Bitcoin discussion and news

[littlebabyjesus]

You also have trad finance collapses (off the top of my head BCCI was several hundred million)and inside jobs - the Bank of England has been robbed for several hundred billion over the last few years, and the scam is showing no signs of abaitting.

A properly secured bitcoin is IMPOSSIBLE to access fraudelently.

Here you are talking about an exchange. There are zillions of exchanges where they take your bitcoin and give you a promissory note to redeem, just like a traditional bank. Again (although I've said if before) if you dont own the private key, you do not own the bitcoin.

And again, but louder

IF YOU DO NOT OWN THE PRIVATE KEY, YOU DO NOT OWN THE BITCOIN.


Customer funds are not directly protected by any government, but since 2018, Binance has had insurance with the FDIC, an insurance agency that is backed by the US government. Customers funds are secured to a value of $250k, through SAFU (Secure Asset Funds for Users) deposits.

I'm not sure if the FDIC insurance will cover the bridge. Bridges (things that move coins from one chain to another) are notoriously insecure pieces of blockchain architecture, often secured only by multisig wallets. This hack is currently coming in at no3 on the "largest blockchain hacks of all time" list. All three are bridges. I really like Across, which is a trustless bridge, but its limited in the chains (EVM only) and coins it supports.

Same thing applies to your post as applied to StakerOne's. However much your bitcoin is worth now, it would be worth a tiny fraction of that were it not for the existence of the likes of binance. They're an integral part of the bubble.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Fuck-ups by any company working with crypto have the potential to undermine confidence in the entire structure, particularly since, as you must well know, most people who use crypto don't deal directly with the blocks.

I'm note sure thats true. All of the people that I know that use crypto (rather than "invest" or "trade" in it) secure their funds themselves. This is what it is designed for and its much harder to use crypto if you keep it on an exchange.

High volume traders need to keep their bitcoin on exchanges, as trading costs are much lower than decentralised alternatives and there are exit penalties and block confirmation delays, but most of them know the risk that they are taking and accept it anyway, and the ones that dont shouldnt be trading when they have no clue about their risk vectors.

They use crypto via intermediaries. And if exchanges like binance didn't exist, your precious tokens would be worth a whole lot less money right now.

And your point is, caller?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Same thing applies to your post as applied to StakerOne's. However much your bitcoin is worth now, it would be worth a tiny fraction of that were it not for the existence of the likes of binance. They're an integral part of the bubble.

If binance did not exist, a bitcoin would be worth exactly the same amount.
1btc=1btc
Yeah, I might be able to exchange that for £1 or £1m, but it really doesnt matter, because if I own 1btc, I know, based on maths and physics that I own 1/21m of the total supply of bitcoin.

.

 

[maomao]

If binance did not exist, a bitcoin would be worth exactly the same amount.
1btc=1btc
Yeah, I might be able to exchange that for £1 or £1m, but it really doesnt matter, because if I own 1btc, I know, based on maths and physics that I own 1/21m of the total supply of bitcoin.

You realise of course, money is a medium of exchange whether you're exchanging it for dollars or doughnuts. You may have no interest in how much fiat currency is worth but if it's to be a currency you'd surely rather it was worth a whole heap of doughnuts than a couple of crumbs. If you think that btc is worth owning just because it's btc and regardless of what you can exchange fit for then you're just a nutter, like the woman who married the Eiffel Tower or something. Either that or it's just a way of batting aside any problems to do with the value of the things.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

lol, whatever bitcoin was designed for, it wasn't doing easy transactions. Numbers are hard to come by, but a figure of 70 per cent of all bitcoin trading done using tether is commonly quoted.

According to a recent study, 70 percent of Bitcoin trading is done in Tethers. On any given day, Tether is by far the most-traded coin, its volume often double that of Bitcoin.

There’s a Potential Grenade at the Center of the Crypto Economy

Tether dethethering is the biggest systemic threat to crypto right now. As the authors of that article say, it could happen any time. It will make the terraluna fiasco look trivial by comparison.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If binance did not exist, a bitcoin would be worth exactly the same amount.
1btc=1btc
Yeah, I might be able to exchange that for £1 or £1m, but it really doesnt matter, because if I own 1btc, I know, based on maths and physics that I own 1/21m of the total supply of bitcoin.

