ones I mentioned.
As soon as (if ever) NK joins the fold of Western-aligned liberal states, the media machine will spin up and it will cease to be maligned, and you will move on to the next bogeyman.
If NK ever were to join the fold of western-aligned liberal states, it will probably be accompanied by no longer behind quite such utter bastards to their people and a cessation of maligning would be entirely justified.
I just don’t get it. Of all the things to complain about propaganda in the world, why North Korea? This is one where they get it right.
Is the criticism of Israel from the people, or from Western govs and media outlets (i.e., the establishment, the centers of actual power)? And isn’t the outrage logical given the nature of the atrocities being committed by Israel right now? And pray tell: which Western countries are sanctioning Israel?
On the other hand, NK is vilified by the Western establishment, i.e. by the holders of power, but on a more background level. It isn’t the topic du jour right now, but NK is ever present as a big bad evil. Propaganda helps maintain this image in the West, even when NK isn’t present in the news cycle. And it is sanctioned to hell and back.
And even if it is “right”, it does not mean that it is completely right, nor does it mean that the propaganda isn’t doing its job effectively even if you don’t realize it.
Anyhow, I think this thread is deep enough, so I will stop here.
Everything you know about NK is from the media.
It’s definitely true that crimes against other countries are more frowned upon than crimes against one’s own people. Which doesn’t seem right to me at all. People are people and victims are victims whether it’s their own government or someone else’s. Hence why I’m confused about the snark. This seems like an instance where ugly norms are being broken for a good reason and it’s being treated like hypocrisy.
TBH I think I (and maybe others) just get triggered when the bogey man is invoked each time there's a crypto story.
It’s not a “bogey man” because it’s literally North Korea’s well-documented MO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Group
It’s like reading an article about a Russian dissident politician dying from falling out of a window and then getting outraged when someone suggests he may have been murdered by someone in power.
The point of a cold wallet is to keep the private key physically offline. That way you know it cannot be stolen by electronic means, because the physical device containing the key needed to authorize transactions is locked up and not powered on. Then you only power it on during very specific, audited times and conditions when it's needed to fund the hot wallet, which does all the actual automated trading and transfers.
GP's point is to have all incoming transactions to an exchange go to a cold wallet, which becomes a one-way sink, and then periodically the exchange powers up the cold wallet to sign transactions transferring assets to the hot wallet, which then funds all outgoing transactions. This isn't a bad architecture, though I'm not sure it'd save all that much here.
Then when things calm down you go and find ... the keys under the birdbath are lost, and you're fucked in a different way.
But at least it might work.
You can't "move money into an offline crypto wallet that is not online at all."
If "money" i.e. crypto "currency" is in a crypto "wallet" then it is online. Anyone with the key and an Internet connection can transfer it at any time.
The wording is confusing because to someone who doesn't know how cryptocurrencies work it sounds like you can simply "take the crypto offline and put it into a physical device" as if it was a file. But that's not how it works. The physical key merely contains the actual key for the always-online wallet.
Only spending from that wallet needs online access to private key - depositing to it does not.
There is selection bias in play now. The remaining people are naturally more risk tolerant. So I agree this second time around, no lessons will be learned.
during Mt. Gox it felt like nerds and insiders, nowadays boomer dads are into crypto.
my point being that i don't agree with "the remaining people are naturally more risk tolerant", as there are way more 'new' people.
A bank API can be 10-100s+ kloc if they need that to implement access controls.
Maybe the sim card is on a timer to broadcast your keys after a year, so you just can't detect cellular signal usage now.
To securely own bitcoin you have to first create a new chip fabrication plant to then make your own hardware wallet.
I no longer dunk on crypto.
Not because crypto got better, but because the joke got old. I got tired of dunking on it.
[1] https://x.com/CZ_BINANCE/STATUS/2115915423174853077
Sure you can print USD to make it all magically go away
But it would be very convenient if there's some experimental token of which a majority was stolen, so that irreversible damage was caused. If the token is experimental it could have a low damage, but could demonstrate the irreversible nature of these types of attacks, returning fiat money doesn't waive the issue away.
There's also the fact of funding criminal networks for billions of dollars, which probably causes them to scale cyber or non cyber operations or otherwise gain power.
I guess at some point they'll have to cash out. Seems hard to spend $6B in vape shops.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50224916
Need to get better in prompting
Binance wallet 16 came online in 2021.
Why to wait 5 years to attack.
