Coinbase Suspends Ethereum Classic (ETC) Trading After Double-Spend Attacks (zdnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Coinbase Suspends Ethereum Classic (ETC) Trading After Double-Spend Attacks (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday January 8, 2019 @02:00AM from the for-the-record dept.

Cryptocurrency trading portal Coinbase delisted the Ethereum Classic (ETC) currency Monday after detecting a series of double-spend attacks over the last three days. From a report: In layman terms, double-spend attacks are when a malicious actor gains the majority computational power inside a blockchain, which they then use to enforce unauthorized transactions over legitimate ones. According to a security alert published today by Coinbase security engineer Mark Nesbitt, this is exactly what's been happening on the Ethereum Classic blockchain for the past three days, since January 5. Nesbitt says that a malicious actor has carried out 11 (at the time of writing) double-spend attacks during which he moved funds from legitimate accounts to their own. [...] According to Crypto51, it only costs $5,029 to rent enough computing powerto overwhelm the ETC blockchain with your own miners and gain 51 percent hashing power to carry out a double-spend attack.

116 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:05 · Score: 0

Every protocol intended for use in the real world has to account for asshats.
1. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by klubar · 2019-01-08 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Tell me again why bitcoin is so much more secure than the traditional banking system.
2. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Sarten-X · 2019-01-08 02:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Because it's distributed, so a bad guy would have to have huge computing resources to overwhelm the good guys! That'll be so expensive it won't be worth the cost.
  Oh, wait...
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me again why bitcoin is so much more secure than the traditional banking system.
  Technically it's still secure due to the lack of popularity.
  It'll be a long damn time before bitcoin or the like causes as much financial impact as the 2008 global meltdown, which created hundreds of millions (if not billions) of victims. And we've not done much to prevent 2008 from happening again. In that sense, I certainly don't exactly find traditional banking as more secure.
4. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Drethon · 2019-01-08 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's distributed, so a bad guy would have to have huge computing resources to overwhelm the good guys! That'll be so expensive it won't be worth the cost.
  Oh, wait...
  And one is also expected to trust at least half of those controlling the computing resources... not sure I trust a fraction of that number. Of course by trust it means you "trust" at least half of the controlling resources to not act to your detriment at the same time, but meh...
5. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  ethereum classic is a minority fork of ethereum. ethereum will switch to POS from POW (mining). bitcoin has much much more security than some shitty coin like ethereum classic which nobody uses anyway
6. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Joe_Dragon · 2019-01-08 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  that was before pooled mineing
7. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  It's secure as long as no entity has 51% of compute power.
  Which essentially means it's secure as long as it's being hyped more than it's actually worth (more precisely, as long as the value of controlling it is less than the money spent "mining" it by "random" people).
  If it's not, it's about as secure as a traditional banking system just without any law or regulation or reputation or basically anything else. Plus side though, contrary to the article they can't actually steal money, so in that way it's more secure. They can just undo any previous transactions of their choice and then add new ones. Which in practice is the same thing, unless you never do any trading with that currency. Which would make it a bit pointless.
  Btw I find the wording really funny. "legitimate", "malicious". Uh, that's exactly the point with it, you might not LIKE these alternative block chains, but they are LEGITIMATE and WORK AS DESIGNED. I'd claim it's unclear they are even illegal.
8. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Vintermann · 2019-01-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  What's extra sad is that if you had a handful of trusted nodes, instead of a ton of untrusted ones, would have resisted this attack excellently. It would also do away with the need for all that idiotic mining.
  Trusted nodes would just say, "a double spend? Nah, that's bullshit. We won't timestamp that."
  If one of the trusted nodes decided to try it, the other trusted nodes would say, "a double spend? Nah, that's bullshit. We won't timestamp that." and you'd be down one trusted node, but the world would keep on running.
  What if a majority of trusted nodes decided to endorse a double spend? The remaining trusted nodes would say "What the hell is the world coming to??". But they would still not endorse the double spend. And pretty quickly, users could figure out who the honest nodes were (there would be a paper trail, or rather a signed hash trail documenting it after all), and the system could go on. The betrayers might have gotten away with some theft of real world goods if they were really quick in concluding the transaction, but they wouldn't be able to steal the unit of account.
  Even if every single trusted node betrayed the users, they could still get together and pick some new trusted nodes, if they wanted to. They could just continue the ledger from before the cheating.
  Distributed blockchains solve a problem almost no one has, except criminals: that your counterparties are completely untrustworthy and will betray you as soon as they can. Even that, it doesn't really solve, as anyone who got scammed buying stuff on the darknet knows.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
9. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-08 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's distributed, which not only enables an entertaining variety of new hacks, but which makes hackers who do get in a lot more difficult to find.
10. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  You mean that was before the bubble burst making these attacks unprofitable on BTC.
11. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that a system we already have... we call them banks.
12. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-08 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me again why bitcoin is so much more secure than the traditional banking system.
  Technically it's still secure due to the lack of popularity.
  See, I KNEW my approach of "security by obscurity" was rock-solid!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
13. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I find it amusing how bitcoin and its associated spin offs have replicated financial history. PhD candidates will be writing papers on this idiocy for years to come.
14. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by ctilsie242 · 2019-01-08 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  We already have those. Those are called banks. This isn't to say that the trusted node concept isn't bad. However, whom do you hand over trusted nodes to?
  For example, if you want to trust a node, you don't trust it over how much value it has for its good name. This can be relative since even a top bank could start trying to double-spend if people thought they would not get caught. It would take finding a number of parties whose interests do not coincide for this to work. For example, for every trusted node that went to a government or bank, I'd have to hand one to some organization like the EFF, GNU, FSF, TOOOL, Amnesty International, and other parties. The goal would be to equally divide nodes, so the risk of collusion is minimized.