.

You still don’t seem to grasp what money actually is.

 

[BigTom]

A properly secured bitcoin is IMPOSSIBLE to access fraudelently.

lol.
I have a $5 wrench that can allow me to access someone's bitcoin fraudulently, SHA256 doesn't really matter too much when it comes to social engineering hacks.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

lol, whatever bitcoin was designed for, it wasn't doing easy transactions. Numbers are hard to come by, but a figure of 70 per cent of all bitcoin trading done using tether is commonly quoted.

There’s a Potential Grenade at the Center of the Crypto Economy

Tether dethethering is the biggest systemic threat to crypto right now. As the authors of that article say, it could happen any time. It will make the terraluna fiasco look trivial by comparison.

I agree, tether is a shitshow waiting to happen. Wouldnt touch it with a bargepole.
Bitcoin unaffected.

You still don’t seem to grasp what money actually is.

You dont grasp what bitcoin actually is.

lol.
I have a $5 wrench that can allow me to access someone's bitcoin fraudulently, SHA256 doesn't really matter too much when it comes to social engineering hacks.

If you feel at risk of a $5 wrench attack, there is Shamir's secret sharing.

 

[BigTom]

I agree, tether is a shitshow waiting to happen. Wouldnt touch it with a bargepole.
Bitcoin unaffected.

You dont grasp what bitcoin actually is.

If you feel at risk of a $5 wrench attack, there is Shamir's secret sharing.

You know that only works for groups of people, right?

Like it's no use for me and my personal wallet.

Imagine being in a company and needing half a dozen people to sign off every single payment made. Never going to happen.

It also makes wrench attacks more difficult, since you now need multiple wrenches, but far from impossible.

Overconfidence in security measures by users is a huge weakness in any security scheme.

 

[StakerOne]

lol.
I have a $5 wrench that can allow me to access someone's bitcoin fraudulently, SHA256 doesn't really matter too much when it comes to social engineering hacks.

How is that any different to banking? If you know someone has a bank account (just as you would have to know that they have bitcoin), you can still get money out of them with a $5 wench.

You know that only works for groups of people, right?

Like it's no use for me and my personal wallet.

Imagine being in a company and needing half a dozen people to sign off every single payment made. Never going to happen.

It also makes wrench attacks more difficult, since you now need multiple wrenches, but far from impossible.

Overconfidence in security measures by users is a huge weakness in any security scheme.

Oh yes, of course. Merely pointing out the superitority of blockchain security means we're all "over confident".

If normal key pair security of a self custodial wallet isn't good enough, then more mechanisms can be deployed, for example a vault with a timed delay, requiring confirmation off trusted users before money can be moved.

Argent – The best Ethereum wallet for DeFi and NFTs. is one example.

 

[Supine]

Real money is more secure than Bitcoin because it is regulated. When crypto is regulated the balance may change in its favour.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

You know that only works for groups of people, right?

It can work for one person or many people.
For a single individual it just means that you need to access x locations. All three must be compromised to complete the key.

Like it's no use for me and my personal wallet.

Not unless you have people chasing you with a $5 wrench or think you might.
The only risk factor in bitcoin is someone getting hold of your private key. If the private key is properly secured, its safe. There are a million and one ways to secure a private key, from engraved steel to PGP secured stegamorphic encoding. The biggest risk factor to anyone;s bitcoin is themselves and their particular vulnerabilities.

If you are forgetful, dont rely on memorising your private key.
If you live in a high crime area, protect against a $5 wrench attack
If you dont understand serious software security (just about everyone except pros), dont store it online.

Imagine being in a company and needing half a dozen people to sign off every single payment made. Never going to happen.

Companies tend to use multisigs, rather than SSS, you can have a 1 of n multisig for small payments and an x of y multisig for larger ones. Just like large payments in companies require signoffs in trad-finance.

It also makes wrench attacks more difficult, since you now need multiple wrenches, but far from impossible.

You need multiple wrenches, but you also need to find out where to send those wrenches. And its state ordered disclosures that are putting people at risk.

