Bitcoin developer @lukedashjr's wallet was hacked

[franky1]

ok seems someone is on a social drama craze and not a fact finding craze
ok, ill add you to the list of people that dont care about learning..
..
moving on

luckily bitcoin is not fungible though. otherwise this thief might actually get away with the stolen funds. maybe someday they'll invent a technology that allows bitcoins to be turned into fungible bitcoins if someone uses a particular transaction type or address type. now that would be something. but only responsible people need apply. people that know how to manage their money...

fungibility is not a boolean option of yes or no. its a sliding scale
..
from a legal prospective. legacy has keys and signatures. thus in legal terms.. property law, privacy laws can apply if fought in court
recent transaction formats only have witness statements(scripts) and passphrases(access not ownership). so even saying your the witness/accessor doesnt mean your the owner/victim.

luckily luke used legacy so he can be owner/victim of theft. unlike those using new style formats

yes there could be new transaction formats that come with their own terminology to not be defining their held value as a currency, asset, commodity, but as property. and businesses can classify deposits of that format as such classification. to separate value into different piles/allotments for different purposes

but to then limit who can use such format. then presents its own problems of a decentralised open system

but to awaken people to such notions and possibilities and also awaken them to how things actually stand now legally.. needs educating people into the actual events of the past and present... and no, not the versions they read on social media version of events that did not occur the way the social media are presenting them

[1714252006]

1714252006

[1714252006]

1714252006

[larry_vw_1955]

fungibility is not a boolean option of yes or no. its a sliding scale

In the strictest sense, bitcoin is not fungible since the holder of some bitcoin could be discriminated against based on that particular bitcoin's transaction history.

to be truly fungible, it has to be indistinguishable from any other bitcoin. and it's not.

no one cares about bitcoin not being "fungible enough" until it affects them. like when they go and deposit it into an exchange and the exchange freezes their deposit pending an investigation and possible involvement of law enforcement.

..
from a legal prospective. legacy has keys and signatures. thus in legal terms.. property law, privacy laws can apply if fought in court
recent transaction formats only have witness statements(scripts) and passphrases(access not ownership). so even saying your the witness/accessor doesnt mean your the owner/victim.

sorry franky i don't know enough about that topic to make a proper comment. but it doesn't sound right. there is always an owner to some bitcoin address. that's the person that has the ability to spend it   courts would probably think so too.

luckily luke used legacy so he can be owner/victim of theft. unlike those using new style formats

you mean like bech32? that's just a way of encoding a bitcoin private key into an address. no different than legacy really...

but to awaken people to such notions and possibilities and also awaken them to how things actually stand now legally.. needs educating people into the actual events of the past and present... and no, not the versions they read on social media version of events that did not occur the way the social media are presenting them

well what do you think about binance and their little busd unpegging story in the news? you think it was real or you believe what they say?

[franky1]

fungibility is not a boolean option of yes or no. its a sliding scale

In the strictest sense, bitcoin is not fungible since the holder of some bitcoin could be discriminated against based on that particular bitcoin's transaction history.

to be truly fungible, it has to be indistinguishable from any other bitcoin. and it's not.

no one cares about bitcoin not being "fungible enough" until it affects them. like when they go and deposit it into an exchange and the exchange freezes their deposit pending an investigation and possible involvement of law enforcement.

if you are depositing funds that are a 100% uxto from a stolen stash.
or every serial number of bank notes deposited at a bank are from a known bank robbery.. the % of suspicion is 100%

however there is a % /rating system of suspicion its not boolean...
there is a scale with thresholds.. whether its bitcoin or fiat

EG moving $10k of any denomination of funds across a border via hidden in a trunk of a car.. has a higher rating and above a certain threshold.. compared to
having it on your debit card when you travel abroad
compared to
moving $10k within a border to buy your fiancee that wedding ring she expects
..
also to note.about regulations and guidelines(yep you can research it):
just the slight suspicion of say 1% taint or 1 bank note of 100 bank notes being a serial number linked to a robbery, is not enough to freeze accounts. yes there are maybe some investigation going on behind the scenes after deposit at CEX/bank/business level.. . but they have to by regulation let the currency flow.  and not tell you about investigation..
IF certain things meet a threshold, they SAR report it to authorities.. again while letting the currency flow..
IF authorities determine there is significance of a crime the authorities get a court order and then.. an account is frozen
try not to put your unlearned unresearched opinion of how things work to mean more than whats easily available to learn and research, factual process of how MSB's process funds and investigate.
.. people can "earn suspicion points the more they use a service where more and more deposits all have certain flaggable" traits until it meets certain thresholds.

