1. OP article doesn’t seem to mention bitcoin, and original hack covered multiple cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin).
2. Other theoretical ways would be if a governing body for one of the other cryptocurrencies reversed a transaction, such as occurred during the earlier DAO hack. Another possibility is if some of the funds were left in an exchange’s custody - obviously a hacker would work to avoid that, but maybe they were rate limited or something before an exchange locked the funds.
Crypto has, for the most part been a speedrun of the last 150 years of the financial system. A lot of people have learned the expensive way why we have the regulations that we do.
I'm not super in the crypto scene, but hasn't that only happened a tiny handful of times on the major coins? Like twice, ever? That isn't what happened here, afaik.
That is an issue of inferior public and non-fungible crypto like BTC not crypto as whole. Monero XMR for example has none of these issues as one of the only actually useful crypto.
Always love to see another XMR maxi out in the wild. I've been saying this for years, I never understood the point of NFTs or any other blockchain-based technology but the capabilities XMR provides are legitimately useful. It's basically the closest thing we have to digital cash, gas fees are super low and there's minimal centralization of the network versus other currencies. Also fluctuates less in value so it works better as an actual currency versus some "speculative asset".
From googling, it appears monero xmr regularly adopts forks in order to accommodate protocol upgrades - that’s what the DAO hack “reversal” actually was - a fork. If that’s true, I think you’re saying monero xmr could do the same thing but will choose not to? Although if there was a massive hack where, for example, almost half of holders coins were stolen, would they still choose not to fork to restore the coins?
>it appears monero xmr regularly adopts forks in order to accommodate protocol upgrades
That is a separate unrelated issue/topic. Every currency could be steered in a bad direction but unlike fiat every user/node has a say in it.
>you’re saying monero xmr could do the same thing but will choose not to?
I'm saying that seizing, tracking or otherwise blacklisting of coins would not be possible because of its private and fungible design.
>if there was a massive hack where, for example, almost half of holders coins were stolen, would they still choose not to fork to restore the coins?
There have been at least one occasion where the main monero developer funds have been stolen and they did no such thing because reverting transaction would required the majority of user/nodes to agree to it.
Some of the coins like Tether have been speed running a less trustworthy version of central banks and governmental monetary policy by allowing certain privileged users to freeze funds.
It’s probably those that have been seized, as the heist wasn’t entirely BTC.
crypto in this context doesn't really have anything to do with asset seizure, it has to do with proof of work, attestation, and verification. The goal might be a decentralized authority, but that doesn't mean another authority cannot exert control
the question more is: Binance isn't allowed to service US customers here; why is the FBI doing anything. They're suppose to be conserved with US stuff.
This sounds like one of the president's grift schemes gone wrong.
We are convinced that digital money is safer than analog gold bullions or notes. But... is it true?
Who is "we"? Because it ain't me.
> We are convinced that digital money is safer than analog gold bullions or notes
Don't know anyone who thinks this who has any substantial wealth to their name.
I don't remember anyone of good repute saying such a thing, how are you (the convinced) measuring safety?
curious how !
What does it even mean to "seize" Bitcoin? Did they somehow get possession of wallet keys?
1. OP article doesn’t seem to mention bitcoin, and original hack covered multiple cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin).
2. Other theoretical ways would be if a governing body for one of the other cryptocurrencies reversed a transaction, such as occurred during the earlier DAO hack. Another possibility is if some of the funds were left in an exchange’s custody - obviously a hacker would work to avoid that, but maybe they were rate limited or something before an exchange locked the funds.
Crypto lost part of its appeal to me when I found out they do that after major hacks - reverse transactions.
The whole point of crypto, for me, was to be immune to central authorities who can reverse transactions.
Crypto has, for the most part been a speedrun of the last 150 years of the financial system. A lot of people have learned the expensive way why we have the regulations that we do.
I'm not super in the crypto scene, but hasn't that only happened a tiny handful of times on the major coins? Like twice, ever? That isn't what happened here, afaik.
Crypto has central authorities too.
>reverse transactions
That is an issue of inferior public and non-fungible crypto like BTC not crypto as whole. Monero XMR for example has none of these issues as one of the only actually useful crypto.
Always love to see another XMR maxi out in the wild. I've been saying this for years, I never understood the point of NFTs or any other blockchain-based technology but the capabilities XMR provides are legitimately useful. It's basically the closest thing we have to digital cash, gas fees are super low and there's minimal centralization of the network versus other currencies. Also fluctuates less in value so it works better as an actual currency versus some "speculative asset".
It's what normies thing btc is and what satoshi would have changed it into if he was still around/ not a fed/ still in control.
From googling, it appears monero xmr regularly adopts forks in order to accommodate protocol upgrades - that’s what the DAO hack “reversal” actually was - a fork. If that’s true, I think you’re saying monero xmr could do the same thing but will choose not to? Although if there was a massive hack where, for example, almost half of holders coins were stolen, would they still choose not to fork to restore the coins?
(Also, the DAO fork was ETH.)
developers can't force miners to adopt a fork, when etherium was forked it essentially created a new coin, as some miners chose not to
> developers can't force miners to adopt a for
In other words, the dictatorship of the majority.
I prefer a minority who does the right thing, than a 51% majority who rips off the other 49%.
So when we talk about eth, do we refer to the forked one or the original one?
the forked one, the original one is now called ETC (ethereum classic)
>it appears monero xmr regularly adopts forks in order to accommodate protocol upgrades
That is a separate unrelated issue/topic. Every currency could be steered in a bad direction but unlike fiat every user/node has a say in it.
>you’re saying monero xmr could do the same thing but will choose not to?
I'm saying that seizing, tracking or otherwise blacklisting of coins would not be possible because of its private and fungible design.
>if there was a massive hack where, for example, almost half of holders coins were stolen, would they still choose not to fork to restore the coins?
There have been at least one occasion where the main monero developer funds have been stolen and they did no such thing because reverting transaction would required the majority of user/nodes to agree to it.
It’s likely the stable coins. Those can be frozen by the stable coin operators.
Some of the coins like Tether have been speed running a less trustworthy version of central banks and governmental monetary policy by allowing certain privileged users to freeze funds.
It’s probably those that have been seized, as the heist wasn’t entirely BTC.
If they can "seize" it, then the currency wasn't very crypto.
crypto in this context doesn't really have anything to do with asset seizure, it has to do with proof of work, attestation, and verification. The goal might be a decentralized authority, but that doesn't mean another authority cannot exert control
So US stole from Binance.
Is your idea that the US is going to keep the funds for the U.S.?
the question more is: Binance isn't allowed to service US customers here; why is the FBI doing anything. They're suppose to be conserved with US stuff.
This sounds like one of the president's grift schemes gone wrong.