Crypto losses always remind me of Kramer and Jerry talking about losses.

- Not a problem. It is a write-off for them.

- How is it a write-off?

- All these big companies do it - they just write it off!

- Write what off? You don't even know what a write-off is!

- Maybe I don't but they do. And they are the ones writing it off!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL65gywwHQ

samczun has a thorough Tweetthread explaining how this hack worked, if you’re looking to dive deep into the nerdy rabbit hole https://twitter.com/samczsun/status/1578167198203289600?s=46...

I got an email that is made to appear as if it's from Binance today, having never interacted with Binance in any way. The email looks like it could potentially be an actual Binance email someone has copied and modified.

The actual sending domain for the email is sg.djamo.ci. Most of the links in the email are bit.ly redirects to https://bina-defi.net/markets/. Whois lookup for this domain only results in "Whois record is unavailable at this time." The server IP appears to be hosted in Germany at a hosting provider called Xsserver Gmbh. Links to "Binance.com", Unsubscribe, etc. in the email point to sg.djamo.ci and don't work (either that or my Pi-Hole is blocking them).

Everything on the web site prompts the user to connect their wallet. I can't tell if this is an elaborate phishing attempt to drain people's wallets, or a legitimate site that's set up in a way that look suspicious.

Edit: The footer of the email says the following, in spite of none of the links in the email going to the legitimate Binance.com site

Kindly note: Please be aware of phishing sites and always make sure you are visiting the official Binance.com website when entering sensitive data.

I have an ignorant question, which will demonstrate my ignorance of both crypto and fiat.

Was money "Stolen", or "additional tokens generated"?

What I mean by that is: If I have a chair, and you come and take my chair, you've stolen my chair.

If I am carrying $200 in cash, and you take my $200 in cash, you've stolen my cash.

(if I write a nice piece of music, and you copy it, you've performed "copyright infringement" and we can discuss whether that is "theft" or not in legal vs semantic / colloquial terms)

In this particular case, were specific tokens/crypto/something taken out of someone's wallet, OR were additional seemingly-valid tokens generated "out of thin" air? Was it a transfer or generation issue? Was some entity directly negatively affected through a specific loss, or were many entities affected by subsequent inflation due to tokens being generated?

Does my question make sense to anybody but me? :)

I hate to say it, but it's looking more and more like the Bitcoin maximalists will end up being proven right in the end.

Imagine creating a financial system that incentivizes some of the smartest folks in the world to legally spend nights and weekends robbing those that are less intelligent.

So how does one launder a half-billion dollar heist like this? Asking for a friend.

Changpeng "there's also a few more votes regarding how the hacked funds should be handled will be voted by the community"

Oh I see how this works now

These bridges seem to be the weakest links in crypto.

If memory serves, BNB itself was originally created and distributed to Binance customers as part of an attempt to make them whole for BTC losses from a hacking incident.

What tech is a cross-chain bridge? Is it code running on the Ethereum chain or something else?

Binance’s BSC chain implementation is not open source, however - it would be relatively straightforward for them to make a new release that arbitrarily rewrites history (like ethereum did).

It’s not like the people running the BSC daemon are critical about the code. It’s a blockchain run by a central dictatorial authority, if there is a “critical update release” then the nodes will upgrade.

This is good for bitcoin

Who was the victim? Were additional BNB minted? So everyone (every holder of BNB, that is) suffered some loss through inflation in proportion to their holding, theoretically?

Is this stealing or double spending? The original concept was that double-spends were impossibru because proof of work.

Then someone pointed out hilariously the origins of BNB "token" in the first place - because ETH 2.0 PoW edition (not Ethereum Classic (ETC) that's a whole different boondoggle) recently migrated to PoS...

Nevermind this is dumb

none of these people ever get arrested or caught. perfect crime