heck i am not even a MSB but i have used them and in my own risk awareness of wanting to secure my value when using a CEX, i actually bothered to research how a CEX(msb) would handle my funds. by reading a CEX user agreement policy, terms and conditions and also the MSB guidelines/handbook of how they work internally with things like the SEC and FATF.. its all available via google. and so i use google and find source information when i want to learn something

regulators tell MSB's of certain thresholds they want to see to trigger a SAR and CEX(msb) create their own methodology to investigate things and rate things to see what meets those thresholds before filing such reports

..
from a legal prospective. legacy has keys and signatures. thus in legal terms.. property law, privacy laws can apply if fought in court
recent transaction formats only have witness statements(scripts) and passphrases(access not ownership). so even saying your the witness/accessor doesnt mean your the owner/victim.

sorry franky i don't know enough about that topic to make a proper comment. but it doesn't sound right. there is always an owner to some bitcoin address. that's the person that has the ability to spend it   courts would probably think so too.

luckily luke used legacy so he can be owner/victim of theft. unlike those using new style formats

you mean like bech32? that's just a way of encoding a bitcoin private key into an address. no different than legacy really...

but to awaken people to such notions and possibilities and also awaken them to how things actually stand now legally.. needs educating people into the actual events of the past and present... and no, not the versions they read on social media version of events that did not occur the way the social media are presenting them

well what do you think about binance and their little busd unpegging story in the news? you think it was real or you believe what they say?

if you can see something in hard data thats about the source item EG you can see that busd unpegged by looking at actual charts and network data... then it did happen.. but if you are relying solely on social media and media in general, then you are not checking your sources, thus please check sources.

i dont use binance nor stablecoins. so i never checked your specific example nor cared to..
i dont know or care about CZ. my gripe is seeing the amount of people that dont think or dont research
(there is a game called chain of whispers which for humour was branded chinese whispers.. where someone whispers something to another person who whispers it to the next and so on.. where by the end, the message is completely different than the source... that is pretty much how social media works.. the message can get lost in translation in the media circles of each persons opinion of what they read, seen, heard)

its why i keep saying DYOR (do your own research) to people

but now prompted by you.. i just did have a look (today) and yes it appears that on 19th of march 2020 it did depeg temporarily beyond its 99.98% allowable threshold. to go down to 97%
and i checked by looking at chart data. not social media.. and it took me under 15 seconds to load the page and select the 'all' timeline and see the chart wiggles.. much faster than it would take to try finding some social media opinion about some tweet found somewhere that was linked somewhere in some topic on the forum.

i could then try googling the reason for the temporary event depeg. but im not interested in that. but i know i can.
if busd continued to be below a 99% amount for a lengthy period, and it started to affect the whole crypto ecosystem.. . then it would be more interesting to research. but small 1 day events are meaningless over all if they dont effect the ecosystem beyond that day, are not interesting and not worth thinking about 4 years later

so try checking sources and finding full context and content. and relevance

EG lukes actual tweets reveal he had coins on legacy addresses. so when sily people start talking about hardware wallets and passphrases.. they are not talking about actual events. they are saying shouldisms. but those shouldisms can only be true if luke first moved coin from legacy and chose to put his change destination to a HW wallet seeded address(my advice) however just using his node would have and did put lukes stash onto another legacy change address, meaning exposing his wallet(again i mentioned this). as seen by checking his previous spend events before the theft

[Greg Tonoski]

What lessons to learn from the Luke Dashjr private keys (data) breach? How to prevent, counter-measure and cope with that kind of attacks? (Also, why we can't already learn more or enough within the 2 weeks that elapsed).

[NeuroticFish]

What lessons to learn from the Luke Dashjr private keys (data) breach? How to prevent, counter-measure and cope with that kind of attacks?

Get a hardware wallet and write your backups onto paper with your own hand.

[Greg Tonoski]

What lessons to learn from the Luke Dashjr private keys (data) breach? How to prevent, counter-measure and cope with that kind of attacks?

Get a hardware wallet and write your backups onto paper with your own hand.

That's from technical perspective. What about human behaviour? How to stick to the best practises all the time, resist cutting corners, for example.

Thanks for a reply.

[nutildah]

What about human behaviour? How to stick to the best practises all the time, resist cutting corners, for example.

Stick to best practices & resist cutting corners I think covers a good chunk of it.