  You then add untrusted nodes as well, but divide them into different groups, for example, nodes that pass muster when it comes to security, and are independantly owned. This way, someone using AWS for a massive mining push would gain control of a segment... but not enough to definitely command what happens on the entire blockchain.
15. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by ArchieBunker · 2019-01-08 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin was never about security or anonymity. It was a proof of concept that took off.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
16. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-01-08 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And one is also expected to trust at least half of those controlling the computing resources... not sure I trust a fraction of that number.
  And "trust" is your only option- it's all you can do, you can't rely on law enforcement to protect you eCoins. Because eCoins are not backed by government or insured by governments, governments are less inclined to help you get your money back if stolen by thieves and hackers.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
17. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  How are people so insanely stupid as to not see this though? I mean honestly, they have to have absolutely no knowledge of US banking history or world banking history. It like salespeople/koolaid drinkers were given the reigns and damn the actual reality of the ramifications of what they were selling.
18. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. Study the history of Bitcointalk and Satoshi's quotes. Bitcoin was the real deal from the start. Also consider that software can be upgraded - initial fair distribution of coins is one of the hardest nut to crack and it was done very well.
19. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by AC-x · 2019-01-08 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  a bad guy would have to have huge computing resources to overwhelm the good guys
  Much as I don't buy into crypto hype either, Ethereum Classic is a failed Ethereum fork that few people use so it's not that surprising it was easily hacked.
20. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Holi · 2019-01-08 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well for one this isn't about Bitcoin.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
21. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by CaptainDork · 2019-01-08 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't bitcoin.
  It's Ethereum Classic. The 51% blockchain attack won't work on bitcoin because that chain goes from here to Jupiter.
  By comparison, ETC goes from here to the front porch.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
22. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by CaptainDork · 2019-01-08 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I agree.
  Might as well file a lawsuit because someone stole your cow from FarmVille.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
23. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  BTC hashrate, 50,000,000 THS/second -- A titanium safe surrounded by an army
  ETH hashrate, 8 THS -- keeping your money in wet paper bag on the front law
  Pick your banks
24. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by CaptainDork · 2019-01-08 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  ... bitcoin has much much more security ...
  That's because it's transmorgrified into a speculative gambling architecture. The blockchain is static in size and all that's left is to rearrange the Monopoly money.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
25. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by CaptainDork · 2019-01-08 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  TFS and TFA were never about bitcoin.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
26. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  2008 is well on its way to happening again in China. Probably one of the largest real estate booms ever going on there supported by asinine govt policies. I am sure when that one pops it will be felt around the world
27. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  You appear confused. Bitcoin != ethereum classic.
28. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Tell me again why bitcoin is so much more secure than the traditional banking system.
  Again? More secure? Would you mind pointing out whoever it was that lied to you so we can see?
  You've been duped dude.
  You may also want to completely avoid reading your email just in case someone tries to sell you moon rocks or something and you believe that too :P
  Just looking out.
  Also why bring up bitcoin? Pretty big change of topic in an article not about bitcoin.
  But to answer, it is equally secure, not more secure or less secure.
  Whoever controls 51% of the voting power makes the rules, both banks and bitcoin just the same.
29. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by jythie · 2019-01-08 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  So much of their creation was rooted in people lamenting about how much more wonderful things were in the past, without understanding what went wrong then. So yeah.. amatures recreating mistakes professionals dealt with 200 years ago.
30. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-08 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  You do as we do now: you trust organizations that have something to lose.
  Banks have a lot of power over the financial system, but if the numbers don't add up properly, they're on the hook, and they can be held accountable because they have real physical assets, directors whose names and addresses are on file, etc.
  Also, banks keep an eye on each other, just like bitcoin miners are supposed to do. As far as processing transactions is concerned, there's not really that much difference between a bank and a bitcoin miner, except that the latter is anonymous.
31. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by sysrammer · 2019-01-08 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hear Hear! Actually, I believe I've seen lawsuits regarding loss of virtual goods. Against WOW or something like that.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
32. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's the beauty of banks. They are all protected by the same laws. Crypto, not so much.
33. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  LOL!!!!
34. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, you only need about 300k to rent the resources needed to 51% bitcoin. Not a small amount, but also, not a lot to the right people.
35. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Bitcoin is nowhere near as secure as banks. First off, are they fDIC insured? They aren't? Damn. If the bank loses my money are they liable for it? They are? Damn can't say the same about bitcoin. But keep talking about how itis just as secure as banks.
36. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by F.Ultra · 2019-01-08 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The same can be said for millions of IT projects. It's the "how hard can it be" and the non understanding that existing systems and infrastructure are designed the way they are for a reason and not just because every one else in the world is so much more stupid than you.
37. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by CaptainDork · 2019-01-08 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  You have no data to support that, so you're dismissed.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
38. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Bitcoin is nowhere near as secure as banks. First off, are they fDIC insured? They aren't? Damn.
  