What am I missing ?
the laundering wouldnt be all that hard to take those buttcoins on in exchange for clean ones.
edit: I suppose it would be hard still. You can get anonymity inside wallets with Tornado Cash but then to turn that into actual money it will be very dependent on the country
Same goes with startup banks - if you exceed FDIC limits, make sure the difference is in a large institutional bank. Nearly learned this one the hard way.
Trying to save a few basis points in txn fees in very volatile industries comes at a huge risk premium
https://nypost.com/2025/11/25/us-news/sam-altmans-ex-boyfrie...
> “A lot of the people who come into this money are flashy, and they’re signaling that they have wealth,” he previously told The Post.
As long as you don't brag about it, I don't really see this being a real world issue. I think credit card fraud is a lot more likely.
If someone steals my notebook I take a bigger hit on my net worth lol.
Whoever went for this has some balls.
The hack is purely technical in nature.
This could have been the FED's system that got compromised and the response would have been the same.
Oh, no, sorry - it wouldn't because we wouldn't even know it happened as FED is fully opaque while crypto is quite transparent.
In that sense crypto is much more democratic because at least there's some ability for the public to audit it. With FED there's none.
or just not rebuild it at all.
pros: can already be used to buy all things, and doesn't set the earth on fire in order to verify transactions
cons: cannot be used to buy live grenades and CSAM
I bet they are celebrating.
Congratulations. Nice haul.
idk to me that just seems intuitively like something you'd need to have to be credible? Cold is a different story...but how can hot not be covered?
Thats been the fascinating part of crypto is watching society speedrun “best hits of financial crisis from history” by ignoring things we already solved.
Crypto is roughly agreeing that the current password rotation practices kinda suck and agreeing that the new way forward is just to have a single plain text file because you’re sure all that overhead was just nonsense
Note that I was one of the folks early on that bought into the idea (but not as much of the coins sadly) and I still think the Bitcoin white paper is a beautiful intellectual exploration (as is the concept of blockchains).
But the centralized entry and exit points in practice mean all the theoretical benefits aren't really in play.
If governments ban crypto then they will without fail ban cash as well.
Edit: For additional context, I live in a country where fees and transactions related to government and regulated services (including telecom) are required by law to use our national payment system exclusively, and it is hell for people who fall through the cracks (e.g. problems national ID that blocks payment systems). I've seen first-hand on multiple occasions people standing outside government buildings begging others to pay their fees in exchange for cash so that they can get unblocked from the payment system.
Whether through malice or incompetence, human institutions can never and will never be perfect. Cash and cash-like systems (inc. crypto) must remain or a lot of innocent people will get hurt, even if it enables criminals.
it is wild to me that people expect that crypto is supposed to solve a problem that is as old as currency.
For me bitcoin opened up the idea that we could maybe do money better. That idea still lives, but not in practice. Yet.
That said, it’s got to be one of the funniest moments in modern history.
Glad it turned out to be Michelin-starred bollocks.
When so much money is at stake (almost) everyone will have a price including insiders.
P.S. If you're really paranoid don't use a network-connected printer.
And yes, this is somewhat absurd. But so are online transactions that can be hacked with no backsies.
I can't understand how you could let this happen. If they stored everything in fat hot wallets, that just seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially with the "features" of crypto. Math for the most part, doesn't care about your feelings, or money for that matter.
I'd be really curious to know what their security architecture was.
Tech in 2026
What are the countermeasures, is something frozen blocked marked as invalid?
I'm completely ignorant on anything related to cryptocurrencies.
Imagine someone offered you to buy $1,000,000 of that dirty money for $100,000? $10,000? $1,000?
At some point there will be people who would buy it and deal with money laundering.
https://binance-hack-watch.vercel.app/#tab-live
Current largest was ~1B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybit
fundsu were not in fact safu
And the money didn't disappear; it still exists.
So: why did BTC (overall) drop by 15,000% of the actual loss (which actually isn't a loss at all to BTC as a whole)
Seems like markets are really driven more by emotion and perception than fundamentals, but I'm neither a psychologist nor a trader.
Let's say you magically come into possession of 1% of SpaceX and want to sell it quickly. The selling pressure would nosedive the price by way more than 1%. And the more the value of something is 'thin air', the bigger the effect.
I can only suppose that the people that stole these BTC will try to sell at least part of it quickly.
Isn't it only going to get worse from here?
It's the main weak point used in these hacks.
It allows a counter party to withdraw money from your wallet any time.
Just don't "connect" you wallet.