The recent celcius disclosure will have put a number of people at risk. The seriously rich can afford protection, but the small timers in developing countries that had a few thousand dollars in celcius are now a target. Obstensibly KYC is for customer protection, but this policy may well lead to deaths. The $5 wrench attack is real.

 

[BigTom]

It can work for one person or many people.
For a single individual it just means that you need to access x locations. All three must be compromised to complete the key.



Not unless you have people chasing you with a $5 wrench or think you might.
The only risk factor in bitcoin is someone getting hold of your private key. If the private key is properly secured, its safe. There are a million and one ways to secure a private key, from engraved steel to PGP secured stegamorphic encoding. The biggest risk factor to anyone;s bitcoin is themselves and their particular vulnerabilities.

If you are forgetful, dont rely on memorising your private key.
If you live in a high crime area, protect against a $5 wrench attack
If you dont understand serious software security (just about everyone except pros), dont store it online.

Companies tend to use multisigs, rather than SSS, you can have a 1 of n multisig for small payments and an x of y multisig for larger ones. Just like large payments in companies require signoffs in trad-finance.

You need multiple wrenches, but you also need to find out where to send those wrenches. And its state ordered disclosures that are putting people at risk.

The recent celcius disclosure will have put a number of people at risk. The seriously rich can afford protection, but the small timers in developing countries that had a few thousand dollars in celcius are now a target. Obstensibly KYC is for customer protection, but this policy may well lead to deaths. The $5 wrench attack is real.

You know the wrench attack is a metaphor for any kind of social engineering and if it works to compromise a person it won't matter if they've hidden bits of their password in different places because if they give up one, they'll give them all up.

No need to live in a high crime area, there's a million and one scam discord/telegram crypto users and channels waiting for fish and of course high value targets will get targeted if identity is compromised, as you mention.

Multi sigs happen but not for every transaction every business does.

All of this makes it entirely possible to access bitcoin fraudulently regardless of the impractical nature of attacking the network (which certainly doesn't apply to all crypto) or breaking the encryption (unless quantum computers come along, but then we'll hopefully get quantum encryption as well).

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

You know the wrench attack is a metaphor for any kind of social engineering

I've only ever heard it referred to as a threat of physical violence.

and if it works to compromise a person it won't matter if they've hidden bits of their password in different places because if they give up one, they'll give them all up.

But thats the no1 rule that everyone should learn in crypto, not to give out your private key or seed phrase. Its not that difficult to understand really.

No need to live in a high crime area, there's a million and one scam discord/telegram crypto users and channels waiting for fish and of course high value targets will get targeted if identity is compromised, as you mention.

Absolutely and KYC and compulsory disclosure is an absolute gift to scammers, but it is still the case that no-one can access the bitcoin without gaining access to the private key.
So long as your private key is secure, your bitcoin is safe.

 

[BigTom]

I've only ever heard it referred to as a threat of physical violence.

But thats the no1 rule that everyone should learn in crypto, not to give out your private key or seed phrase. Its not that difficult to understand really.

Absolutely and KYC and compulsory disclosure is an absolute gift to scammers, but it is still the case that no-one can access the bitcoin without gaining access to the private key.
So long as your private key is secure, your bitcoin is safe.

I've always understood the point of the xkcd comic to be that it doesn't matter how strong your encryption is if you can get a user to tell you their password, and taken the wrench as a metaphor for any kind of social attack rather than one based on exploiting code.

And yes, if you keep your private key safe, your bitcoins are safe. But the point of social engineering attacks is to convince you, in one way or another, to release that info. There will always be people who do that and the best way to reduce those instances is to talk about how insecure something is, and not over emphasise the secure parts by making statements like it's impossible to acquire bitcoin fraudulently.

 

[NoXion]

The authorities don't seem to be having any trouble confiscating crypto:

US DOJ Seizes $22M in Bitcoin From a Man Participating in Ransomware Attacks

The American authorities sentenced Sebastien Vachon-Desjardins to spend 20 years in federal prison.

cryptopotato.com

Why, it's almost as if law enforcement organisations have practical experience in dealing with criminals who might want to hide their ill-gotten gains.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I've always understood the point of the xkcd comic to be that it doesn't matter how strong your encryption is if you can get a user to tell you their password, and taken the wrench as a metaphor for any kind of social attack rather than one based on exploiting code.

