Top
Best
New

Posted by Tiberium 11 hours ago

Binance-hacker-1029 – $5.6B stolen from Binance(arkm.com)
1303 points | 799 comments
Tiberium 11 hours ago|
About $2.4 billion out of this is already frozen by Circle and Tether. Some of the big ones:

- 971.15M USDT (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7baba482077843514d9c72bac0110ba091...

- 823M USDC (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc954c86f118e8e410e6a3eb9e3b38ff4a9...

- 312.73M USDT (Tron): https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/71b0ec0fe873fe820c37cc3ec...

- 175M USDT (Ethereum): https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0c07a5e428ce233a3bcb40f257ad899594...

harrouet 1 minute ago||
Wait, it is decentralized but can be frozen ?

No. You just can't use these platforms. But a knowledgeable hacker will be able to add a transaction tot he blockchain.

codedokode 9 hours ago|||
Probably not everyone knows, but USDT has a "black list", and admins can prevent any address holding USDT from spending. The black list is implemented in USDT contract.

So USDT is not truly decentralized and your money can be frozen for any reason or no reason at all.

rich_sasha 1 hour ago|||
So USDT is a great amazing decentralized censorship-free drop in replacement to USD except:

- much more awkward to use

- more liable to hacks

- deposits are not insured

- fewer legal protections

- doesn’t pay interest (or not easily anyway)

- and as I find out, bannable by a central institution with lower legal oversight than the Fed

I’ll keep a mental note of this.

dmantis 2 minutes ago|||
> great amazing decentralized censorship-free drop in replacement

It's not and never supposed to be and everybody who uses it in any significant amount knows that. Don't mistake a cryptotoken with a cryptocurrency.

turbobutton 10 minutes ago||||
Suddenly, physical Gold in a safe at home looks fairly decentralized and censorship-proof
dgellow 1 hour ago||||
Tether isn’t decentralized or censorship free in any way
altmanaltman 58 minutes ago||||
USDT is created by a super shady company and is not at all decentralized or censorship-free. You could have made the argument for Bitcoin (and still can to a certain level) but most cryptos that propped up after that or stablecoins do not follow the hacker philosophy and more the banker one. Ironic that the whole crypto movement got co-opted by the likes of JPM which it seeked to replace.
GoblinSlayer 1 hour ago||||
[flagged]
markasoftware 1 hour ago|||
Tether's entire business model, providing an almost-unregulated USD cryptocurrency, relies on them not arbitrarily banning people. They don't do it frequently or without thought. You're far less likely to get banned from USDT than just about any non-cryptocurrency financial institution.
j16sdiz 15 minutes ago|||
You can say the same for many other industries:

> almost-unregulated except when the authority say no.

eecc 1 hour ago|||
Yeah, until Trump (or whoever is president at the time) tells them to.

What will they do when the alternative is broken bones?

designerarvid 2 hours ago||||
Turns out that there are quite good reasons to have a centralised currency after all. Who would’ve known.
nicman23 2 hours ago|||
yeah the issue is if you built it they will co opt it
intended 2 hours ago||
All systems can be bent, broken, or subverted.
nicman23 2 hours ago||
not bitcoin-core in the past 14 years of being a public network
intended 1 hour ago|||
The topic is bitcoin being hacked and stolen. I do not think this outcome was the intended outcome for users?

Perhaps I am missing your argument.

nicman23 55 minutes ago|||
no. binance was hacked, again, again. the wallet was not. else they would have stolen only from the btc wallet.

not your keys not your bitcoin

rwmj 24 minutes ago||
Not practical for ordinary people. No regular person is holding their own wallet, and even the technically sophisticated who do get their keys stolen or lose them to faulty backups or technical snafus.
somenameforme 16 minutes ago||
Calling/implying that it's technically sophisticated is not really reasonable. Having a BTC (or other currency) wallet is utterly trivial, let alone from a technical standpoint, it's much easier than setting up an e.g. Coinbase account. The only issue, outside of choice of course, is people being ignorant of what needs to be done and I think that can largely be explained by the fact that centralized providers spend billions on marketing while decentralized wallets spend nothing on it.
wongarsu 43 minutes ago||||
The intention of bitcoin was to have a digital medium with similar properties as cash: no need to trust anyone else, and you can exchange it with whoever you want. Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law

Imho Bitcoins being stolen is not at all Bitcoin being "bent, broken, or subverted", it's just a natural consequence of the design goals. If an unrelated third party could block my bitcoins by accusing me of terrorism that would be subverting the system, and such things have not happened to bitcoin-core (but have happened in other parts of the bitcoin ecosystem)

GTP 17 minutes ago||
> Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law

The issue that is often raised with Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies is that not even the law can help you in case of theft. Now, it's true that the police wouldn't bother helping me recover a wallet with 100€ into it, but things change if someone steals millions or even billions like in this case.

GoblinSlayer 9 minutes ago||
You steal billions, you just pay the police 100000000 to look away.
eru 2 hours ago|||
Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.
eimrine 1 hour ago|||
Your answer does not answer anything. The discussion is about whether or not to have the trusted third-party. Pro-ttp said that ttp protects from criminals. Anti-ttp said that ttp can make your own money dissappear because ttp is bending the rules. You said nonsence, your examples are not showing any rules or contracts about digital property which are being bent. Why any bitcoin criticism from anyone is always so weak?
ZiiS 1 hour ago|||
All bitcoins are legally questionable; but no: ones that can be traced to contract killings not just stealing do not trade at a discount.
otabdeveloper4 2 hours ago||||
Turns out the reason crypto was invented isn't "decentralization" at all, it was nerds feeling left out and wanting their own financial instrument grift.
raverbashing 2 hours ago||
You mean the smart nerds

For the less economical-savvy ones it was like Beanie Babies or Tulips (with predictable consequences)

runj__ 2 hours ago||
I still buy tulips, just not at boom market prices.

The predictable outcome is that the deers get to them, but I got to see a few go into full bloom last year and it was wonderful.

diego_sandoval 2 hours ago|||
Yes, but there are more good reasons to have it be decentralized.
Cthulhu_ 1 hour ago||
Well sure, but the average consumer needs and/or wants some protections, safeguards and insurances. If my bank gets hacked or even if I get skimmed it's considered their fault and I'll get my money back.
GoblinSlayer 1 hour ago||
>I'll get my money back.