  FDIC is specifically from the US government and doesn't cover the world, so no not FDIC insured.
  But far larger and global insurance companies most certainly offer the same insurance for bitcoin, and there are even insurance agencies that offer specific insurance policies to bitcoin exchanges.
  Here is one such insurance company
  http://innovationinsurancegroup.com/our-services/bitcoin-brokerage-agency/
  Plenty of exchanges world wide use it too
  https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2018/02/01/479202.htm
  
  If the bank loses my money are they liable for it? They are? Damn can't say the same about bitcoin. But keep talking about how itis just as secure as banks.
  Insured exchanges are liable for it just as much as your bank. I won't be out a single penny if my exchange gets compromised.
  If you are going to answer your own questions with false, and easily proven false, answers - why bother asking? I doubt you even care.
39. Re: This is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-09 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't say banks have much to lose. In fact, they don't really care. If they get insolvent, they apply to their respective government and get a bailout since there would be an economic collapse if the banks have any hiccups or people can't withdraw from ATMs.
40. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Agripa · 2019-01-09 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  And "trust" is your only option- it's all you can do, you can't rely on law enforcement to protect you eCoins. Because eCoins are not backed by government or insured by governments, governments are less inclined to help you get your money back if stolen by thieves and hackers.
  And when it is the government stealing the money? Who protects you then?
41. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-01-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  And when it is the government stealing the money? Who protects you then?
  In all the countries I've lived it was the ballot slip.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
42. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Agripa · 2019-01-10 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  And when it is the government stealing the money? Who protects you then?
  In all the countries I've lived it was the ballot slip.
  So you never lived in the US? Here we only get two choices and they both steal money.
43. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-01-10 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you never lived in the US? Here we only get two choices and they both steal money.
  I voted for my kids as protest write-in candidates for most positions in the last election because I wasn't happy with my choices.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
44. Re:This is why we can't have nice things. by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-01-10 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  In hindsight, I should have given my kids shorter names.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
Survival of the fittest. by PKI+Champion · 2019-01-08 02:13 · Score: 1

This is just part of the process. The best algorithms and systems will win. Ethereum Classic is what's for dinner.
CryptoCurrencyFails by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-08 02:16 · Score: 2

