One day people will look at it and say that someone from the future has whispering to them…
You don’t make millions just by listing a few marketplaces. They were taking commissions, which means they were directly participating in those illegal trades (weapons, credit cards numbers, etc). They belong to jail by even the most lenient of standards. Definitely not a sad day.
An important thing to note is that, once you think about what happened, Binance itself wasn’t actually hacked. The withdrawal requests came through a large number of legitimate requests by legitimate, unrelated accounts (using stolen/phished credentials, of course) and they were structured in a way that they managed to pass all the checks. What I find exceptional is not even this, but that Binance haven’t tried to use this as a defense.
Also, has it ever happened that an exchange lost $40 million and it didn’t need to weigh it on its customers, if only temporarily?
It’s not a hack in the sense that they didn’t gain access to any of the Binance infrastructure: their servers, their databases, and so on. They just used credentials from customers who didn’t protect them well.
I admit gaming the security filters of their withdrawal system may be considered a hack of some sort.
(Sorry for responding to a deleted comment but I felt it was a good question.)
What is deepdotweb vs safenetwork to you, if you don’t mind me asking?
If hosting information about dark web markets is a crime Reddit should be shut down too.
I admitted it’s a grey area, I do not believe they were involved at all directly in trades.
In short yes shut the markets down.
Shutting deepdotweb down changes zero in my opinion.
I’m all for informal economies. In fact, I may or may not have future plans in that direction wink-wink
However, the report linked from that article clearly stated (screenshot below) that it was an affiliate business, which means they took a slice of the pie in exchange for the referrals, fully knowing what they were selling. They were not “information providers” but middlemen and, as such, they are guilty af.
Very different things. One is an affiliate business that is selling crap that shouldn’t be sold, and it’s running over Tor. The other is kinda like Tor itself that, just like Tor, will necessarily enable the first kind of business as a side effect, but will not in itself be such a business, just like Tor isn’t. But I’m confident the difference has already been obvious.
However, they were not only open about that thought, but the main concern CZ bought up against it in his AMA was its potential damage to bitcoin’s reputation, making it clear he would not risk that even if it meant not losing $40 million. It’s not even surprising if we consider their best long-term interest happens to coincide with bitcoin’s good reputation.
Ok, I get you now. That’s a totally sound argument.
Ordered it yesterday evening, appreciate the tip off!
Similar thing happened on polo a good while back, but all those affected did not have 2fa enabled.
Was that the same with binance, no 2fa on affected acounts?
Binance announced that a “large scale security breach” was discovered earlier on May 7, finding that malicious actors were able to access user API keys, two-factor authentication codes and “potentially other info,” the exchange’s CEO, Changpeng Zhao, said in a letter.
TL;DR bullet points summary for the article:
- The US Constitution doesn’t explicitly permit citizens to livestream violence or harassment, therefore the US government should police user-generated content.
- We need the US government to censor Facebook and other social media platforms.
- People who tout free markets are fooled by a “gospel” developed by special interests from the 1970’s.
- I made many wrong decisions in my career and I’m jumping on the break-Facebook-up-bandwagon late, but because I worked at Facebook over a decade ago, what I say should be listened to.
- Calls for increased government regulation deserve more support.
- I pay attention to Instagram instead of being more attentive to my young child when I’m with him, even though I know better. Hence government needs to step in to protect everyone from themselves.
- Trump (“empower nationalist leaders”) is Facebook’s fault because of the News Feed algorithm and Russia (no tangible evidence cited, rely on the author’s word for it).
- We live in a democracy. (the word “republic” is nowhere to be found)
I had taken a break for 2+ weeks from reading any news article. I broke my streak today and kind of regret it. The NY Times still oozes bias just like I remember it. It doesn’t matter that the opiner isn’t a member of Times staff (I’d be more frustrated if it had been, due to added hypocrisy from whining about spreading “fake news”).
FWIW, I deleted my Facebook account a while ago, and I have been mostly staying off of social media for the past few weeks. I’ve been happier for it. Also, FWIW - I wouldn’t shed a tear if Facebook were broken up.
It seems likely to me that these recent calls for regulation only serve to entrench the big players. It’s hard for me to believe that Apple, Google, Facebook, and other big players all recently started calling for increased regulation organically and out of genuine concern for their users.
If these people get their way, Big Tech companies will likely be winners, and I think smaller companies and projects like MaidSafe will likely be losers. I’m not a legal expert, but I suspect the SAFE Network as envisioned is illegal in the EU today. Why?
- “Right to be forgotten” from GDPR. (the SAFE Network is designed to make data undeletable)
- Article 11. (Link tax, which the SAFE Network is fundamentally incompatible with)
- Article 13. (Mandatory upload filters)
- People might post memes.
Yet these people are appealing to peer pressure to make the USA follow the EU. This is madness, and another example of why world needs the SAFE Network now more than ever. That’s my opinion, anyhow.
That article is such a typical example of “market expert” bullshit. The market reaction to the theft was this minor flash-crash:
… overlaid on a more significant gradual decrease that was started by the rise of BTC several days before:
Really not sure why anyone would expect more than a flash crash, being as they had a fund large enough to cover such issues.
Exactly! Yet coindesk presented a bunch of charts to “prove” it was a significant event. CNBC couldn’t have bullshitted better.