If the police retrieves your money from the thief?

EliRivers 49 minutes ago||
While I can't speak for other places, in the UK, if you haven't been careless and report quickly enough, your refund is not dependent on anyone being caught.
FabHK 3 hours ago||||
Arguably any fiat-collateralised stablecoin is ipso facto centralised and trusted (someone needs to 1) issue the coins only against fiat collateral and then 2) hold onto that collateral reliably and 3) return it upon presentation of the coin), and at step 3 they can always say "no, we won't give it to you".
rustyhancock 1 hour ago|||
Why couldn't a privacy focus coined, like Monero, be a stablecoin?

You don't need to see where the coins are and move to promise $1 of going for every coin.

cherryteastain 39 minutes ago||
Probably the founders/employees of the company issuing/redeeming the token would be arrested very quickly. Tornado Cash people got arrested for much less.
eru 2 hours ago|||
Your point has nothing to do with fiat.

It applies equally well to a fiduciary coin with a promise that 1 gcoin = 1g of gold or whatever.

FabHK 1 hour ago||
Indeed.

However, it does not necessarily apply to algorithmic stable coins (Terra) or crypto-backed overcollateralised coins (DAI). That's why I said "fiat-backed".

tarruda 5 minutes ago||||
If they baked in a function to freeze USDT, why not also add a function revert a transaction flagged as part of a hack?
reenorap 2 hours ago||||
Decentralized is a great concept but it’s 99.9% rug pulls and you can’t get any safety unless you centralize. As an investor there is no way to protect yourself because the rug pulls are several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than most people’s understanding.
smoovb 6 hours ago||||
The U.S. government is the largest beneficiary of this service. More than $2.1 billion in USDT connected to or requested by U.S. authorities out of over $4.4 billion in total illicit USDT freezes globally.
varenc 6 hours ago||
It's tethered to the USD. It seems expected that the government in charge of USD is doing the most blacklisting.
eru 2 hours ago||||
Anyone can refuse any bitcoin, too. But that's not implemented in the contract, just by how much real money people want to give you for bitcoin.
jmyeet 1 hour ago||||
The financial system has evolved over 5000+ years and is like an endless series of Chesterton's Fences at this point. Here we find another: the ability for a regulator or a bank to freeze assets is once again proven to be a feature not a bug.

Managing a wallet where there is no recourse if your wallet is compromised is simply too difficult when even crypto exchanges get hacked and otherwise sophisticated people get compromised when taking cautious measures (eg [1]).

Crypto really is and always was a race to the rug pull.

[1]: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/about-3-5-million-los...

ACCount39 1 hour ago|||
You know what isn't a Chesterton's fence? Payment processors being able to dictate what I can or can't spend my money on.

This by itself is a reason to push for more crypto acceptance, in my eyes.

shermantanktop 30 minutes ago||
I must live a very vanilla, sheltered life because I’ve never bought anything and wondered if a payment processor would object to it.
GoblinSlayer 27 minutes ago||||
Frozen assets are still a wallet with no recourse.
Cthulhu_ 1 hour ago|||
Yeah but what if I hacked that money fair and square? Why should anyone have the right to block my hard earned not-cash?
MASNeo 2 hours ago||||
A shame that they can and do so here but happily facilitate transfers or scam victims, human trafficking and sexual abuse including of minors.
londons_explore 1 hour ago|||
So when tether is blacklisted, is it reissued?
extraextra 10 hours ago|||
What's the point of even stealing the stablecoins? They're controlled by private companies that can easily freeze them

Am I missing something here? Seems like a waste of time

no-name-here 3 hours ago|||
> waste of time

It seems like it took some number of minutes and scored billions, and at that point it was a matter of whether/how much they could trade out before it was locked. I don’t know how many minutes or hours it took to lock? If they managed to trade 1% before blocking, that would be an extra tens of millions. If 10% that would be hundreds of millions, etc.

extraextra 12 minutes ago||
Fair enough
Ntrails 7 minutes ago||||
I'm not clear whether the stablecoin providers will then be "creating" new coin to make binance whole - without which you've still fucked binance
globuous 37 minutes ago||||
Apparently [1], he managed to put them as collateral on a lending platform. That allowed him to borrow ETH. The way it works is that if you don't pay back the loaned ETH, the lenders can take the collateral. Except that here the collateral is itself frozen. So apparently, the ETH as now safe in the hacker's wallet and the lenders just lost a bunch of money.

I wonder why not swap them? And had he, would it have bricked the swap pool?

[1] https://x.com/czesmaill/status/2115988477905080716

extraextra 9 minutes ago||
That's smart
wmf 9 hours ago||||
In this case it looks like the attacker managed to swap some stablecoins into ETH before they were frozen.
Rodmine 2 hours ago|||
It reveals what they are to the public. It's fake crypto with all the downsides of crypto but none of the upsides.
ShinyLeftPad 1 hour ago|||
Less than half is frozen then?
giwook 7 hours ago|||
So they got “only” ~$3 billion
guax 3 hours ago||
Poor fellas, barely enough for rent
reddalo 2 hours ago||
It's one banana, what could it cost? $10?
getcrunk 7 hours ago|||
Interesting I didn’t know you can block/cancel transactions. Does this have to happen before the new block is minted. or it can happen after, that’s what I’m inclined to think just based off of the word block
cosmojg 7 hours ago||
Centralized stablecoins like USDT and USDC aren't layer-one cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. They're more like applications running on top of other blockchains, usually as smart contracts, and their issuers hold admin keys which can freeze, mint, burn, and otherwise redistribute funds at will. As far as timing goes, stablecoin issuers can't actually cancel or reverse a transaction that's already in a block that's been mined, but they can freeze the receiving address afterward and burn the funds there, then reissue them elsewhere, which has much the same effect.
Frieren 3 hours ago||
That sounds interesting. How is that different from a bank? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared with a traditional bank?
gucci-on-fleek 3 hours ago|||
If traditional banking is available to you, then I don't think that there are any significant advantages. But lots of people—notably those in countries with unstable currencies [0]—don't have access to high-quality banking, so for them, stablecoins can be an acceptable substitute in some cases. It's probably not a great idea to hold stablecoins long-term (there's always a risk of the sponsoring company going under, and unlike bonds they don't pay interest), but it should be fairly safe to use them for transfers, since the transfers are quick enough that there are very low odds of the company becoming insolvent while the transfer is underway.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50012907

otabdeveloper4 2 hours ago||
It's much easier to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies than it is paper cash and brick-and-mortar banks.
origini 1 hour ago||||
Its a weird loophole or so.