When a physical bank is robbed, everyone who has dollars in their pockets still has whole dollars. The theft had zero effect on the value of your pocket or what you can buy. When a crypto-currency exchange gets hacked (aka robbed), the value of what you own can tumble. Plus, add in the shear insecurity of crypto-currency, and you have the reasons why it's a complete failure and nonsense.
1. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Drethon · 2019-01-08 02:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When a physical bank is robbed, everyone who has dollars in their pockets still has whole dollars. The theft had zero effect on the value of your pocket or what you can buy. When a crypto-currency exchange gets hacked (aka robbed), the value of what you own can tumble. Plus, add in the shear insecurity of crypto-currency, and you have the reasons why it's a complete failure and nonsense.
  These days when a physical bank is robbed, they have insurance backing up their virtual dollars, as well as tracking that can get back stolen (digital) money in many cases (from what I've been told, not an expert). So while the government can track your transactions through banks, the bank also provides more security. All depends on what you value most.
2. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  A physical bank is small fish. If one of the U.S. Mint printing factories gets hijacked by bad guys, then the value of money in your pocket can tumble. Maybe that would be the correct analogy?
3. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Joe_Dragon · 2019-01-08 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  also can't spend it with out tracking.
4. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  When a physical bank is robbed, everyone who has dollars in their pockets still has whole dollars. The theft had zero effect on the value of your pocket or what you can buy.
  When a crypto-currency exchange gets hacked (aka robbed), the value of what you own can tumble. Plus, add in the shear insecurity of crypto-currency, and you have the reasons why it's a complete failure and nonsense.
  That is incorrect. When a physical bank is robbed you lose your money. The only reason you are protected in the US is because the accounts are insured by FDIC up to $250K. The government (your taxes) foots the robbery loss. And if your safe deposit box is robbed your grandmother's ring is gone for ever.
  Crypto Exchanges also have insurance. So if coinbase is "robbed", insurance kicks in - just like your physical bank. Might not be as good as FDIC but then your taxes are not funding it.
  As for you second point, while physical currency is not susceptible to exchange hacking, it is to foolish government policies. Remember GBP? Or the various European currencies that suffered worse losses than many cryptos.
5. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by MtHuurne · 2019-01-08 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  This is not a case of the exchange getting robbed though, it is the currency itself that got attacked. The problem with proof-of-work is that if someone manages to control over half the mining power, they get to decide which transactions happen and which do not. The theory was that there would never be a single party in that position, but apparently that theory doesn't apply to the less popular coins.
6. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, the dollar is very resistant to that. The North Korean government printed "superdollars", almost undetectable forgeries for a decade and had no significant impact on the value of the dollar. There was also another source, probably Iranian, that was printing them in the 80's and early 90's and again, didn't have a huge impact on the value of the dollar.
7. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Arguably that would be a much more difficult task to accomplish than renting a pool of mining machines on the cloud for 5k and then using them to attack the blockchain. I am not sure how well would that scale to more popular cryptocurrencies though ...
8. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Exchanges like Gemini are insured. Also if you store coins in a hardware wallet in a safety deposit box for physical protection, you are 100% safe
9. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-08 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's a good thing, then, that we have just a few of those mints and can harden the crap out of them against a hijacking. MUCH better than passing around tens of millions of printing presses and letting people get together to decide what they want to print in their garage...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
10. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by bws111 · 2019-01-08 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  The FDIC does not insure a bank for robberies, it insures depositors against a bank failure. Also, the FDIC does not get any tax money, the money comes from premiums paid by the member banks (and income from investments made by the FDIC).
11. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  If I recall correctly, this was basically because they couldn't *physically* print very many super-dollars. IIRC, it was a situation where 1% of the money in circulation was fraudulent and 100+ Government agents were both tracking the money and the bad actors to remove it/them from the system. The basic problem was that ~1 of the 100+ money-printing systems was a bad actor.
  ETH works differently. Someone with 51% of the network controls the *whole network*, and can very conceivably give themselves *all* of the money in the system. Obviously giving yourself all the money simply destroys the value of the money (no one will trade with you), but having 51% of the resources also allows you to do things like "freeze or drain any individual account" or "not allow any money to be spent to Amazon". Your ability to enforce your will on who can/can't spend money in the network is limited only by your resources and willingness to do so.
  What the summary indicates is that anyone with enough technical expertise and $5K can topple the entire system...
12. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Chris+Mattern · 2019-01-08 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  When a physical bank is robbed...
  This is less like a physical bank robbery and more like counterfeiting. When a counterfeiter successfully passes bogus cash in large amounts, he affects tha value of the real money, and it *does* have an effect on the value in your pocket.
13. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  When someone steals big-time (e.g. pyramid schemes like Madoff's, malicious investors tanking stocks or whole currencies) you're still screwed.
  Keeping physical money in your pocket won't help you. Currencies are routinely influenced by big investors, politics or dramatic events. "best" case you're only constantly losing value due to inflation.
14. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  The one major difference is that LEO, federal, state and local is going to go after anyone that prints US Dollars with immense resources(guns many many many guns). The latest crypto hack has a bunch of nerds behind keyboards trying to go after the "bad" guys. And even if they identify them, then what? Call the sheriff, who probably simply won't understand or care.
15. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  51% doesn't allow unlimited theft of blockchain assets. The closest thing to that in theory is you can unroll a transaction that was sent (so you can send money to someone and then roll it back), but people only accept a transaction after a large amount of resources is spent on confirming the transaction, and then you'll need to spend essentially the same amount of resources to roll it back. When you're spending those extra resources, other people can catch up in establishing an alternative version of your preferred history with fewer resources - to avoid that you'll need considerably more than 51% control of the network. So stealing money is a very costly attack, and it can be combated by limiting the size of transactions and thus capping the gains from spending those resources and making it infeasible. But still, 51% for the purpose of throttling the network is very feasible, but that's a non-greedy kind of pure evil.
16. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  51% + drop link + late resync causes everybody's transactions to roll back.
17. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  You have insured crypto exchanges like Gemini. Also crypto is more secure against governments and other thieves if you store them properly in a hardware wallet. If a banks fails, your money is not safe and bank might be bailed in (they have been setting things up this way after Cyprus in EU).
18. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-08 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  That is incorrect. When a physical bank is robbed you lose your money.
  No, you don't. The bank branch that is robbed loses a bit of its inventory in bills, that is all.
  If yo have bad luck and they open the lockers in the bank and you have unregistered jewelry that will get stolen and probably not replaced. But your bank account as in balance is not touched at all.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
19. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-08 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you did not pay attention to the decline of the dollar since 1970 ... AFAIK it is now worth a quarter of the value at that time.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
20. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  When a physical bank is robbed,
  