Their kid is definitely getting at least 30 dolls and 250 pencils.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwg7xp8kx4v5o
$25 Billion fine against Meta - USA government
$3 Billion robbery against Binance - North Korea ( suspected )
$1.2 Billion penalty against Bank of America - USA
That tells you who wears the big britches.
Trump < Kim Jung Un < Michelle Lujan Grisham
Bitcoin has no such concept.
Better general security yes, but the incentive to hack them is quite large and now more hackers have the ability to pull it off.
Same with any purpose built wallet you didn't make yourself: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/10/23/ledge...
What I never get is how they plan of converting the stolen crypto to cash eventually. No exchanges are gonna take the coins.
Less true for ETH (though in the past it forked after DAO hack to revert the txns), and I think never for BTC / XMR.
> It does look like a hack on Binance. Appreciate the quick freeze from Tether (~$971m) and Circle (~$823m).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly1qrl9l1qo
Not a serious store of value.
EDIT: lmao even
who tf think annual or bi-annual millions to billions of dollar heist is good idea for business ????
MelangeBot OP • 2h ago Their insurance fund (SAFU) is completely wiped out, it's only $1 billion in BTC
The name of the fund was originally inspired by this meme
FWIW, at the end of every crypto bear market, a CEX usually blows up (eg FTX)...
And decreasing, since BTC is dropping as we speak. Always a good idea to hedge a currency with the currency itsself
Depends on what you’re insuring, no? For theft, it actually makes senses, right? That way, you’re insuring a constant number of coins, no matter what the market is doing. If you’re insurance currency would tank during a bitcoin heist, you would lose the insurance effect.
Binance has equity and cash flow cover this, outside the insurance fund.
They custody $150B.
FTX was larger in dollar terms and ecosystem was smaller back in a day.
If a massive heist like this triggered a run on one of the largest exchanges (Binance), potentially leading to a liquidity crisis, the consequences for the ecosystem could be far worse than temporarily freezing specific addresses holding stolen stablecoins.
Not saying that's what would have happened, but it seemed like a real possibility. And I'm not saying freezing assets is good in general, but in this particular case, maybe it was the lesser evil.
I want crypto because I don't trust nation states with the leverage and dials of fiat currency. All we've done is replace government with trusting whoever made a particular stablecoin.
Permissionless crypto is the only real crypto.
Seriously?
Oh you didn't know? I bet you trade in "dollars". That's cute.
Seems like the issue here is that he became former CEO. Funds are not safu without him...
[1] https://people.com/trump-pardons-changpeng-zhao-binance-cryp...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelF6zEHXpE
For another narrative, it was 83,038 a month ago on Sept 29th, so is down 5% in one month. And one year ago it was 112,562 on Oct 29th 2025 - down over 30% in one year. Well into "bear market" territory.
Using "traditional" market indicators and definitions for things like bear/bull markets doesn't feel sensible for such a volatile market.
Not making any market predictions here-- just saying that it's probably not that useful to generalize from that event.
Binance is making so much money, covering this hack is peanuts for them.
I downloaded Binance's self published market data (https://data.binance.vision/), calculated spot and futures volume for the past year, and then applied their *highest fee tier* on both sides of the volume (for every $1 traded, they generate a fee on the taker and the maker. the fee rate is asymmetrical).
Spot revenue worked out to $7.6B USD, perps revenue worked out to $13.8B
This is an upper bound on the fees charged on volume. Binance also scams their users with a b-book, has DMM deals, etc.
I don't want to get into all that today.
But the final result is that they print somewhere in the range of $20B per year on fees. I guess CZ also has huge stockpiles of BTC and stuff. A 1% rise in BTC price probably means more for them than their actual fees, LOL.
All this to say, I think $5.6B significantly hurts.
See Google's stock price today. Their ads business slowed down a bit, and their stock tanked 10%. If binance was publicly traded, I imagine a similar affect would be demonstrated on their price.
I agree. I was trying to give an idea of the size of the company.
As Binance doesn’t publish their financial statements, it’s difficult to get the more relevant metrics, like FCF.
I also know Binance is a privately held company that doesn’t publish financial statements. If you can tell me their P/E, go right ahead.
Not that I think P/E would help here. P/E is a valuation metric (how cheap/expensive).
The relevant metric would be something like FCF, as gizajob wrote, but again: not available.
I was trying to give an idea of the size of the company, that is all.
me: no worries boss, our market cap is $100B
boss (who is also the tooth fairy): oh right cool np
... Not your coins."
Given things like the ledger hardware attack[1] I think the time indexed risk of using a centralized exchange is probably lower than doing self-custody.