You take 1 $ from someone and give them a token, now you have money the other not. In theory you need to make sure you keep the 1$ but you want to pay people and you are greedy so you invest it and suddenly everyone is broke.

grey-area 2 hours ago|||
It’s completely unregulated and they can print infinite money.
RobotToaster 10 hours ago|||
That doesn't sound very decentralised.
johanyc 3 hours ago|||
Stable coins are not decentralized
wyager 2 hours ago||||
Stablecoins only use the accoutrement of blockchain as smoke and mirrors to distract and confuse regulators, not because they actually benefit from it at a technical level. They aren't really decentralized at all and could just as easily be a database, except for the regulatory thing
tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago|||
nothing about crypto is decentralized. it's verified by enormous mining farms, who contribute hashes to centralized pools, all stored on one central ledger, and interfaces with the fiat/legit financial system only by using that very financial system.

oh, and three acounts hold like 25% of all btc in circulation.

crypto can do some things, but decentralization isn't one of them. just ask Coinbase

USD tether is barely crypto at all, it's a wrapper around treasury bonds which the US govt. regulates

insane_dreamer 3 hours ago||
which is why - sadly - there's not really any point to crypto anymore (other than as a speculative instrument driven mostly by fomo)
blagie 3 hours ago||
The stated point is to prevent central banks from printing currency / inflation. The claim is that crypto today worth 1% of the world's BTC will be worth just under 1% of the world's BTC in 2300, at least barring e.g. progress in quantum cryptography, a sunspot taking out digital infrastructure, or similar.

That's probably socially harmful, but it is the claim.

johncolanduoni 1 hour ago||
Inflation is increasing prices, which has causes other than central banks putting more money into circulation. When Bitcoin’s value drops, prices in Bitcoin increase so it experiences inflation regularly.
kolanos 11 hours ago|||
> About $2.4 billion out of this is already frozen by Circle and Tether. Some of the big ones:

How does freezing crypto work in this context?

redox99 11 hours ago|||
The smart contract for those tokens supports freezing. Tether just calls the freeze function on that address.
reenorap 2 hours ago|||
Can they forcibly reverse the transaction so that Binance gets their money back?
shakow 1 hour ago||
No. The last time this happened, it led to the Ethereum/Ethereum classic split, and that was 10 years ago.

However, the stablecoins are not “real” cryptocurrencies like e.g. BTC or ETH, but are built as smartcontracts on top of ETH, basically using it as a big replicated database. So they might(?) just manually “give back” the money to Binance, as in freezing money in the stolen account forever and “printing” an equal amount to Binance's credit.

Or, to put it in another way, no need to reverse an erroneous SQL transaction if you can just create a new one that fixes the data you altered.

cowlevel 9 hours ago||||
And it's impossible to mix them because Ethereum is even anonymous than Bitcoin.
hackernud3s 10 hours ago|||
Isn't it already too late at that point? The tokens would have moved already.
mcintyre1994 2 hours ago|||
I think the idea is that they freeze them indefinitely, and then they no longer count against the centralised reserves, since they can never cash out. Now they can mint the equivalent amount back to Binance and remain solvent.
grey-area 2 hours ago||
And how do they ‘mint’ 2 billion without affecting the price of tether and without finding 2 billion to back it?

If they can mint with no impact doesn’t that mean they can just print money?

Zanfa 1 hour ago|||
It’s been years since anything Tether minted was plausibly 100% backed by real assets. Both times they’ve been forced to show the books, they only had fractional backing. And they’ve minted tens of billions of tokens since.
grey-area 1 hour ago||
And yet people like the parent and those with billions invested in Tether seem to believe that it's all backed and fully solvent and minting new money from thin air is completely reasonable.

It's remarkable to me how long this scam has lasted and how much confidence people have in it, in spite of the very shady characters involved and the likelihood of fraud.

mcintyre1994 2 hours ago|||
Because if they permanently freeze 2 billion in a wallet, that Tether can never move or cash out, so their liabilities go down 2 billion. They can mint an equivalent amount to a non-frozen wallet without affecting their reserve ratio.

And yes they can print money, you have to trust their reserves that are off chain.

petu 10 hours ago|||
Moved where? Moving to a different wallet wouldn't prevent freezing. It's 5B, impossible to cash out or exchange for different crypto quickly.
no-name-here 3 hours ago|||
Excluding wash and artificial activity, supposedly stablecoins trade 400M/h so if it took 2h to notice and lock they might have been able trade about half a billion without overwhelming existing volumes?

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/stablecoin... (I didn't verify per-stablecoin volume, or actual volume at those hours, or typical volume for those exact hours, which a better analysis would have done.)

FabHK 3 hours ago||||
here's an interesting article by DataFinnovation arguing that blacklisting crypto is doomed to fail.

https://medium.com/chainargos/losing-the-blacklisting-race-e...

tehlike 3 hours ago||||
they took loan against it.
hackernud3s 9 hours ago|||
right but too late to call freeze on the original wallet address as per gp's post. I would imagine it got distributed to many wallets and attempts to tumble by the time Tether could move on it.
l0ng1nu5 35 minutes ago||||
It doesn't, the hacker already loaned against it to get eth so they froze saves assets.
wmf 11 hours ago|||
Most crypto assets are operated by a smart contract that controls every transfer. So the contract can decide to not perform certain transfers.
ceejayoz 10 hours ago||
Not your keys, not your crypto.

Keys? Hahaha, still not your crypto.

cowlevel 9 hours ago||
Unless it's Monero, the only currency to be declared illegal in most countries because it's too much like cash.
radlad 1 hour ago|||
Monero is legal in most countries.
ShinyLeftPad 4 hours ago|||
Like cash except you can use it at crazy scale, so worse than cash when crime is considered.
thereforegrin 3 hours ago||
That's why it's paramount for LEOs to go after people doing the bad deeds instead of simply banning a whole monetary ecosystem, just because it's easier to do.

