News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by happytiger on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @05:34PM (#38933240)
It’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets.

The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious.

It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point…

The real question is who and how this massive financialization and tokenization exercise will benefit, because it’s increasingly clear that the old guard has designs on how to control it pretty effectively and it’s not actually as free or anonymous as many people think. Some exceptions apply.

Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by paulryanrogers on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:07PM (#38933632)
Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by mrb on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:05PM (#38934216)
You could also say "more power than 3 large US cities" and your statement would be equally valid, yet much less impressive. It's about as useful as talking about "mid-size rocks". Fist-sized? Refrigerator-sized? Bus-sized?

Did you know that China curtails more hydropower than the global electricity consumption of Bitcoin, than entire "mid-size countries". China literally lets water flow through the dams without generating electricity with the turbines, because they have a hydropower surplus that they can't redistribute through their grid. When you start realizing things like that, you realize Bitcoin's electricity consumption is, fortunately, still a drop in the bucket, compared to the immense waste from, well, everything else.

Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by block_dagger on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:11PM (#38934282)
How much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by thfuran on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:17PM (#38934332)
What percentage of financial transactions even involve coinage?
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by BolexNOLA on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:13PM (#38934304)
You know, I hear this repeated a lot, but I never see anyone put up numbers. I would be very curious to see your math.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by thewanderer1983 on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:25PM (#38934419)
Cybersecurity is a problem that affects all computer related industries not just cryptocurrency. North korea doesnt rely on hacking just crypto. Lazarus group has been around and targets many infrastructures. You cant blame crypto for the field of cybersecurity. Its been a problem long before crypto existed.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by vkou on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:15PM (#38934318)
> It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point…

A fact? What are the #s that they are bringing in from hacking, versus the $4.8 billion/year they bring in from exports to China/Africa?

Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by pants2 on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:21PM (#38934382)
$1.8B lost to crypto hacks in 2023. Hard to say how much of that is North Korea, but it's a nontrivial amount.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by vkou on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @09:21PM (#38935352)
Lost is also not necessarily equivalent to successfully laundered.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by yieldcrv on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @11:12PM (#38936045)
the fact that there's a whole crowd here that think the old guard actually got hacked by dastardly crypto punks instead of just their own incompetence with scheduling a tweet