  Most of the time when a physical bank is robbed, they call it "identity theft" and blame account holders.
21. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by iggymanz · 2019-01-08 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  which is fine, the 4% average inflation from 1970 to now is expected for healthy economy.
22. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  You are just misinformed. Search /. for references to bank thefts and you will find numerous cases where millions were stolen and no one is able to recover anything, even with all the fancy insurance and tracking that you are waving around.
  https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/05/15/2032203/hackers-steal-millions-from-mexican-banks-in-transfer-heist
  https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/064207/chinese-scammers-take-mattel-to-the-bank-phishing-them-for-3-million
  And now countries are ruling that losses can be passed to customers if they have any fault in the loss.
  https://slashdot.org/story/06/09/15/212240/can-banks-shift-phishing-losses-to-customers
  https://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/26/0234207/german-court-rules-that-clients-responsible-for-phishing-losses
  It's cool though, keep your head in the sand and tell yourself that you are safe. I've always found self delusion to be fantastic for your blood pressure.
23. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Drethon · 2019-01-08 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  You are just misinformed. Search /. for references to bank thefts and you will find numerous cases where millions were stolen and no one is able to recover anything, even with all the fancy insurance and tracking that you are waving around.
  https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/05/15/2032203/hackers-steal-millions-from-mexican-banks-in-transfer-heist
  https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
  And now countries are ruling that losses can be passed to customers if they have any fault in the loss.
  https://slashdot.org/story/06/...
  https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
  It's cool though, keep your head in the sand and tell yourself that you are safe. I've always found self delusion to be fantastic for your blood pressure.
  Most of what you are talking about is an error by the banker, not by the bank itself. That becomes a very grey area but most failures I hear of with crypto currency are with the algorithm itself or with an exchange it seems like. If a bank screws up their security and loses money, they (or likely their insurance) should be held responsible (at least to insured levels), but I haven't heard much about crypto thefts being repaid, though maybe they just don't publish it much.
  Regardless, from two of your examples:
  "A Banorte spokeswoman declined to answer questions from Reuters on Monday, and pointed to a May 9 statement from the bank that said clients’ deposits were not affected by the “incident.”"
  "The bank initially resisted the request to refund their money, but allowed it after a suit was threatened"
24. Re: CryptoCurrencyFails by theycallmeB · 2019-01-08 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  FDIC has nothing to do with bank robberies unless someone manages to steal enough money to break the bank (hint: would require stealing a lot). Deposit insurance is to protect against bank runs, which is what really brought on the Great Depression. Ordinary commercial insurance is what repays the bank in case of a cash robbery because it is the bank's money exclusively that gets stolen: the bank's liability to you for your deposits is not lessened by them getting robbed.
25. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  This is less like a physical bank robbery and more like counterfeiting. When a counterfeiter successfully passes bogus cash in large amounts, he affects tha value of the real money, and it *does* have an effect on the value in your pocket.
  Passing large enough amounts to cause noticeable inflation would be very hard, given that hard currency is a tiny part of the money supply.
26. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-08 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was not talking about the inflation loss, but the loss versus other currencies like Euro, former DM e.g.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
27. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Chris+Mattern · 2019-01-09 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Nowadays, yeah. It's happened in the past, though. Currencies with much smaller float than the US dollar are still vulnerable, as well.
28. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by thegarbz · 2019-01-09 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  The theft had zero effect on the value of your pocket or what you can buy. When a crypto-currency exchange gets hacked (aka robbed), the value of what you own can tumble.
  This isn't to do with the nature of the crypto-currency as much as it is to do with the supply and demand curve in terms of total trading volume for crypto currencies. If they were used as much as the dollar is then any hack wouldn't have any effect on the price either, .... and the currency wouldn't be as volatile either.
29. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by Agripa · 2019-01-09 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  When a physical bank is robbed, everyone who has dollars in their pockets still has whole dollars. The theft had zero effect on the value of your pocket or what you can buy. When a crypto-currency exchange gets hacked (aka robbed), the value of what you own can tumble. Plus, add in the shear insecurity of crypto-currency, and you have the reasons why it's a complete failure and nonsense.
  This depends on how much is taken in the robbery. Governments can take so much as to devalue the currency taking from everybody in proportional to how much they had.
30. Re:CryptoCurrencyFails by sacrilicious · 2019-01-11 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  and you have the reasons why it's a complete failure and nonsense
  Hasn't stopped religion, and -- I predict -- it won't stop cryptocurrencies.
  