If you ban a coin, instead of persuing the actual criminal, then you're both doing a disservice to honest users of the coin and leaving the bad actor to do harm to society in some other way.

There are only 8B people in the world - they all fit into a "box" of 2k by 2k by 2k of humans.

It really isn't that hard to know who's doing bad things to others, especially with current technology.

ShinyLeftPad 3 hours ago|||
No, it's exactly why that works.

Criminals used to meet in person to discuss crime (because mail/phones can be intercepted) and meet in person to move cash. It was a hard limiting factor on what they can get away with. With e2e messengers and anonymous crypto both of those "issues" are fixed.

Do you know anyone who uses it for legit purposes? I don't. I bet you ban a coin like that and you kill orders of magnitude more crime revenue compared to .001% of honest users using it to send money home and save a few dollars on the transaction.

intended 2 hours ago|||
It really is hard, because time isn’t addressed in the idea.

It is an evolutionary process, with incentives are high enough for both sides to keep finding solutions.

reddalo 11 hours ago|||
Frozen? What are they going to do, fork the blockchain?
levanten 2 hours ago|||
If people dont know, they should look up DAO hack and Ethereum hard fork.
Marazan 10 hours ago|||
USDT and USDC are both centralised crypto currencies with a single source of truth.
hocuspocus 9 hours ago||
In other words, they are essentially casino chips, not cryptocurrencies.
jwpapi 10 hours ago|||
Freezing crypto is so disgusting to me I don’t know…

Like the whole point of crypto to me I money without central governance.

I never liked stable coins or the concept of it and it’s mainly a huge fraud, so freezing just adds on top.

casualscience 4 hours ago|||
That's not the whole point at all. And there are truly wild west cryptos, but most people want some trustworthy regulatory body, whether it's a government or not, backstopping their funds when they get large enough.

For instance to unwind a 5 billion dollar robbery

Morromist 3 hours ago|||
"people want some trustworthy regulatory body"

Have you talked to Crypto-enthusiasts before? They very much don't want that.

nkrisc 1 hour ago||
I’m pretty sure cryptocurrency enthusiasts are a small minority of cryptocurrency users.
dools 4 hours ago|||
That’s why crypto is so dumb
afroboy 3 hours ago||
But without crypto we couldn't helped people in Gaza during the genocide. It has it benefits just not for the privileged white guy.
dools 2 hours ago||
I’m pretty sure crypto benefits privileged white guys quite a bit. I can think of one in particular…
hoppp 9 hours ago||||
Stablecoins are fiat on-chain and they are legal so they need to have the freezing mechanism in the smart contract otherwise they could go to jail.

So crypto + legal company means not really following bitcoin ideology anymore

maccam912 6 hours ago||||
At least a motivated person could audit the smart contracts on this. It isn't like it's a surprise when it turns out it's possible to freeze these coins.
tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago||||
this isn't crypto, it's US dollars with a techno-wizard sheen on the top for no reason
DonHopkins 3 hours ago||||
It's so sad that it's inconvenient for you to commit fraud and tax evasion and pyramid schemes and rug pulls.

My heart goes out to you, along with these two definitely not Nazi salutes.

paulpauper 9 hours ago||||
governments, banks freeze currency all the time
ajross 4 hours ago||||
> Freezing crypto is so disgusting to me I don’t know…

The feature literally appears to have just saved over two billion USD from being stolen! I mean, fine, "disgusting" is subjective. But the need for the feature is real and quantifiable (and very large) and it did what it advertised.

thereforegrin 3 hours ago||
it cuts both ways - it's fine when 2B of heist money gets frozen, but much less "fine" when your paycheck gets frozen because you've attended a political rally the ruling party/class does not like.
napierzaza 4 hours ago|||
[dead]
sergiotapia 11 hours ago||
I thought crypto was built specifically to prevent these 'freezing' actions? wtf
iillexial 10 hours ago|||
Does anyone on this website realize there are different types of crypto coins?
littlecranky67 1 hour ago||
I am always amazed how little knowledge and cargo culting of 2017-era bitcoin knowledge is prevalent on HN. Whatever you monetary feelings towards crypto is, the technical aspects are fascinating. But most of the time HN gets it wrong.
Dagonfly 53 minutes ago||
TBH, the more you know about the technical aspects the less fascinating it gets.

Smart contracts and stablecoins by extention sound technologically interesting, but at the end you always rely on trusting people.

The core of the financial system is about managing trust and therefore a social issue, not a tech issue. It'd be nice if more tech nerds would internalize that tech can't solve social issues on it's own

littlecranky67 33 minutes ago||
Stablecoins are centralized and of course rely on trust - you need someone to exchange whatever asset they promise to guard for your tokens. I find them fascinating (in conjunction with the lighnint/taproot assets over bitcoin) and not necessarily unsafe.

In the freebanking era that the US had (before the FED was founded) every bank emmitet their own dollar. And, of course, there were banks over-issuing and bank runs left people without their assets. But that was before we had free flow of information and the internet. In todays world you can monitor and trade stablecoins, market cap, exchange rates in a freebanking system in sub-seconds. Any erosion in trust will immediately result in price fluctuations. We need a digital freebanking era, and it is a shame the genius act fell through. Exporting the dollar to people without access to banking would benefit the US (but I get that it currently mostly benefits trumps family).

codedokode 9 hours ago||||
USDT is implemented as a contract written in Solidity, working over other network like ETH, and it has a blacklist managed by admins. Once address is added to a blacklist, you cannot spend anything from it.
nicman23 2 hours ago|||
yeah bitcoin indeed was
madradavid 2 hours ago||
Looks like a DevOps guy is going to take the blame for this: "Binance's initial investigation suggests that the security incident may involve a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions." https://x.com/binance/status/2115993361517891592
echoangle 2 hours ago||
If a compromised laptop was the entry point and that allowed someone to steal 6 billion dollars, it’s not really the engineers fault, right?
Ekaros 1 hour ago|||
Well it is engineers fault. But not that engineers. Some engineer designed a system without extreme oversight that should be involved in the process.
matt3210 1 hour ago|||
This kind of low bar reminds me of FTX
ShinyLeftPad 1 hour ago|||
If you follow that trail far enough it's whoever designed cryptocurrency, right? Because banks can and do reverse transactions as last resort.
globular-toast 43 minutes ago||
No, because this is explicitly the design of Bitcoin. If you give me a foo machine but it makes a bar, that's your fault. If you give me a foo machine and the foo hurts me, that's my fault.
piker 30 minutes ago||
lol I guess you just settled a hundred years of product liability jurisprudence
globular-toast 15 minutes ago||
Bitcoin isn't a product.
xnorswap 50 minutes ago||||
If nothing else it shows a complete disregard for insider threat.
Cthulhu_ 1 hour ago||||
Nope, that engineer had far too much access. I'm confident this is the case in pretty much all organizations to some degree, but a lot of engineers are also the only ones that can deny themselves the access so in a roundabout way it's their fault anyway.