And yes, if you keep your private key safe, your bitcoins are safe. But the point of social engineering attacks is to convince you, in one way or another, to release that info. There will always be people who do that and the best way to reduce those instances is to talk about how insecure something is, and not over emphasise the secure parts by making statements like it's impossible to acquire bitcoin fraudulently.

It just goes back, yet again, to 'it's your responsibility and if something happens and you lose out then fuck you' doesn't it.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It just goes back, yet again, to 'it's your responsibility and if something happens and you lose out then fuck you' doesn't it.

Almost as if it’s a right wing libertarian shitshow, isn’t it?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

More buckets of lol from the future of finance

$1.2 Billion Metaverse Horrified by Report It Only Had 38 Active Users

Metaverse project Decentraland, a sandbox environment that allows users to buy and sell virtual real estate, isn't exactly teeming with people.

futurism.com

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

You realise of course, money is a medium of exchange whether you're exchanging it for dollars or doughnuts. You may have no interest in how much fiat currency is worth but if it's to be a currency you'd surely rather it was worth a whole heap of doughnuts than a couple of crumbs. If you think that btc is worth owning just because it's btc and regardless of what you can exchange fit for then you're just a nutter, like the woman who married the Eiffel Tower or something. Either that or it's just a way of batting aside any problems to do with the value of the things.

You'd be a weird sort of hyperpurist collector wouldn't you. No interest in the value of your collection, no getting out your Wade Boggs rookie card* to have a look or putting your Boba Fett statue on the shelf, just checking your number online for the pure sake of checking it. 'Great, one is still one. I feel better for that.'

I don't believe such a person exists though and I think anyone claiming they are is liar tbh.




*My entire baseball knowledge obviously comes from that one episode of the Simpsons.

 

[StakerOne]

Real money is more secure than Bitcoin because it is regulated. When crypto is regulated the balance may change in its favour.

Bitcoin and ethereum are real monies and are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more secure than instantly seizable govt debt tokens that you call "real money".

Regulating unregulated exchanges would be quite nice, but unfortunatly there are complete idiots who are totally against unless all blockchains become centralised and controlled by the BIC & FATF.

Crypto enthusiasts would answer "What would be the point of that?"

The reply we would get would always be the same tired bullshit about terrorism, drugs, economic stability etc etc etc.

It's no problem to BIC & FATF, because they want the world to adopt CBDCs and any company or individual who is found to be holding cryptos will be deemed as "HIGH RISK" and there will be consquences for that.

I'm optimisic that people will see sense with all of this and at least insist on using public blockchains, shunning CBDCs.

 

[StakerOne]

You know the wrench attack is a metaphor for any kind of social engineering and if it works to compromise a person it won't matter if they've hidden bits of their password in different places because if they give up one, they'll give them all up.

No need to live in a high crime area, there's a million and one scam discord/telegram crypto users and channels waiting for fish and of course high value targets will get targeted if identity is compromised, as you mention.

Multi sigs happen but not for every transaction every business does.

All of this makes it entirely possible to access bitcoin fraudulently regardless of the impractical nature of attacking the network (which certainly doesn't apply to all crypto) or breaking the encryption (unless quantum computers come along, but then we'll hopefully get quantum encryption as well).

The person doing the attack would have to know of the secondary address.

Have you never heard of "plausable denial" ?

The attacker would not know where the other pieces of paper are. If it's a large amount of money, ironically, sometimes those pieces of paper can be down a bank, or even multiple branches of a bank.

 

[StakerOne]

I've always understood the point of the xkcd comic to be that it doesn't matter how strong your encryption is if you can get a user to tell you their password, and taken the wrench as a metaphor for any kind of social attack rather than one based on exploiting code.

And yes, if you keep your private key safe, your bitcoins are safe. But the point of social engineering attacks is to convince you, in one way or another, to release that info. There will always be people who do that and the best way to reduce those instances is to talk about how insecure something is, and not over emphasise the secure parts by making statements like it's impossible to acquire bitcoin fraudulently.