  --
  - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
no zero day exploits by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:36 · Score: 0

Because we're absolutely sure there are no zero day exploits to the protocol, and we're absolutely sure there's no chance that any malicious entity can get a majority of the mining operations. That assumption, of course, requires the religious belief that there will never be a vulnerability discovered in any widely deployed operating system, as a quarter of a billion cell phones could certainly be used for a few minutes for any attack, nor could the windows installed base. And, most certainly, the security services that have an immense amount of hardware dedicated to cracking cryptography have no interest in ever attacking these protocols; economic warfare isn't a thing.
1. Re:no zero day exploits by sexconker · 2019-01-08 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. Take all those phones, make them hash BTC, try to attack the network. It won't amount to squat. Thermodynamics alone mean its fundamentally impossible.
Blockchain generally? by nagora · 2019-01-08 02:44 · Score: 1

Is this specific to currencies or is it a fundamental flaw in blockchains?

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
1. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  this is specific to shitcoins - no security because nobody is interested and nobody mines it - the blockchain is insecure with >50% hashpower controlled by attacker - no problem renting a little bit hashpower to attack insecure networks. you can't really attack this way Bitcoin - you can but that would be extremely costly - and you won't be able to find that much hashpower to rent anyway.
  Btw, ETC is a minority fork of ETH, so nobody cares about ETC and it has near zero use
2. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's really a fundamental failure in democracy. All you need are 51% of people to go along with something stupid, and something stupid happens in spite of the fact that it's stupid.
  Case in point: Our current lying sack of shit weasel for a President.
3. Re:Blockchain generally? by nagora · 2019-01-08 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Your answer isn't completely clear - if 50% is what's needed then that's a fundamental flaw and Bitcoin is only safe while it's heavily used, not through any special design, so it's not "specific to shitcoins", then?
  
  --
  "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
4. Re:Blockchain generally? by nagora · 2019-01-08 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Except that he didn't get 51% of the vote.
  