But a lot (generalizing here) don't like giving up access "in case they need it". I haven't worked backend in ages, but years ago there was one developer that went to the ops guys and said "can I just ssh to production I need to check some env vars to debug my software" (or something to that degree). Ops team was good and it was a hard no - "just add some logging, you can deploy a new release quickly enough".

londons_explore 34 minutes ago||
> access "in case they need it"

A good solution to this is to have a "break glass" system. Ie. access permissions get granted to the developer directly in an emergency by going through a set of steps available beforehand. All requests by that developer are then allowed, limited to 10 kilobytes of results per minute and logged.

For example, imagine you run a bank, and a rare code bug means that at exactly midnight on new years eve all bank balances have $1B added to them.

Your oncall takes down the production servers to to reduce losses and uses the break glass system, by getting approval from n other developers, allowing them direct database access. They use that access to count(accounts) with a balance around $1B or more, see it is everyone, and subtract $1B from them all, before bringing production back up with an older software release. Downtime = 2 hours.

In the morning, all the developers actions are reviewed.

If the developer turned evil and trying to dump the database, the n approvers and 10 kilobytes per minute would reduce data loss. But the break glass system still lets the developer make fairly major emergency fixes to reduce losses or downtime.

vasco 1 hour ago|||
If you download a typosquatted package because you don't check what you type or your AI assistant got fooled I'd consider it my fault in such a case.
anonymous908213 1 hour ago||
If the engineer, without being hacked, could take 5 billion dollars from your company and flee the country to go buy an extradition-free island, you have already gravely fucked up as an enterprise. The only way this happens is if your system is designed to allow this to happen.
thecopy 2 hours ago|||
I recommend everyone to move your plantext secrets from ~/.kube/config, ~/.ssh etc into a password-manager. You can tell Claude to adjust the config files to get the secrets from 1Password when they are needed with TouchID requirements etc.
dewey 1 hour ago|||
These days I’m getting so many 1Password prompts for agents pulling env variables out of it and with very little context of what is being accessed by who (The dialog 1Password shows is pretty bad) that it would be very easy for something to slip in there.
caaqil 1 hour ago||
> I’m getting so many 1Password prompts for agents pulling env variables out of it and with very little context of what is being accessed by who

This is a one-sentence horror story. I almost can't believe someone would let this happen, unless the 1Password account is not important (highly unlikely).

dewey 58 minutes ago||
I know it sounds bad, but it’s the reality for most people, just like permission prompts at every corner and after each macOS / app update (“Your screenshot app is watching your screen”, no shit, that’s why I installed it).
jwr 48 minutes ago||||
I have been using Yubikeys for years, according to this guide: https://github.com/drduh/yubikey-guide

The nice thing is that using the private key requires physical touch. That means that AI itself (or a remote attacker, for that matter) can't do things unless I confirm.

sally_glance 1 hour ago||||
How would that help when your workstation is compromised? They can just steal your authentication the moment you log in through the password manager
thecopy 1 hour ago||
It does help in that the secrets are not in plain-text, readable for any script you run. With 1Password, a process asks for the password and it gets transferred not through the filesystem but through IPC. 1Password shows a dialog: "Do you want iTerm to get your SSH key ABC123?"

In my thinking, this is more secure than plaintext in filesystem

littlecranky67 1 hour ago||||
as for ssh keys, you can generate your keypair in secure enclave and reuiqre touchId for every new ssh session. The private key never leaves the secure enclave.
Cthulhu_ 1 hour ago||
Probably the better option instead of relying on a password manager.
littlecranky67 1 hour ago||
It is a tradeoff. When using secure enclave, you need a second backup keypair in cold storage that needs to be secured.
febusravenga 1 hour ago||||
you know most password managers have open sockets, or other channels to other local processes to interact with and allow stealing entries?

you know most tools like gcloud, bitwarden, etc store auth keys just in dotfiles too?

Local compromise is KO now, and we can't do shit on platforms like MacOs didn't research Linux recently

speedgoose 1 hour ago|||
Isn’t the password manager a prime target too?
throwawaysoxjje 1 hour ago|||
The fact a single devops guy has the access to do this is the actual issue
yfontana 56 minutes ago||
They claim the attack wasn't just "compromised laptop ==> drain wallets" but had more steps in-between, with the attackers using image registries as an entry point into their systems.
cryptoz 4 hours ago||
Some of the old Mt Gox threads are an interesting read today:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203051

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7294762

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7369879

ChoosesBarbecue 11 hours ago||
Molly White (she runs web3isgoinggreat) seems to think this is real [0]

[0]: https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3mz27m5slcc2o

atdt 7 hours ago||
Her reporting is superb and you should follow her: https://www.citationneeded.news/.
internet_points 45 minutes ago||
Read a few, added to my rss reader :) that's the same author as https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/ which is feels a bit more snarky but very fun.
ChoosesBarbecue 9 hours ago|||
Some further writing from her: https://www.citationneeded.news/binance-theft/
perlgeek 1 hour ago|||
I love how @cz_binance tweeted "user funds are safe!" in that thread. Wasn't that a bit too early? Are they?
donbox 10 hours ago||
This is real.
petermcneeley 3 hours ago||
If your bitcoin is on someone else's computer its not your bitcoin.
mrtksn 2 hours ago||
The problem with Bitcoin being on your computer is that its useless there. No one in the gambling world cares about on-chain exchanges either.