In addition I'd recommend staying humble and never thinking you are too smart or too pro to make mistakes.

[jubalix]

What lessons to learn from the Luke Dashjr private keys (data) breach? How to prevent, counter-measure and cope with that kind of attacks?

Get a hardware wallet and write your backups onto paper with your own hand.

I see this as sure disaster

where do you store the paper
hardware made at hardware level with hardware level attacks.

Your at the mercy of a lot of people a very long supply chain that *know* you puting valuable there

[NeuroticFish]

I see this as sure disaster

where do you store the paper
hardware made at hardware level with hardware level attacks.

Your at the mercy of a lot of people a very long supply chain that *know* you puting valuable there

After seeing people who have been using "cold storage" in a way it was "going online only to send out transactions", my current experience tells that HW is the current "good enough" option for the masses. And the rest can set up a cold storage properly, hopefully better than Luke did.

"where do you store the paper" <-- If you ever had a seed to store, you can answer this yourself. And if you didn't, you should use the search feature.
And I am curious: what would you recommend then if not hardware wallets?

[serveria.com]

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

[panganib999]

This is terrible news. I wonder how these hackers got a hold of his cold wallet addresses if they were so secure. I think besides reporting such eventuality to the local authorities, or maybe even FBI, he may also ask exchanges to freeze funds with relations to these addresses so they could be returned if things go well.

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

Point taken, this just puts fear to the people of this industry coz if cold wallets can be hacked remotely, what else can't be right? Then again I am pretty positive he'll get the funds back somehow, long as he knows who to talk to and where to consult.

[JayJuanGee]

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

Your information and suggestions truly suck BIG TIME, serveria.

I have nothing against hookers, Lambo and blow in the proper order of things... but there is some need for sustainability, too... or at least I would think.  If we are spending on hookers, lambo and blow, we should at least want to be able to spend to our heart's content for the duration of our lives, and I am not even suggesting to strive to make one's life shorter but instead attempting to at least get as much life out of your meat wagon as is feasible and possible while engaging in such consumptive activities for the duration of it or the remainder of it.

One of the BIGGER questions tends to be that a lot of folks seem to want to get to their passionate consumptive levels way too soon - which surely does not seem to be the lesson that the Luke JR case is showing us.

I mean there is no evidence that he was starting to spend too soon. .but he seemed to be acting like a squirrel trying to preserve his nuts and still unsure about whether he had gotten to such ability to consume state, yet.. and from my understanding he has 8 kids, so to the extent that he would be including his consumptive level with the 8 kids and the wifey, then surely he would be needing more nuts... yet surely philosophies are going to vary in terms of how much to share with the kids (or even with the wife) while still living.  I doubt that we have enough information about Luke regarding those matters, to the extent that they might be relevant to our discussion here...

And, actually for someone like Luke (family man type blah blah blah).. expensive real estate might well be his variation of hookers, lambos and blow... but part of the problem, is that he seems to have had delayed his ability to get to that stage because he inadequately preserved his nuts, including but not limited to seeming to presume that his security was good enough.. in spite of some supposed breaches that he had in recent months, too.. which kind of get's us back to the possibility that Luke may well have been going down the boat accident avenue.. so probably, if he ends up still having the nuts, he is going to still have to figure out how to acquire the expensive real estate without so much traceability, and I am not even sure that I want to go down that route.. which does end up getting me to concede more than I would like to concede to you in terms of the likelihood that hookers, lambos and blow are quite a bit more mobile and of less concern than expensive real estate, if the boating accident scenario were the actual motive (which really does not seem to be the prevailing thought pattern here.. even though if you think about it, Trace Mayer seems to have had purposefully blew himself up for potentially similar kinds of motivations in which seems to be part of the reason why many longer term bitcoiners do seem to have some motivations and connections related to wanting to play the boating accident card or some similar kind of blow up scenario).

I am starting to realize that as I write this post, I am starting to think that you may well be making more senses, serveria... in terms of what you had originally stated.. but I am still sticking to my guns... in terms of both the need to establish a decently large stash first and to consider that to be more important than just going straight out balls to the walls with the hookers, lambo and blow lifestyle.. which seemed to be part of the way that I was originally reading how you were framing the matter.

