News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nomad drained of $150m due to a coding mistake. Parent comment

Re:Nomad drained of $150m due to a coding mistake by yarg on Tuesday August 02, 2022 @05:07PM (#32324315)
Only 2^200 times less efficiently (even that's generous).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad drained of $150m due to a coding mistake by FabHK on Tuesday August 02, 2022 @05:25PM (#32324480)
I'd say between 1e7 and 1e11. 1e5 is too generous, 1e60 is way too harsh.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad drained of $150m due to a coding mistake by yarg on Tuesday August 02, 2022 @06:20PM (#32324999)
When a fundamental part of token generation is brute-forcing secure hashes?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad drained of $150m due to a coding mistake by FabHK on Thursday August 04, 2022 @05:42PM (#32348672)
Yes, but you still need, say, one computer to run what Bitcoin does (without the PoW hashing - just checking and recording 5 transactions per second). BTC uses around 15 GW currently, a computer say 15 to 150 W, so we are talking a factor of 1e9 (Giga) to 1e10.
[ Parent | on HN ]