Besides, when its in your computer they send you a modified computer with an esim and steal it just like that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50054092

The whole thing is a shady casino where the code is the law and who knows maybe the Binance guy actually made a deal to send $5B of crypto for a really cool NFT when drunk and now pretends that its a hack? We will never know, the code is the law and the law says that someone else has it now.

In crypto, you should gamble fast lose or win and get out. Pay/receive the ransom and get out. Pay/receive your drug/guns/espionage money and get out. You should never keep crypto if you are not OK with losing it.

NL807 2 hours ago||
>The problem with Bitcoin being on your computer is that its useless there.

If you want to use the BC on your computer, you can transfer it to wherever you want.

mrtksn 2 hours ago||
Like Binance you mean? It's slow, expensive and they get you at the place where you transfer it. You transfer it because its useless in your computer.
littlecranky67 1 hour ago|||
bitcoins are always on someone elses computer (literally everyones in the bitcoin network). You hold the private key on your computer. Ideally you don't hold it there, but in secure enclave like chip or an airgapped device.
itake 2 hours ago|||
For many people, email/phone support, password recovery, two factor authentication, etc is it much safer option to self-managing and run the risk of your hardware token or your house burning down, or getting mugged.
stevage 1 hour ago||
It seems better when it's on an exchange like Binance, because they cover you when it gets stolen.
littlecranky67 1 hour ago|||
we will see if they do.
ur-whale 47 minutes ago|||
> It seems better when it's on an exchange like Binance, because they cover you when it gets stolen.

Assuming they actually can cover the losses financially.

And if they don't good luck suing them.

callamdelaney 7 hours ago||
For context, that’s about 10 months of fees for Binance, depending on how much of the volume they trade are discounted and considering current average volumes.
4ndrewl 1 hour ago||
It's 10 months of revenue, but 10 years of reputation.
baobabKoodaa 5 hours ago|||
So they actually lost a few years' worth of profit on this hack? Could be worse, but not insignificant by any means.
Calvin02 5 hours ago||
I’m not at all familiar with the crypto space.

Are you suggesting that this is not a big deal? $6B feels like a lot but sounds like in the scheme of things it isn’t as a fraction of trading volume. Is that right?

Eji1700 4 hours ago|||
Don’t think they’re suggesting it’s not a big deal.

Any company losing 10 months of revenue overnight is a BIG fucking deal. Doubly so in a speculative asset that you’re holding for others “securely”. The financial hit has only just begun for them.

That said yes the trading volume has huge.

teacpde 1 hour ago|||
It is a big deal, but not big enough for them to go out of business
1a527dd5 11 hours ago||
Related?

https://ohey.ca/research/polymarket-debugbear-wallet-drainer...

https://x.com/DebugBear/status/2115866496643535293

reddalo 10 hours ago||
Maybe: https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/10-29-2026-suspected-...

As of now, DebugBear webite has been taken offline: https://www.debugbear.com/

And they just posted on Twitter: https://x.com/DebugBear/status/2115930681398239278

archon810 5 hours ago||
From what I've read, DebugBear is related to the Polymarket hack, not Binance.
hoppp 11 hours ago|||
I don't think so. Both happened the same time but unrelated. Just a good haul for hackers end of the year.
rollulus 2 hours ago|||
If there were only a way to pin external deps loaded from html by sha…
staticBr 2 hours ago||
Who loads foreign JS from a CDN into a site handling finances? WTF, the crypto world always manage to make me speechless.
jamesblonde 4 hours ago||
This is the beginning of a flight to perceived quality in all things digital and monetary. Fear of losing your money is among the most potent basal human instincts.
motionlessveloc 46 minutes ago||
Binance is the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. This is the crypto equivalent of JP Morgan Chase getting hacked.
coffeebeqn 2 hours ago||
Maybe I need to start collecting gold bullion again. And dig it in the backyard
yard2010 31 minutes ago||
The problem is, just like with Bitcoin, when you need to use it someone could steal it
layerv-ai-qurl 11 hours ago||
This is a really insane hack in comparison to the other ones we've seen. Genuinely Binance was so big that this is a real big wtf moment for crypto. If they can get hacked then what about all the other exchanges?!
wolvoleo 11 hours ago||
So was Mt Gox. No lessons were learned. No lessons will be learned this time.
Dagonfly 1 hour ago|||
The lession learned is: Tether now exists as a casino chip central bank. They can just freeze and print more and provide a backstop to the major CEXs.

Of course, Tether runs completely counter to any of the idealistic claims about crypto.

clippyplz 9 hours ago||||
The difference is that Bittance loses only a few percent of their reserves and the dance continues. Gdox did ~70% of the daily volume for crypto and wrecked the entire ecosystem when they got 100% pwned. Maybe they've learned something!
pigeons 4 hours ago||
Its more than their total reserve fund. Its a fraction of the money they hold for customers.
rich_sasha 3 hours ago||||
How do you prevent it though? My understanding is that it’s genuinely hard in crypto. Any automated access control must be baked into smart contracts, which are very limited in terms of the logic they can implement (in practice - in theory Solidity is Turing complete Id imagine).

A bank API can be 10-100s+ kloc if they need that to implement access controls.

hangrybear666 10 hours ago||||
Well I've learnt my lesson after having lost 3 bitcoins as a student on Mt gox I finished writing my thesis on blockchain technology and then never touched crypto again.
motionlessveloc 43 minutes ago||||
Mt Gox was widely reckoned to be a clown show long before they got hacked (it was originally a Magic the Gathering trading site for chrissake).

Binance's reputation is hardly impeccable, but by crypto standards they're kinda sorta the adults in the room. Then again, so was FTX.

janalsncm 10 hours ago||||
People got out of crypto after the Mt Gox thing. The ones who stayed accepted the risk.

There is selection bias in play now. The remaining people are naturally more risk tolerant. So I agree this second time around, no lessons will be learned.