  --
  "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
5. Re: Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I would mark this insightful if Trump didnâ(TM)t literally lose the popular vote to Hillary, because USA isnâ(TM)t a simple democracy
6. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Btw, ETC is a minority fork of ETH, so nobody cares about ETC and it has near zero use
  Somebody cared enough to marshall enough computing power to overwhelm the network, which is why we are discussing this.
7. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  But if you have majority mining power then you can do what you want seems just natural. Similarly - If you convince enough voters to vote for Trump then is democracy flawed? It's a philosophical question I guess :)
8. Re:Blockchain generally? by thestallion · 2019-01-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  The definition of a shitcoin is one which isn't heavily used. So all you're saying is that Bitcoin is immune to problems specific to shitcoins so long as it doesn't become a shitcoin. But the potential for it to become one certainly exists.
9. Re: Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Dumbasses like you man
10. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anduril1986 · 2019-01-08 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is likely someone specifically targeted ETC, because of their argument of "The block chain should always be completely immutable". I'm not sure if you're aware of the histroy of ETH/ETC but the short version is someone hacked a smart contract on ETH and stole a lot of money. It was decided that the transactions that stole the money should be reversed, so the people's money can be returned. However, reverting those transactions require a hard fork of the block chain and a number of people argued that the blockchain should be immutable and that the fork was a violation of that. The people who objected and kept the "original" chain are now called ETC, while the other chain is the one now known as ETH. This leaves ETC in a very difficult position. To reverse the double spent transactions breaks the core tenet on which the ETC chain is founded "the block chain is immutable". If they roll back those transactions, they aren't any different than ETH, just a minority fork with few developers and no differentiation. However if they don't reverse the transactions then the chain is forever comprimised and its highly unlikely anyone will want to use ETC.
11. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Your copmarison is flawed. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Democracy is mob rule and it does seem that the whole bitcoin thing is mob based.
12. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  This type of attack is discussed in the original BTC white paper as a threat vector.
  People are talking about this like its something new. It isn't. It just means that ETC needs to do something to up general miner interest over all, or switch to not mining, or become a subchain of something else.
  It's why you need to wait hours or days on some exchanges to get access to your funds. So it's a fundamental problem with Proof of Work backed blockchains. A similar attack is possible with PoS but its effects are less damaging.
13. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  He got 56.8% of the popular vote in the election that mattered.
  The 'popular' popular vote in the US is meaningless. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate their state elects.
14. Re: Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Oh shiut the fuck up you beurocratic shitstain
15. Re:Blockchain generally? by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-08 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's a feature of all "trustless" blockchains. "Feature" meaning a characteristic, which you may regard as negative or positive, depending on who you are.
  A basic blockchain is just a special case of a hash tree, which is a pretty pedestrian linked list except that it's got a set of hashes that make it easy to verify integrity. Git uses a hash tree.
  If you don't want to have some kind of central, trusted authentication then you have to figure out who's allowed to modify the list. Most use a system where interested parties basically vote to approve changes, and the weight of your vote is proportional to either a) how much computing power you're willing to spend or b) in the case of currencies, how much of it you own. Either way, if someone collects over 50% of the votes they can pretty much do whatever they want.
16. Re:Blockchain generally? by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-08 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sure he did. You're just mistaking the "popular vote" for the actual vote. The US electoral college system has some similarities to the way most cryptocurrencies work. You've got individuals with computers who group together into mining pools. The individuals with computers express a desire (that bitcoin transactions obey the rules) but it's the people who run the mining cooperatives who actually get to vote.
17. Re:Blockchain generally? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Sure he did. You're just mistaking the "popular vote" for the actual vote.
  That's what people mean when they talk about winning the vote. No one outside of the US thinks that you should have a vote and then ignore it because some other guys decided that they know better.
  Aside from the entire leadership of the EU, of course.
LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 02:45 · Score: 0

According to Crypto51, it only costs $5,029 to rent enough computing powerto overwhelm the ETC blockchain with your own miners and gain 51 percent hashing power to carry out a double-spend attack
Oh, this is hilarious ... boy you cryptocurrency guys really need to work on your shit, because it keeps looking like amateur hour where nothing that was claimed about these currencies is true.
No thanks, you can have your pretend money in a completely regulation free arena, and feel free to be robbed, hacked, or left holding the bag.
If 2018 was the year of way too much hype about cryptocurrency, maybe 2019 will be the year of us laughing our asses off as you guys lose your shirts.
By the time the kinks are all worked out and you are no longer going to get ripped off, you will simply never see the valuations and freedom from regulation which was driving all of this silliness last year.
Quite frankly, after endless months of people obsessively talking about it, I'm looking forward to cryptocurrencies skulking into the background. I've heard so much about this shit that the only thing I can do is laugh when I hear about thefts like this.
1. Re: LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you are right maybe not. You are definitely ignorant as shit and boy do you sound like you were jealous on the way up.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how crypto fails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:03 · Score: 0

Bitcoin is going to fail the same way. The protocol does have a mechanism to deal with variable hashing power, but there is no safeguard against a situation where hashing power is removed from the network (for example because it is no longer profitable at lower Bitcoin prices) and then suddenly brought back online to carry out double-spend attacks. Bitcoin is dangerously close to pools being large enough to carry out 51% attacks without any trickery. If large amounts of hashing power manipulate the difficulty directly, the game is over.
1. Re:This, ladies and gentlemen, is how crypto fails by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  China controls 80% of the hashpower for Bitcoin, between 4 major pools that it controls. China sets the price of Bitcoin and consequently most other cryptocurrencies.
  it is no coincidence that the crash in crypto roughly coincided with the Cheeto-in-Chief declaring TradeWars on China.
It has to be expensive to be secure by goombah99 · 2019-01-08 03:14 · Score: 2

The achilles heel of bitcoin is that it has to be expensive to be secure. The cost of securing 51% needs to exceed the profitability of achieving it. Thus as the market cap of bitcoin rises, the greater the potential to engage in a profitable double spend. So the cost of the transactions has to rise. SInce the transaction reimbursement has to cover the cost of the hash confirmation and that's paid in bit coin then either the fees or the reward value has to increase. This may possibly, but not necessarily, indirectly pressure the value of a bit coin to rise, further increasing the market cap.
There are some newer currencies just created that appear, at my superficial glance, to escape from some of that pressure on the cost of the transaction securing the block chain.
But for bit coin and similar one is stuck with proof of work having to be exorbitant as the profitability of foul play rises. Eventually the only people who can mine are the people who steal electricity. It's not a bug, it is in fact the ONLY thing that makes it work at all other than pure good will and altruism

