Deribit halts withdrawal after 28MM hack
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
The definition of hacking aside; Someone managed to steal from a crypto exchange. It didn't cost any clients anything this time. (next time if the amount is greater, who knows)
This doesn't give a vote of confidence to the general public.
These statements are true. It leaves the false perception among non-techies that cryptocurrencies are unsafe. This false perception is very weird and is a big reason I am buying BTC and ETH. So long as people are being fooled into thinking there is a risk that does not exist that keeps the price lower than it would be otherwise. Most misperceptions eventually fade and I'm betting this one will too. The outrageous and inaccurate headlines will stop and general perception among the non-techies will change.
Exchanges will get better too. Not all exchanges are as professional and with as much history as Binance. Like most new tech 95% of the new entrants will fail and be gone and forgotten. Perception will change and demand along with it.
@FreeGoldRush
You have not answered my question:
What is your definition of the word hack?
You have advanced a few arguments as to why you think what happened to Deribit was not a case of hacking. But you have not explained what you think the word means.
Can you please provide a definition?
And can you give one real-world example of something that IS hacking?
You have not answered my question:
What is your definition of the word hack?
You have advanced a few arguments as to why you think what happened to Deribit was not a case of hacking. But you have not explained what you think the word means.
Can you please provide a definition?
And can you give one real-world example of something that IS hacking?
Google defines "hack" this way: use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.
Bitcoin and Ethereum were not hacked under this definition. They did not explain how the private keys were obtained but it's reasonable to suspect they used a computer and it was unauthorized. It could have been an employee or it could have been a unsecured Linux server at the exchange that was hacked. In any event the blockchains are just fine and were not comprised (or hacked).
An example of a hack: People are now tricking "smart locks" on cars to open. This requires a computer and grants unauthorized access. This is a "hack" because the protocol was used in an unintended way. Someone did not simply pick pocket the key from the owner, which would not be a hack.
The best description is to say that every time someone steals US dollars we don't claim the dollar was hacked. Every time someone steals Bitcoin we should not claim Bitcoin was hacked. To date there have been no actual hacks of the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin and Ethereum were not hacked under this definition. They did not explain how the private keys were obtained but it's reasonable to suspect they used a computer and it was unauthorized. It could have been an employee or it could have been a unsecured Linux server at the exchange that was hacked. In any event the blockchains are just fine and were not comprised (or hacked).
An example of a hack: People are now tricking "smart locks" on cars to open. This requires a computer and grants unauthorized access. This is a "hack" because the protocol was used in an unintended way. Someone did not simply pick pocket the key from the owner, which would not be a hack.
The best description is to say that every time someone steals US dollars we don't claim the dollar was hacked. Every time someone steals Bitcoin we should not claim Bitcoin was hacked. To date there have been no actual hacks of the Bitcoin blockchain.
A representative for Deribit has stated that "our hot wallet was hacked for USD 28m earlier this evening just before midnight UTC on 1 November 2022."
This statement appears on Twitter. You can read it here:
I don't think anyone has claimed that "Bitcoin was hacked."
@FreeGoldRush, would you concede that it may be accurate to say that Deribit's hot wallet was hacked? Or do you think they are using the term incorrectly, and that something different happened? For example, do you think someone stole the keys to their office? And then went into their office and stole cryptocurrency from a safe or a desk drawer? Just like someone could steal my car from my garage?
This statement appears on Twitter. You can read it here:
I don't think anyone has claimed that "Bitcoin was hacked."
@FreeGoldRush, would you concede that it may be accurate to say that Deribit's hot wallet was hacked? Or do you think they are using the term incorrectly, and that something different happened? For example, do you think someone stole the keys to their office? And then went into their office and stole cryptocurrency from a safe or a desk drawer? Just like someone could steal my car from my garage?
A "wallet" is just a string of numbers. It's a public and private key. You can't "hack" a string of letters and numbers. That's technically ignorant. So no, to say a Bitcoin wallet was "hacked" is absolutely untrue. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin and Ethereum work.
People say all kinds of insanely ignorant things about cryptocurrencies. Just ignore it and learn how crypto works. Start at square one. Use logic to arrive at your beliefs. Don't try and adopt the beliefs of others as a shortcut.
Okay, so like I asked you before, can you give one real-world example of hacking?
Is it possible for a hacker to hack into my brokerage account at Schwab or eTrade?
Is it possible for a hacker to hack into my medical records?
Do you believe that the folks who are in charge of Deribit do not understand what hacking is? Are they using the term incorrectly?
Last edited:
I already gave you an example. Yes, someone could in theory hack into you account at your broker. Maybe they put a keylogger on your computer or something. No, you can't "hack into medical records" but you might hack into the computer that stores them.
I have no information or evidence regarding what the people in charge of Deribit believe so it obviously would be unwise to adopt some belief about their beliefs without further information. Yes, they are using the term incorrectly.
So in your view, hacking always involves hardware of some sort? It is not possible to hack into software?