Eji1700 5 hours ago|||
The vast majority of crypto being held now was purchased by people who had never even heard of Mt Gox.
wmf 9 hours ago||||
Most people in crypto are noobs, not hardened veterans of previous hacks.
Waterluvian 9 hours ago||||
By definition maybe they’re more risk tolerant. But I’m not sure they consciously identify as that.
4ggr0 3 hours ago|||
the crypto consumer base is veeeery different than durint Mt. Gox.

during Mt. Gox it felt like nerds and insiders, nowadays boomer dads are into crypto.

my point being that i don't agree with "the remaining people are naturally more risk tolerant", as there are way more 'new' people.

yreg 10 hours ago||||
What's the supposed lesson? To close the shop?
driverdan 8 hours ago||
Never use someone else's wallet to hold your money.
peddling-brink 3 hours ago|||
Not your keys, not your crypto. Use a nice safe hardware wallet. Just check for extra SIM cards first, and audit the key generator.
TheDong 2 hours ago|||
It's almost impossible to verify the code on the hardware wallet really matches the code they released and that the hardware has not been tampered with.

Maybe the sim card is on a timer to broadcast your keys after a year, so you just can't detect cellular signal usage now.

To securely own bitcoin you have to first create a new chip fabrication plant to then make your own hardware wallet.

throooooo 3 hours ago|||
It's insane that one has to go through this to be somewhat safe.
jgilias 2 hours ago||
Roll the dice
yreg 3 hours ago|||
But that lesson does not apply here.
AlienRobot 9 hours ago|||
To put things in perspective, I used to dunk on crypto because of how dysfunctional and how people kept losing money in scams, hacks, or even by accident.

I no longer dunk on crypto.

Not because crypto got better, but because the joke got old. I got tired of dunking on it.

coffeebeqn 2 hours ago||
I’d be worried about my crypto if I had any accessible online right now. AI based hackers must be looking for juicy targets as we speak and what’s better than crypto for stealing ? So many exchanges and wallets and shitcoins that could fall to some brute force agent swarms
dickfickling 11 hours ago|
So, what's the most likely outcome here? Maybe Circle/Tether/etc freeze some or most of it, but say the hacker gets a billion dollars. Are they able to launder it thoroughly enough that they can eventually turn it into fiat and live like a king?
schleck8 9 hours ago||
The hackers managed to swap 700 million USD of the stable coins that were frozen beforehand, supposedly. And that doesn't account for the non-stable coin crypto they stole. I think we are looking at 2.5 to 3.5 billion here, that also aligns with what CZ is hinting at (more than a billion).
Eji1700 5 hours ago|||
It’s likely state sponsored and some nation(NK is a common one) just paid for the weapons budget of the next few years
traes 2 hours ago|||
TRM Labs[0] claims it is indeed NK

[0]: https://www.trmlabs.com/resources/blog/north-korea-steals-us...

agumonkey 3 hours ago|||
What would be the list? NK, then Russia, anybody else ?
perlgeek 1 hour ago|||
NK, NK, NK.

Seriously, they have professionalized attacks on crypto infra to a degree that whenever you hear about a massive heist, you can be pretty sure it's North Korea.

viktorcode 2 hours ago|||
Iran
zaptheimpaler 9 hours ago|||
Yeah, some criminal enterprise or state probably just made billions of dollars and will now use it against us for a long time. Crypto is practically designed for money laundering, particularly prediction markets.
wraptile 4 hours ago||
Crypto is a hard lesson for early adopters who believed that humanity will get actual benefit when in reality it was completely hijacked by bad actors while people got relative nothing or worse. What an incredible disappointment of a project.
rf15 1 hour ago||
Crypto is also a hard lesson for those who thought it could liberate if only everyone was using it: the amount of storage needed for ever-increasing record-keeping made it completely unrealistic to use individually, forcing you into the centralisation that they advertised you could escape from.
wraptile 1 hour ago||
> the amount of storage needed for ever-increasing record-keeping made it completely unrealistic to use individually

That's not necessarily true as you can introduce extra layers to handle the storage. Why store A, B, C, D sending each other cents when you can aggregate it to once a week balance sheet changes. All of these are actually solvable tech issues even in 2012 computers.

The main failure of crypto is that it claimed to design away human corruption which in theory made a lot of sense but in practice it did the opposite - it accelerated human corruption without bad actors having to even break the rules. Just how Hitler rose to power through gaming the democratic processes crypto was gamed without anyone having to break 51% proof of work to rewrite the ledger.

The idea of running everything without oversight of humans and institutions is just fundamentally unsustainable - who are we running this system for if not for us, the people?

Eji1700 10 hours ago|||
Curious if this finally pops tether. I kinda doubt it, but to my very mild research on the subject I feel like binance was a big part of the equation. Of course so long as the market exists it'll need a stable, and it's got the inertia, so maybe it just won't matter.
gfh687564 10 hours ago|||
why would it pop tether? if anything, it makes tether more profitable, as they can collect the yield on the treasuries and not have to return the principal dollars which are frozen.

think of it this way - if someone steals your iphone, and you lock it, does apple pop? No, apple sells you another one. locked devices are good for apple because it causes more demand.

johanyc 3 hours ago|||
If the iPhone you bought can easily poof and be gone and locked somewhere, people will stop buying and using iphone and apple will pop
newswasboring 2 hours ago||
Freezing bank accounts was and is possible. People don't seem to be still using them.
bootsmann 1 hour ago||
People are but criminals are less likely to do so. Without the money laundering usecase crypto is in for another winter.
jcattle 1 hour ago||
And you say that as if this is a... bad thing?
throwawaythekey 10 hours ago||||
Is that what happens here? Tether just pocket the difference?
baobabKoodaa 4 hours ago|||
I would assume Binance is powerful enough to get Tether to issue new USDT and give it to Binance to replace the stolen-and-frozen USDT.
jwpapi 10 hours ago|||
No lol
grey-area 9 hours ago|||
Because Tether is an obvious fraud linked to these other obviously fraudulent companies and predicated on trust in cryptocurrencies.
evdubs 8 hours ago||
It's really hard to be an obvious fraud when you've been publishing attestations for years and now you have a "full independent audit" from KPMG for FY 2025, just like Circle/USDC.

https://tether.io/news/tether-completes-the-largest-inaugura...

grey-area 2 hours ago||
Read up on the origins of tether, the people who founded it, deltic bank, banned for fraud in New York. In the beginning the reserves were a lie. I have no doubt they have some reserves now, but do they have $182 billiom USD, really?