Even with 8 kids blah blah blah.. more than 200 BTC would have been a pretty good place to be.. so maybe this whole situation is just seeming strange in terms of how any of us might get to a sufficient state of BTC accumulation, and then how seriously we might consider the ways in which we maintain such stash, even if we might have made some mistakes in terms of how much we consider ourselves to be employing any of our BTC liquidation stages.. and of course, Luke is not really a very old guy (even though he has 8 kids), so maybe he was deferring gratification and still psychologically considering himself a nut stasher rather than a consumer because of his age and his considering himself to be a supporter and all of those kinds of ways of thinking.. maybe? maybe?  I would not claim to know... so I am starting to feel that I am waffling in terms of how much I was initially considering to criticize the contents of your post.

[serveria.com]

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

Your information and suggestions truly suck BIG TIME, serveria.

That was irony, man. Poor irony I guess if I have to explain it. 

[serveria.com]

This is terrible news. I wonder how these hackers got a hold of his cold wallet addresses if they were so secure. I think besides reporting such eventuality to the local authorities, or maybe even FBI, he may also ask exchanges to freeze funds with relations to these addresses so they could be returned if things go well.

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

Point taken, this just puts fear to the people of this industry coz if cold wallets can be hacked remotely, what else can't be right? Then again I am pretty positive he'll get the funds back somehow, long as he knows who to talk to and where to consult.

That's how FUD works, yeah. And good luck hacking my paper wallet remotely. 

[nullama]

~snip
if cold wallets can be hacked remotely, what else can't be right?

A cold wallet that is generated following the current security standards (generated on offline device, etc), cannot be hacked remotely.

The issue is that there's more information in the case discussed here. It was not a garden variety cold wallet, it might have probably been compromised at some point, plus also it was an old wallet.

[franky1]

~snip
if cold wallets can be hacked remotely, what else can't be right?

A cold wallet that is generated following the current security standards (generated on offline device, etc), cannot be hacked remotely.

The issue is that there's more information in the case discussed here. It was not a garden variety cold wallet, it might have probably been compromised at some point, plus also it was an old wallet.

ok to say it again
before hardware wallets were a thing. before export wallet was a thing.. (before terminology got redefined)
OG bitcoiners called an offline wallet (paper or airgapped)
they called a cold wallet a node on home computer(with internet to stay in sync and make payments online)
they called a hot wallet a node on public server

luke did not paper wallet nor have hardware wallet. he had keys on a node which was exposed, as it can be seen he was spending value of his wallet in september. it was not old coins from 2011. it was a utxo from 2022 that got spent in september, then the change returned to the wallet in september.. then later stolen at the new year

[larry_vw_1955]

if you are depositing funds that are a 100% uxto from a stolen stash.
or every serial number of bank notes deposited at a bank are from a known bank robbery.. the % of suspicion is 100%

however there is a % /rating system of suspicion its not boolean...
there is a scale with thresholds.. whether its bitcoin or fiat

i suppose but are we saying that is an acceptable thing? if it was possible to have it so that you can't trace bitcoin then wouldn't that be better?

EG moving $10k of any denomination of funds across a border via hidden in a trunk of a car.. has a higher rating and above a certain threshold.. compared to
having it on your debit card when you travel abroad
compared to
moving $10k within a border to buy your fiancee that wedding ring she expects

that's because cash is fungible has a higher fungibility than bitcoin. so that's why they would let you carry your bitcoin across the boarder without any concern whatsoever.

.. people can "earn suspicion points the more they use a service where more and more deposits all have certain flaggable" traits until it meets certain thresholds.

and that's what no one wants. no one wants someone else having the upper hand on them, sitting in a judgement seat regarding their finances.

regulators tell MSB's of certain thresholds they want to see to trigger a SAR and CEX(msb) create their own methodology to investigate things and rate things to see what meets those thresholds before filing such reports

part of it is probably discretionary as well. they could flag someone for any reason whatsoever.

if you can see something in hard data thats about the source item EG you can see that busd unpegged by looking at actual charts and network data... then it did happen.. but if you are relying solely on social media and media in general, then you are not checking your sources, thus please check sources.

i'm not so sure you or i or capable of figuring it out all on our own franky that's why experts analyze these type of things:

The blockchain analytics firm ChainArgos, led by Jonathan Reiter and Patrick Tan, discovered that the Binance-Peg wallet on Ethereum, which was supposed to hold the stablecoins required to back all Binance-Peg BUSD, routinely held a lower balance than the amount of Binance-Peg BUSD circulating on Binance Smart Chain.

you can google that.

i dont use binance nor stablecoins. so i never checked your specific example nor cared to..
i dont know or care about CZ. my gripe is seeing the amount of people that dont think or dont research

and my gripe is hearing CZ mentiion rolling back the blockchain as if that's something that would be acceptable in that type of situation. he shouldn't even have mentioned it. let him stick to BSC which has it's own "syncing" issues from genisys block, i hear.  

but now prompted by you.. i just did have a look (today) and yes it appears that on 19th of march 2020 it did depeg temporarily beyond its 99.98% allowable threshold. to go down to 97%
and i checked by looking at chart data. not social media.. and it took me under 15 seconds to load the page ...

if that's all you did then you didn't do anything. there's alot more to it than just that....

so try checking sources and finding full context and content. and relevance

you too!