I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons, but I think trying to disguise this as a security decision ("If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto.") is arguable at best.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/70f69253-6017-4259-95c9-48bf0e088...
Does this mean you recommend not using one? Because that goes against all the common best practice recommendations from when I did a couple of years working in Web3 stuff a few years back.
> I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.
That's not what I suggested.
I suggested that it is less secure over time than centralized exchanges, even with the things you listed.
Records are largely a novelty. And predate streaming services.
I'm fairly sure originals are almost universally novelties compared to things that came after.
There apparently is no such thing as “your crypto” with how many security problems there are.
The Bitcoin mining network is somewhere around 1000 EH/s, while the (AI assisted research ahead) 34.5 million H100-equivalent GPUs globally would yield about 0.435 EH/s. They'd represent less than 0.05% of the Bitcoin network.
Then I forgot my pass phrase and have never been able to recover any of it. I don’t even know how many btc were mined/lost.
Before anyone asks, no, there aren’t any usable exploits / vulns found for the encryption methods used. And from what I can tell the coins in question have still sat frozen for going in a decade and a half now. I suspect many other hackers did the same thing…
Edit: I thought he was talking about 2012 but yeah in 2010 CPU mining was still a thing
Possibly Trezor (35 points, 16 days ago, 3 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50078423
> Coldcard’s software is built on MicroPython, and Coinkite supplies its own hardware-RNG wrapper for the device’s STM32 chip. To avoid conflicts, Coinkite deliberately disabled MicroPython’s built-in RNG path by setting a configuration flag, MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG, to zero. The problem: the underlying library checked only whether that flag was defined, not whether it was enabled (set to a non-zero value). Because a flag set to zero is still “defined,” the build silently compiled against the wrong code, and seed generation fell back to a deterministic software pseudo-random number generator called Yasmarang
Tbh the biggest problem is platforms deciding you’re buying drugs because you purchase and transfer out (thanks Venmo)
A paper wallet works as well
A hardware wallet is just a tradeoff between convenience and an extra security risk
An old laptop with the wifi card taken out is more transparent and auditable. It just runs the ordinary open source code
But I just keep all my funds in a hot wallet, no multisig. And if I get hacked I lose it all. I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked. The risk of losing cryptocurrency will encourage security advances across the whole ecosystem. I think I will set up multisig eventually
> I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked.
So you proposed a way to be more secure, only to discard it yourself in favor of “just having good security”?
In fact, updates are only a risk. You physically remove anything that can allow updates to happen + anything that allows wireless networking.
I agree my approach is not great, I dont own a lot
If your paper wallet, generated offline, used a bad RNG, it is just as vulnerable.
That sounds like your housekeeper's key...
You can store crypto with zero risk of electronic access just using offline wallet generation and an offline wallet. It's not even hard.
This falls under "extraordinary precautions" that few people do and is an enormous error prone hassle.
You could put it in USD and you'd be financing the bombings of schoolgirls in Iran in a pointless and no-end-in-sight war... not saying either is better, but one of them is optional for US citizens, while the other isn't. And the optional one also lets you avoid third-party custodians like Binance.
Some of the crypto scammers use github
Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.
A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...
No, because there was global news and retailers in Germany taking devices off the shelves:
https://x.com/0xJohannes_/status/2109240472933671125
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Crypto-thieves-sell-hardware-wa...
>Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.
Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting refunded via any bank or some other method is about 10000x more likley than me getting my buttcoins back.
>A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...
People bought compromised devices from reputable sources and still lost all their buttcoins.
Im not saying its for everyone, its definately not for normies like yourself
Ive had more money stolen, and not refunded in traditional bank accounts (thousands) than Ive ever had stolen in crypto (none).
Do you price your savings based on 12hours of market volatility, or do you look at it cumulatively over a duration?
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2008?amount=1
Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.
Is the problem the number or the concept?
Your salary should also go up so the only thing affected is the cash you hold. Would it be better if the currency would be version-bumped every 10 years and rescaled to remove the inflation?
I am curious if I’ll live long enough to see the United States issue higher denomination bank notes again.
Relative to what? Talk of BTC gaining value is primarily wrt USD; I'd be perfectly happy with my actual currency (GBP) gaining value wrt USD.
I suppose BTC can only 'deflate' in the long-run (and with an assumed supply of goods and services available in exchange for it) since the mintable volume is fixed. But perhaps it exposes that talking of currencies inflating is a bit sloppy, as it doesn't really make sense for BTC, and it's the economy or banking system that inflates really..