CZ from Binance was also done for… fraud but miraculously pardoned by Donald Trump (I wonder why?!) and somehow still has enormous influence and inside knowledge in spite being banned from managing Binance. He talks as if he runs the company. Hmmm.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly1qrl9l1qo

s5300 10 hours ago|||
[dead]
motionlessveloc 11 hours ago||
You misspelled "turn it into more nuclear weapons in North Korea", where Kim Jong Un is already living like a king.
zapataband1 11 hours ago||
[flagged]
10111001 11 hours ago|||
> Yeah totally not israeli hackers... it has to be scary kim.

The Israelis don't have any problem acquiring hard currency. North Korea does, and has an established MO of stealing crypto and running online moneymaking scams like ransomware.

zapataband1 10 hours ago||
[flagged]
zamadatix 10 hours ago|||
They were talking about the money sources, not the list of grivences by political source in order of severity. The latter, however much you'd like to make the conversation be about it, does not change how each actually gets its money.
zapataband1 6 hours ago||
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/rjgshsl6fe
10111001 4 hours ago||
> https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/rjgshsl6fe

You linked an article about a single Israeli criminal getting extradited to stand trial for a crime.

Do you not understand the distinction between "the Israelis" (often used as a shorthand for its government) and "an Israeli"?

IIRC, the North Korean government itself has programs to steal cryptocurrency to fund its government.

Catloafdev 10 hours ago||||
Do you have any reason to believe this?

This fits the NK MO to a T. It does not fit Israeli intelligence activity. Your claim rings hollow without any support.

zapataband1 6 hours ago||
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/rjgshsl6fe
tommica 11 hours ago||||
Could be Claude!
newswasboring 2 hours ago||
I know saying this is sinister, but it would be so fucking funny if it's an agent swarm gone out of control. Just like the hugging face incident happened because the agents kind of hallucinated a "checker" program, this hack could also be in the service of some hairbrained scheme the agent swarm dreamed up.
Cyph0n 11 hours ago|||
Well, looking at the way NK is demonized, you would think it was on a genocidal rampage, invading neighboring countries, and eliminating heads of sovereign states in pursuit of its Greater NK project.
wat10000 10 hours ago||
They’re demonized because they’re an awful regime that horribly oppresses their own people.

Of all the reasons to demonize a government, that seems like a pretty good one. Why the snark?

Cyph0n 10 hours ago||||
I would be less snarky if the faux concern didn’t just last as long as the media tells you to. Most recently, there was a period where Myanmar and the Uyghurs were in vogue, but not anymore. NK is more evergreen it seems.

Setting aside the genocide, it is particularly funny at a time when Western governments are oppressing their own by crushing dissent on Israel, but I don’t see the same outrage there.

wat10000 10 hours ago||
You don’t see the same outrage around Israel? Have you... looked? It’s all over.

I don’t understand what you mean about faux concern only lasting as long as the media says. North Korea is, as you say, evergreen. And I’m pretty sure it’s based on how awful that government is, not on “the media” telling us to hate them.

Cyph0n 9 hours ago|||
I see the outrage, but I don’t see it at the level of NK, at least not in Western media or governments.

I meant the faux concern over NK is evergreen unlike some other causes such as the ones I mentioned.

As soon as (if ever) NK joins the fold of Western-aligned liberal states, the media machine will spin up and it will cease to be maligned, and you will move on to the next bogeyman.

wat10000 8 hours ago||
We must be looking at different things, because right now I see about a thousand times more criticism leveled at Israel than at North Korea. (Making no statement here about who deserves it.)

If NK ever were to join the fold of western-aligned liberal states, it will probably be accompanied by no longer behind quite such utter bastards to their people and a cessation of maligning would be entirely justified.

I just don’t get it. Of all the things to complain about propaganda in the world, why North Korea? This is one where they get it right.

Cyph0n 6 hours ago|||
> because right now I see about a thousand times more criticism leveled at Israel than at North Korea

Is the criticism of Israel from the people, or from Western govs and media outlets (i.e., the establishment, the centers of actual power)? And isn’t the outrage logical given the nature of the atrocities being committed by Israel right now? And pray tell: which Western countries are sanctioning Israel?

On the other hand, NK is vilified by the Western establishment, i.e. by the holders of power, but on a more background level. It isn’t the topic du jour right now, but NK is ever present as a big bad evil. Propaganda helps maintain this image in the West, even when NK isn’t present in the news cycle. And it is sanctioned to hell and back.

And even if it is “right”, it does not mean that it is completely right, nor does it mean that the propaganda isn’t doing its job effectively even if you don’t realize it.

Anyhow, I think this thread is deep enough, so I will stop here.

whoanoway 7 hours ago|||
[dead]
jst1fthsdys 9 hours ago|||
> not on “the media” telling us to hate them.

Everything you know about NK is from the media.

wat10000 8 hours ago||
Right, because “the media” is such a broad term that it’s pretty much useless to talk about it as a thing.
throwawaythekey 10 hours ago|||
Whatever NK does seems relatively tame in today's world. On the global stage it's generally thought of as a larger crime to oppress the peoples of other's countries (either the ukraine or iran conflict should fit your priors).
wat10000 9 hours ago||
I’m not sure what’s supposed to be tame about operating one of the most oppressive societies in the world and keeping their people in poverty while building a nuclear arsenal.

It’s definitely true that crimes against other countries are more frowned upon than crimes against one’s own people. Which doesn’t seem right to me at all. People are people and victims are victims whether it’s their own government or someone else’s. Hence why I’m confused about the snark. This seems like an instance where ugly norms are being broken for a good reason and it’s being treated like hypocrisy.

throwawaythekey 9 hours ago||
Agree crimes against your own people should probably be the more major consideration. In terms of who is the biggest baddie there are also elements of actively bombing/starving vs the more passive methods of NK control.

TBH I think I (and maybe others) just get triggered when the bogey man is invoked each time there's a crypto story.

kortilla 1 hour ago|||
> TBH I think I (and maybe others) just get triggered when the bogey man is invoked each time there's a crypto story.

It’s not a “bogey man” because it’s literally North Korea’s well-documented MO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Group

It’s like reading an article about a Russian dissident politician dying from falling out of a window and then getting outraged when someone suggests he may have been murdered by someone in power.

motionlessveloc 7 hours ago|||
"Passive method of control" is a remarkable euphemism for being packed off to the gulag for crimes like being related to someone who fled to South Korea.
More comments...