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Crypto is the future by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 03:45 · Score: 0

"Crypto is the future" - dumb millennial
sounds like democracy! by kiviQr · 2019-01-08 04:08 · Score: 1

If you get enough people (>51%) to vote for you - you can do anything ($$$).
Whoa by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:20 · Score: 0

One more hit in the already dying digital currency world.
Ethereum Classic is somewhat deprecated by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 04:26 · Score: 0

Can we please point out that Ethereum Classic is pretty much deprecated at this point and that's why it was possible to do this? Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split in 2016 and most of the world has moved on to continuing to use Ethereum and not Ethereum Classic. If people are using Ethereum Classic it's because they're trading it, not because they inherently think it's a better coin.
Cost is $4700 as of January 8th by FeelGood314 · 2019-01-08 04:27 · Score: 2

The trouble is that it used to be expensive to have 51% of the computing power because of all the hardware you would have to buy. That is no longer true. Now I can rent the computing power to have 51% computing power for the length of the confirmation period. Here is a link https://www.crypto51.app/ to the cost to rent so much computing power and the percentage of the required computing power you can rent. You will notice that as of January 8th you could rent 102% of the computing power to launch a 51% attack on Etherium classic and it would only cost you $4700
1. Re:Cost is $4700 as of January 8th by sexconker · 2019-01-08 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ethereum Classic, LOL!
  The BTC network is about 6 or 7 million times as powerful. And if you try such an attack, people will notice the increased hash rate, anticipate rising prices, and will end up turning their dormant miners back on (or more likely, switching from some altcoin back to BTC). Your own success of such an attack would increase the cost of performing the attack. Further, how many BTC can you transfer in your single double spend attack, or in the amount of time your attack is viable? How much did that attack cost? Hint: You can't just transfer all of the BTC you want in a single transaction. And who are you going to attack, exactly? Who'd be taking your BTC and what are they giving you for it? Are they going to do the same transaction twice? Or do you have multiple targets lined up? Or are you going to live off of the mining rewards and transaction fees you collect during the attack? How profitable is that going to be?
  Oh, and the blockchain is public, people can see that the total hashrate of the network doubled instantly one day, and they'll look over transactions from around that time with a fine toothed comb, find out who's submitting that shit, and just fork the whole blockchain, kicking your ass out and making your efforts worthless.
  Maybe you can temporarily disrupt some shitcoin no one cares about (like ETC), but even ETH and fucking BCH (which is so much of a joke TPB won't accept it for donations) are unassailable merely due to the fact that there's not enough hardware readily available for you to rent to do it, let alone power. BTC is untouchable unless some government has broken SHA-256 or starts physically seizing existing mining operations to take their power or shut them down and reduce the total power of the network. Your own link shows NiceHash as having less than one thousandth the hashing power of the current BTC network.
2. Re:Cost is $4700 as of January 8th by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-08 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  $340 k for Bitcoin. That's couch cushion change for lots of organizations and individuals who might want to sow a little chaos.
3. Re:Cost is $4700 as of January 8th by bloodhawk · 2019-01-08 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  except of course because bitcoin mining is so centralised in China all you really need is the Chinese government deciding to take over the miners.
4. Re:Cost is $4700 as of January 8th by BranMan · 2019-01-09 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  "And who are you going to attack, exactly?"
  My knowledge of BTC is pretty sketchy, but isn't the whole idea of the blockchain that it's a public ledger? So you can see exactly who has all the BTC. Or is that wrong?
  Wouldn't anyone be able to see who is the most profitable person to attack? You may not be able to identify them - they may be anonymous - but the "big fish" should be readily spottable.
  Or am I misunderstanding something?
Clearly e-coins are the currency of the future. by mark_reh · 2019-01-08 05:09 · Score: 0

Will they never learn?
krypto kurrency by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 05:35 · Score: 0

krypto kurrency ahhaha hahah ahahaha hahahaha hahah haha hahahah ahahahaha
CraptoCurrency by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 08:43 · Score: 0

Yep... crapto.... see what I did there? I made a funny... crapto instead of crypto.. see.. it implies that the currency is like crap.. by making it sound like crapto instead of crypto.
Illegitimate? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-08 11:43 · Score: 0

How is it an illegitimate transaction when legitimacy is defined by being capable of engaging in this type of activity?