The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.
Can you expand here? Governments don't want to incentivize storing value in order to encourage spending, but people want to be able to store value because that's what we've been doing since farming.
Is it because money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value?
You might not, I do.
Tell you what: you go short btc/usd, I'll go long btc/usd, and let's circle back in 10 years and see who did better.
> You might not, I do.
Then you don't want a currency. For something to be money it needs to (among other things) be a medium of exchange, and nobody really wants to trade away a thing today if they know it will be more valuable tomorrow.
Suppose you have some control over currency. You run a country. I'm that case, so you still want the currency to gain value compared to the alternatives?
Your choice is basically: holding currency is more profitable than building a house or running a business (or lending to those who do), or else less profitable. If you run a country, do you want houses and jobs and all that kind of thing, or do you want people to do better if they choose to hoard currency?
If I need a house today I'll buy it. I might not invest in real estate or stocks as much if my currency will be worth more tomorrow but I'll still buy stuff I need or want badly enough.
The bond seller is intending to put it to productive use to generate the yield.
This differs from deflation where people will (more the before) actually sit on money and not buy bonds. Then people who need liquidity cannot get it as the money supply drys up.
SPY has outperformed BTC over the last 5 years, and with far less volatility.
Convenient date to pick there.
> which of those assets would you have preferred to own and why?
NVDA.
It's a productive use of resources, not a last-fool-standing pyramid scheme.
To be fair bitcoin’s initial years were extraordinary. By any metric you use though the rate of increase has clearly slowed.
That's an odd way of phrasing it, since the $1 is still worth $1, and a naive reading would make you think it's "worth more" when the buying power has actually reduced.
Wouldn't it be clearer to say $1 today only buys you 64% of what you could have bought in 2008.
This is mathematically provable:
1. A dollar in 2008 could buy 1/14tn of the value created by the US economy (the GDP) in 2008.
2. A dollar today can only buy 1/32tn of the value created by the economy in 2025.
It's obvious a 2025-2026 dollar is worth less than a 2008 dollar. That's just math.
But. A dollar in 2008 could buy 230% more of the economy than it can today. And you say its purchasing power has only eroded 64%. That means the dollar is actually worth more today, compared to the size of the economy it's in. Weird, I know.
EDIT: I'm fine with downvotes but tell me why I'm wrong.
Back in 2016 a then-huge Ethereum smart contract called "The DAO" [1] had a loophole that let an attacker extract a third of all the funds.
But a lot of the developers and miners had either lost money themselves, or had friends who'd lost money, or felt the embarrassing incident was devaluing their own Ethereum holdings. So they decided to allow takesies-backsies.
There's probably a philosophical lesson there about power and who the rules really apply to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO
Law is downstream of philosophy. Youre forced to deal with conclusions that may be based in philosophy (or they may be arbitrary or self interested). Nobody makes you hold a position on mens rea. In that way you can ignore the philosophy.
In the literal sense, people have been forcing their philosophy on other people for at least as long as we’ve had societies, so I assume it’s not that.
Invent Notion then keep adding features enterprise customers want until you're re-inventing JIRA/Confluence
Who left this stupid fence here?
Ethereum never did it again, rolling back hacks didn’t (and couldn’t) become normal policy. IMO, they shouldn’t have made an exception, as it set a bad example.
I’ve seen a few other small projects attempt to do rollbacks since, but it usually turns into some kind of mess. In most hacks, the coins aren’t time-locked and quickly get laundered through smaller exchanges (and other services) which act as mixers. The stolen coins end up in the hands of a bunch of innocent people, and the rollback then causes way more harm as those users lose their coins.
As far as I understand blockchain, that is the system working as intended. Some nodes choose to run Ethereum Classic and some choose to run Ethereum. Isn't that the whole point? Decentralisation?
Edit: the downvotes are suggesting I'm missing something. I think my communication style could be improved.
That's 80% of the thing right there.
ETA: it's a joke because the original saying is "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
School! Teachers! Classes!
Seriously, the traditional higher ed system is still a very good place to learn things like this. (I honestly tend to forget about it since academia hasn't really caught up at teaching software engineering, but that's really the exception rather than the rule ...). For traditional subjects like finance/economics, you can absolutely find inexpensive extension courses taught by people who care about pedagogy.