[franky1]

if you are depositing funds that are a 100% uxto from a stolen stash.
or every serial number of bank notes deposited at a bank are from a known bank robbery.. the % of suspicion is 100%

however there is a % /rating system of suspicion its not boolean...
there is a scale with thresholds.. whether its bitcoin or fiat

i suppose but are we saying that is an acceptable thing? if it was possible to have it so that you can't trace bitcoin then wouldn't that be better?

EG moving $10k of any denomination of funds across a border via hidden in a trunk of a car.. has a higher rating and above a certain threshold.. compared to
having it on your debit card when you travel abroad
compared to
moving $10k within a border to buy your fiancee that wedding ring she expects

that's because cash is fungible has a higher fungibility than bitcoin. so that's why they would let you carry your bitcoin across the boarder without any concern whatsoever.

.. people can "earn suspicion points the more they use a service where more and more deposits all have certain flaggable" traits until it meets certain thresholds.

and that's what no one wants. no one wants someone else having the upper hand on them, sitting in a judgement seat regarding their finances.

regulators tell MSB's of certain thresholds they want to see to trigger a SAR and CEX(msb) create their own methodology to investigate things and rate things to see what meets those thresholds before filing such reports

part of it is probably discretionary as well. they could flag someone for any reason whatsoever.

if you can see something in hard data thats about the source item EG you can see that busd unpegged by looking at actual charts and network data... then it did happen.. but if you are relying solely on social media and media in general, then you are not checking your sources, thus please check sources.

i'm not so sure you or i or capable of figuring it out all on our own franky that's why experts analyze these type of things:

The blockchain analytics firm ChainArgos, led by Jonathan Reiter and Patrick Tan, discovered that the Binance-Peg wallet on Ethereum, which was supposed to hold the stablecoins required to back all Binance-Peg BUSD, routinely held a lower balance than the amount of Binance-Peg BUSD circulating on Binance Smart Chain.

you can google that.

i dont use binance nor stablecoins. so i never checked your specific example nor cared to..
i dont know or care about CZ. my gripe is seeing the amount of people that dont think or dont research

and my gripe is hearing CZ mentiion rolling back the blockchain as if that's something that would be acceptable in that type of situation. he shouldn't even have mentioned it. let him stick to BSC which has it's own "syncing" issues from genisys block, i hear.  

but now prompted by you.. i just did have a look (today) and yes it appears that on 19th of march 2020 it did depeg temporarily beyond its 99.98% allowable threshold. to go down to 97%
and i checked by looking at chart data. not social media.. and it took me under 15 seconds to load the page ...

if that's all you did then you didn't do anything. there's alot more to it than just that....

so try checking sources and finding full context and content. and relevance

you too!

your gripe about the "mention re-org/roll-back"..
before sweating under the collar or stressing yourself out anymore beyond today(its not healthy for you).. check it out. it was social drama of mis-quoting. which led to maybe 8 hours of social drama before being squashed(in reality)..
a re-org didnt happen and if you listened to the whole AMA you would hear more then you are stressing yourself over.
CZ didnt come up with the idea and same day CZ said he understands implications and same day said it wasnt happening..
and so you should, knowing all real quotes..  not be 4 years later having a gripe over a non event.
however by taking some out of date misquoted social media of other people quotes, not involved in that days AMA as your source, where you instead of finding the source AMA and same day tweets.. you dont have the full context of the true events as they played out. and that is causing you 4 years after such social media drama to still be emotional about a non-event.. based not on CZ actual words but some other persons interpretations which you took as gospel

secondly.
finances/currency are not the same laws as property.
if you can learn the differences you will know that under the bank secrecy act. currency has no privacy compared to property.
bitcoins main issue was being legally recognised as "currency" in ~2014 instead of its "property" characteristic in 2009-2014
it was that categorisation pivot that allowed in regulation and thus supervision of funds entering businesses

