bter hacked and lost 50m nxt

[lucky331]

I trade there now and then but don't leave any currency on the exchange. Nothing against BTer I just find it's a good policy in general. Also, I am transitioning some of my activity to Coinport because of their efforts for transparency.

but what if they block withdrawals all of a sudden like gox?  scary..

[xeroc]

I feel glad I sold all of them last week .. *Puh*

[Empirical1]

Managed to sell some NXT round $25 million CAP, will see if that was good.

[Riverhead]

I trade there now and then but don't leave any currency on the exchange. Nothing against BTer I just find it's a good policy in general. Also, I am transitioning some of my activity to Coinport because of their efforts for transparency.

[liondani]

isn't bter losing 50m nxt a bit of a concern that the exchange will close down? 

who among here still trades at bter?

mtgox was "hacked" months before they closed....
so be careful guys!

[fuzzy]

isn't bter losing 50m nxt a bit of a concern that the exchange will close down? 

who among here still trades at bter?

Not this guy...though I deeply respect that they honored PTS account holders with their shares (unlike "big Vern")

[lucky331]

isn't bter losing 50m nxt a bit of a concern that the exchange will close down? 

who among here still trades at bter?

[tonyk]

He just bought 100 BTC IOU's (the multigateway BTC )

Transaction: 3943495016275895492
Asset: 4551058913252105307

Can somebody more tech savvy explain to me if he can turn all 45Mil NXT into  multigateway BTC  and then into BTC.
Can they stop him from doing that? (I am thinking the other signature in this multisign deal.)

[thisisausername]

Is this a joke?
If the major exchanges change to an upgrade chain,the old chain will be worthless.
So,the people don't really have a choice to stick to the old chain.

Do you really think in an actual conflict where large swathes of the community split that new exchanges wouldn't be opened?  I don't understand why the assumption of massive market failure in the face of huge community demand.

[Riverhead]

I guess the theory is that if a pool of people is diverse enough they'd never come to a political consenses. Something like what happened to Bter is a bit more cut and dried and easier to get consensus  on.

According to  the roll back option,
If bter gets broke at some day,need a lot of money to cover their ass.they can do this trick :
Sell clients's 50Mil NXT to some guy  name "Whale" for a good price,gets 100Mil USD.
Whale paid 100Mil  USD to bter through Bitcoin or whatever roll-back-disable ways,and gets 50Mil NXT.
Now,BTER has 100Mil USD,Whale has 50 Mil NXT.
But bter need to pay back the 50MIL NXT that belongs to its client.So,they can make up a hacker story,even plant some dialog of the negotiation,then ask for a roll back.
   if the so-called NXT community agrees,then Whale would lost 100 MIL USD,for nothing ,while bter gets 100 MIL USD.

Sounds like the makings for a great Crypto action thriller movie :)

[kokojie]

The developer will do the rollback with the blessing of majority of the forgers, it's basically a coordinated hard fork that is happening all the time in alt coins (and Bitcoin had one too).

Thinking about this longer I get more concerned. Let's say someone donates $5M worth of X to Israel/Hamas (just picking a random conflict that most would be familiar with which also has strong opinions in both camps). Someone creates a thread on the Xtalk forum slamming the injustice about giving so much money to such horrible people. The community generally agrees, namely the forgers, and they decide to roll back that transaction and give the money to the other side instead.


How many people are needed to effectively perpetrate a 51% attack on their own blockchain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an autonomous currency if a relatively small group of people (let's call them the coin's government) can make policy decisions based on political affiliation?


Maybe there's no way around this because someone(s) need to maintain the code so it'll never be completely hands off.

I think the general crypto community is smart enough to decide if it's something "clearly wrong and needs to be rolled back", (ie. code bug, hack of major exchange that will have real impact on all users)

vs something that is "possibly wrong, but not our place to judge" (ie. funding israel/hamas, paying prostitutes, FBI raids etc...).

Reading my own thoughts, now I have a new found respect for "too big to fail" and "bailouts" that happened in 2008. We now have our own case of "too big to fail" (BTER), and will needs to be bailed out (rollback).

Unfortunately, some companies failed so hard, that they can't even be bailed out, like Bear Stearns and Lieman Brothers, and mt.gox...

[kokojie]

The developer will do the rollback with the blessing of majority of the forgers, it's basically a coordinated hard fork that is happening all the time in alt coins (and Bitcoin had one too).

Thinking about this longer I get more concerned. Let's say someone donates $5M worth of X to Israel/Hamas (just picking a random conflict that most would be familiar with which also has strong opinions in both camps). Someone creates a thread on the Xtalk forum slamming the injustice about giving so much money to such horrible people. The community generally agrees, namely the forgers, and they decide to roll back that transaction and give the money to the other side instead.


How many people are needed to effectively perpetrate a 51% attack on their own blockchain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an autonomous currency if a relatively small group of people (let's call them the coin's government) can make policy decisions based on political affiliation?


Maybe there's no way around this because someone(s) need to maintain the code so it'll never be completely hands off.

I think the general crypto community is smart enough to decide if it's something "clearly wrong and needs to be rolled back", (ie. code bug, hack of major exchange that will have real impact on all users)

vs something that is "possibly wrong, but not our place to judge" (ie. funding israel/hamas, paying prostitutes, FBI raids etc...).

[Riverhead]

I guess the theory is that if a pool of people is diverse enough they'd never come to a political consenses. Something like what happened to Bter is a bit more cut and dried and easier to get consensus  on.

[thisisausername]

The developer will do the rollback with the blessing of majority of the forgers, it's basically a coordinated hard fork that is happening all the time in alt coins (and Bitcoin had one too).

Thinking about this longer I get more concerned. Let's say someone donates $5M worth of X to Israel/Hamas (just picking a random conflict that most would be familiar with which also has strong opinions in both camps). Someone creates a thread on the Xtalk forum slamming the injustice about giving so much money to such horrible people. The community generally agrees, namely the forgers, and they decide to roll back that transaction and give the money to the other side instead.


How many people are needed to effectively perpetrate a 51% attack on their own blockchain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an autonomous currency if a relatively small group of people (let's call them the coin's government) can make policy decisions based on political affiliation?


Maybe there's no way around this because someone(s) need to maintain the code so it'll never be completely hands off.

The majority of the community can continue mining (forging, having stake, whatever) on the old chain if they don't agree with the hard fork, no one is going to force them to upgrade.

[Riverhead]

The developer will do the rollback with the blessing of majority of the forgers, it's basically a coordinated hard fork that is happening all the time in alt coins (and Bitcoin had one too).

Thinking about this longer I get more concerned. Let's say someone donates $5M worth of X to Israel/Hamas (just picking a random conflict that most would be familiar with which also has strong opinions in both camps). Someone creates a thread on the Xtalk forum slamming the injustice about giving so much money to such horrible people. The community generally agrees, namely the forgers, and they decide to roll back that transaction and give the money to the other side instead.


How many people are needed to effectively perpetrate a 51% attack on their own blockchain? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an autonomous currency if a relatively small group of people (let's call them the coin's government) can make policy decisions based on political affiliation?


Maybe there's no way around this because someone(s) need to maintain the code so it'll never be completely hands off.