Some people (particularly criminals and oligarchs) might not like them, but most of the structures around financial movements exist for very practical reasons, often stemming from the will to uphold the rule of law. Obviously nothing is perfect (the US have an excessive level of control, VISA/Mastercard are de-facto monopolies, etc etc), but one cannot seriously think that the way to fix things is to reimplement everything from scratch in a wild west of shady unaccountable operators...
One absolutely can, but I think things have to first get sufficiently difficult for ordinary folks to even notice. Fortunately ( sarcasm tag here for otherwise perfectly normal individuals, who may be missing some caffeine in their organism ), given that the war is coming along with various related national security restrictions, we may soon be able to experience that particular slice of fun.
Any recommendations for books? Or even podcasts?
I don't have zero understanding. It sounds like you have a deeper understanding than I do.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money/
It's always been like this. Which is why financial systems blow up and/or collapse regularly.
And like the DAO hack on Ethereum showed, if most people who run blockchain software decide that something never happened, they can revert transactions that way.
Isn't that a pretty integral part of the blockchain? 51% attacks were even featured on the HBO show Silicon Valley.
[1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xdAC17F958D2ee523a220620699459...
One can also burn tokens, just as one can burn cash, but we don't tend to hold that against either systems since it's purely optional.
Any rules can and have been changed by those with leverage to do so (be that exchanges, miners or devs), in the end any system like this storing value is captured and controlled.
Unless the house is monero or something and you want a lifetime supply of drugs.
> function destroyBlackFunds (address _blackListedUser) public onlyOwner
Don't mess with Tether, it is practically state owned.
- was conducted from his gaming rig
- about Deltec's (and therefore Tether's) money movements being several times larger than all the banking in their country was due to people misunderstanding the country's two banking licenses, the names of which HE "couldn't remember right now" (the Deputy CEO of a bank who can't remember the name of the banking licenses where they operate?!?), and he "wasn't sure which [banking license] the bank has, but we might (emphasis mine) have both"
- oh yeah, said Deputy CEO's "resume": 33 years old, by his LinkedIn claimed to have graduated HEC Lausanne in Switzerland with a Master of Science at the age of 15... celebrating his graduation by immediately being named Professor of Finance at a university in Lebanon. While dividing his spare time between running hedge funds in Switzerland (called Indepedance [sic] Weath [sic] Management) and uhh... Jacksonville, FL.
Once CNBC's viewers started ridiculing and questioning both Deltec Bank and Tether and when that looked hilariously bad, they removed his info from the bank's website.
And when that looked bad, they added it back.
And when that looked bad, they removed the bank's whole website, and replaced it with a broken WP template with no working links.
Hey, look, several years after that, go to Deltec's website. "Ultra sophisticated private banking" running on a different WordPress site. "Client login"? "This site can’t be reached Check if there is a typo in ebanking.deltecbank.com. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN". Just as has been the case for years.
... and then the entire bank website was replaced with a low-effort WordPress template. Their online banking was Javascript hard coded to refuse all login attempts.
"Sounds legit to me", said the crypto bros. "Fuck the regulatory system. This is the new era."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3nQ8-KY28
Let's continue reading...
In this case, iFinex has the explicit ability to freeze funds in Tether.
It always pumps after hacks when they swap to clean it. But it is also just the only crypto that makes sense to be used by regular people.
Your usual non-crypto millinare likely have less money to steal on them than average grandma. Fiat millionare likely have two credit cards and $100 in a pocket. Or useless iPhone with Apple pay. So there is zero profit in trying to rob fiat millionare or billionare and tons of downsides.
And moving any amounts of transparent crypto over $100,000 just paints huge "rob me" target on your person.
It doesnt exactly solve on-ramp / off-ramp, but it hides very well how much you actually have in total.
With nornal crypto you create direct track from a CEX to every place where you spend the money.
And then there are centrally issued and controlled coins on private, permissioned ledgers a.k.a. databases. But most cryptobros never cared about the technology nor the political goal, so anything can be called a cryptocurrency as long as it's a medium for gambling and speculation outside the regulated financial framework.
Now the traditional banking system is basically rebuilt in crypto. The banks are busy the exchanges. The EU even talk about making it illegal to store money in your own wallet.
This is what happens when people don't think things thru.
Losing $5b is indeed a potential security issue.
Per Changpeng Zhao (former Binance CEO):
This seems to be caused by DebugBear compromise: https://x.com/debugbear/status/2115866496643535293?s=46&t=_R...
it appears to be an injection attack on the front end. injecting incorrect tx, but showing a valid tx for the user to sign.
Link: https://x.com/cz_binance/status/2115880474375749834?s=46&t=_...