If you fall victim to a social engineering attack that involves money deposited at your bank, then your money is also as good as lost, especially if it's been moved abroad so your point is moot.

 

[NoXion]

Bitcoin and ethereum are real monies and are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more secure than instantly seizable govt debt tokens that you call "real money".

Thankfully I don't have to worry about the big bad gubbermint siezing my money, because I'm not a criminal cunt piece of shit who makes his money by extorting hospitals.

 

[StakerOne]

The authorities don't seem to be having any trouble confiscating crypto:

US DOJ Seizes $22M in Bitcoin From a Man Participating in Ransomware Attacks

The American authorities sentenced Sebastien Vachon-Desjardins to spend 20 years in federal prison.

cryptopotato.com

Why, it's almost as if law enforcement organisations have practical experience in dealing with criminals who might want to hide their ill-gotten gains.

1. Most blockchains (For now) are open and transparent. It proves that it's a pretty dumb idea to try and use bitcoin (or similar) to hide ill-gotten gains, because the money isn't hidden.
2. The ONLY way law enforcement can seize bitcoin is by getting the private key. If I was in a situation where I didn't want the authorities seizing my coin, I would have simply insured there was no way they could find out the key. But hey, if I was stupid or desperate enough to accept ransomware payments, I would not accept bitcoin in the first place, I'd pick something totallly untraceable.

 

[StakerOne]

Thankfully I don't have to worry about the big bad gubbermint siezing my money, because I'm not a criminal cunt piece of shit who makes his money by extorting hospitals.

It's spelt "government". Neither do I. You're point is?

We are coming up to a crossroads. It's all going to come a head.

Either you are for centralised control in a world that is rather much like the way China has gone. EVERYTHING you do in your life, is controlled by the government, EVERYTHING you do, or don't do, will have a financial impact on you.

OR

Money is totally detached from the state, decentralised. You can say or do whatever the fuck you want, but if the government forbids it, they will have to send someone out to arrest you rather than use overbearing financial coercion.

All of this has come about because of the progress of technology.

Centralised government have their own ideas. If they don't win this, they will lose control and in the future, there will be very little for any government to do.

If the people on the decentralised side, those who believe in public permissionless blockchains lose, we lose all of our freedoms, because that centralised system will become more and more corrupt by those who are drunk on the power they enjoy. And I don't blame them. They can't afford to give us freedom because if they do, we will use that freedom to strip them of their power for good.

This is for keeps. It's a one world government that controls the lot of us, with social credits etc. Remember, THEY HAVE TO!!! They have NO choice .... OR .... it's a decentralised world and the people are in charge of their own lives and their own communuties, unicorns, rainbows and all that and we have to win, because we have to.

Pick a side. I wish you didn't have to, I wish the normal traditional social contract between a government and it's citizens were on the menu, but it simply isn't.

 

[elbows]

Your analysis of power is primitive and naive, making you a chump that dances from frying pan to fire and invites others to join you on that journey.

Having decentralised aspects to a currency system does not free individuals from the malign affects of power. They are still at the mercy of much larger forces that have far greater influence over the new currency than they do. For example there is little available in the way of financial security when the currency in question is subject to dramatic swings in value. There is no shield against big events that can shake these new systems just like they can shake the old systems. The new currencies are very far away from being able to offer a parasite-free zone, they just encourage a new wave of parasites, new money, new power.

History is littered with people who have a different vision for the world making bold claims about how the struggle is coming to a head any day now. This sense of immediacy is promoted in order to add momentum and impetus to their cause, an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy in regards things coming to a head.

Even if governments lost control of currency, they still have the power to make laws and still have a monopoly on 'legitimate (in the eyes of the law) violence'

 

[kabbes]

Power is the ability to influence the decisions and actions of others. It derives from structural control over institutions. Those with power, who control those institutions, will not relinquish that power just because somebody comes along with a different governance technology. Instead, they will absorb that technology and use its efficiencies to improve their control and enhance their power.

 

[JimW]

overbearing financial coercion

Be none of that in psycho libertarian paradise, no sirree. Kindergarten stuff.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Maybe we'll be using Bitcoin when the £ collapses on Monday?