..
as for the "part of it is probably discretionary as well. they could flag someone for any reason whatsoever."
the regulators have a easily google-able handbook/policy guide on their flags.

yes a business can add its own flags below the thresholds of needing to SAR report to authorities. but a regulated exchange cant just lock users away from withdrawing it unless certain legal processes are done. otherwise the business gets fined/prosecuted
yes businesses can secretly investigate and not inform its users of such at lower thresholds and using more indepth methods than a regulator prescribes.
and this again is related to the bank secrecy act that treats currency different than property

lastly.
you keep mentioning "fungible" like a yes or no. rather than a scale.

if a grocery store deposited its days takings into a bank where 1 bank note of 1000 is "dirty"/counterfeit not much is asked, no eyebrows are raised. if anything the store owner might be advised to double check bills are not counterfeit by upping their UV pen/light usage of checking bills, becasue the bank rejects the 1 note. costing the business 0.1% loss (yes banks do lose value if accepting counterfeits. and yes banks do check and penalise)
if high % of bank notes deposited are dirty/counterfeit. the authorities then get a report where the grocery store is being investigated for being a laundering "front" (plus the grocery store gets penalised for it by having its deposit rejected to that % amount)

there are rules involved in regards to money. there are thresholds
there are checks and validation processes done.

if you think that fiat is so open and free to use and unlimited.. why do you think people hate fiat and prefer bitcoin.. because fiat has too many rules.
if fiat didnt have rules there would be no need for bitcoin

bitcoin 2009-2014 had very very few rules if any legislatively..
bitcoin 2014-now has more legislative rules. which is where people are now hating all the crap about CEX monitoring users

[bbc.reporter]

This might be off the topic, however, I reckon it will be very relevant for the people who hold cryptocoins and NFTs. A known whale in the NFTspace has also been hacked and much of his coins and valuable bluechip NFTs were stolen. This person however appears to not have the technical competency of a bitcoin developer hehe.

Last night my entire digital livelihood was violated.

Every account connected to me both personally and professionally was hacked and used to hurt others.

Less importantly, I lost a life changing amount of my net worth

Source https://mobile.twitter.com/nft_god/status/1614442000958324739



We can learn from the mistake of others hehehe.

[larry_vw_1955]

your gripe about the "mention re-org/roll-back"..
before sweating under the collar or stressing yourself out anymore beyond today(its not healthy for you).. check it out. it was social drama of mis-quoting. which led to maybe 8 hours of social drama before being squashed(in reality)..
a re-org didnt happen and if you listened to the whole AMA you would hear more then you are stressing yourself over.
CZ didnt come up with the idea and same day CZ said he understands implications and same day said it wasnt happening..

i just remember this CZ fellow being in the news and I wasn't wrong:

https://u.today/binance-suffers-40-mln-hack-crypto-community-outraged-after-cz-suggested-bitcoin-rollback-to
https://www.finder.com.au/cz-says-binance-is-considering-a-bitcoin-rollback-to-recover-stolen-btc

why is CZ's money more important to an extent that rolling back the blockchain is a possibility but when someone else loses their money it's not? CZ is more important so Bitcoin miners should bow down to him?

and so you should, knowing all real quotes..  not be 4 years later having a gripe over a non event.
however by taking some out of date misquoted social media of other people quotes, not involved in that days AMA as your source, where you instead of finding the source AMA and same day tweets.. you dont have the full context of the true events as they played out. and that is causing you 4 years after such social media drama to still be emotional about a non-event.. based not on CZ actual words but some other persons interpretations which you took as gospel

Just visit the two websites I posted for you. Then you don't have to waste time reading through his tweets or listening to his "Ask me anything" although one question does come to mind. Why are you so important that your transactions should be rolled back?

secondly.
finances/currency are not the same laws as property.

ok franky thanks for the lesson in finance and how financial institutiions flag accounts. i learned something.

if you think that fiat is so open and free to use and unlimited..
why do you think people hate fiat and prefer bitcoin.. because fiat has too many rules.
if fiat didnt have rules there would be no need for bitcoin

the reason, if any, that i don't like fiat  has nothing to do with "too many rules". maybe it is for some people. the issue i have with it is how the government can just print more of it out of thin air. which leads to inflation and my money being worth less. while employers don't increase their pay at a similar rate... that type of thing. and of course you get paid in fiat. 

bitcoin 2014-now has more legislative rules. which is where people are now hating all the crap about CEX monitoring users

then use a DEX. or don't use crypto? just stick with fiat.