Top
Best
New

Posted by Tiberium 23 hours ago

Binance-hacker-1029 – $5.6B stolen from Binance(arkm.com)
1711 points | 1189 commentspage 14
schleck8 23 hours ago|
If your crypto was stolen in this, atleast you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use. In North Korea that is, by the military. I'm sure at this point Kim himself has Bitcoin merchandise with how often they make massive heists
NoidFonsense 22 hours ago||
If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto. It is simply cryptocurrency that has been reallocated from an exchange to a more competent party, as the free market intended.
nl 22 hours ago|||
I don't think the security trade-off for most people is clear here.

Given things like the ledger hardware attack[1] I think the time indexed risk of using a centralized exchange is probably lower than doing self-custody.

I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons, but I think trying to disguise this as a security decision ("If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto.") is arguable at best.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/70f69253-6017-4259-95c9-48bf0e088...

done_lurking 17 hours ago||
Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger, and such gadgets represent a very small minority of self-custody wallets. In addition, there are noteworthy non-security risks when using an exchange. There's fraud, illiquidity, new legislation, asset forfeiture, and innumerable other reasons why an exchange might prevent you from withdrawing your funds. I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.
nl 16 hours ago|||
> Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger

Does this mean you recommend not using one? Because that goes against all the common best practice recommendations from when I did a couple of years working in Web3 stuff a few years back.

> I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.

That's not what I suggested.

I suggested that it is less secure over time than centralized exchanges, even with the things you listed.

done_lurking 6 hours ago||
you said

>I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons

I interpreted this to mean you don't think there are practical reasons to use self-custody, which is why I shared multiple practical reasons to use it over an exchange. Security risk is only a portion of the risk you are exposed to by using an exchange. If you are only concerned with security risks, then maybe exchanges are preferable.

As for hardware ledgers, I'm not convinced that buying special-purpose hardware is preferable to using general-purpose hardware + software for this. I don't keep all my money in crypto though, so maybe I'm just uninformed.

pishpash 16 hours ago|||
How can self custody be a novelty when it is the original way and predates exchanges...
taeric 15 hours ago||
This is a silly comparison. Dip pens are a novelty, and predate every other pen type.

Records are largely a novelty. And predate streaming services.

I'm fairly sure originals are almost universally novelties compared to things that came after.

ebiester 22 hours ago||||
So what happened with all of those with hardware wallets that have been pwned?

There apparently is no such thing as “your crypto” with how many security problems there are.

caymanjim 21 hours ago|||
By the nature of blockchain, it's never, ever your crypto. It's allocated to whichever bucket the majority of participants in a given network agree to allocate it to.
dlubarov 19 hours ago||
Well, not exactly. A malicious majority of miners could rewind the chain as they please. They could indirectly steal some funds by undoing certain transfers, but they couldn’t just directly reassign funds to themselves.
dididi27484sd 19 hours ago||
Has anyone calculated the mining capacity of the AI data centre buildouts? Presumably the big firms could out-mine mining firms if they chose to?
trevinhofmann 18 hours ago||
Absolutely not, as GPUs used in data centers cannot compete with ASICs designed specifically for Bitcoin mining.

The Bitcoin mining network is somewhere around 1000 EH/s, while the (AI assisted research ahead) 34.5 million H100-equivalent GPUs globally would yield about 0.435 EH/s. They'd represent less than 0.05% of the Bitcoin network.

ashkankiani 17 hours ago|||
That's only if they target Bitcoin and not some other coin which doesn't have an ASIC and has a GPU-friendly hash.
0c3ca83 18 hours ago|||
If they had built out the same number of ASICs and GPUs, what you said would make sense.
weird-eye-issue 22 hours ago||||
Back around 2012 I created a paper wallet using an offline website (it was HTML and JS downloaded locally that worked without internet. I put it on a USB stick and then use it in a laptop without internet), printed it out and put it in a safe
trollbridge 20 hours ago|||
I did a similar stunt with an old PowerBook where I electrically disabled the WiFi/Bluetooth so it wouldn’t be online unless I plugged in Ethernet, generated keys, and played around with mining. This was back in 2010 when this was all just basically toys for fun. I also encrypted it all with FileVault.

Then I forgot my pass phrase and have never been able to recover any of it. I don’t even know how many btc were mined/lost.

Before anyone asks, no, there aren’t any usable exploits / vulns found for the encryption methods used. And from what I can tell the coins in question have still sat frozen for going in a decade and a half now. I suspect many other hackers did the same thing…

skinfaxi 20 hours ago|||
Apparently legacy filevault can be attacked offline with tools like john the ripper.
weird-eye-issue 20 hours ago|||
If you were attempting to mine Bitcoin with a PowerBook I can confidently say you mined zero Bitcoin

Edit: I thought he was talking about 2012 but yeah in 2010 CPU mining was still a thing

skinfaxi 20 hours ago|||
Wasn't the difficulty like 6 orders of magnitude easier back then?
weird-eye-issue 20 hours ago||
Okay maybe in 2010 you could use a CPU but even by 2012 it was entirely dominated by GPUs and I think even dedicated hardware was coming out around that time or soon after
WarmWash 20 hours ago|||
ehhh you could CPU mine in the early months IIRC. The issue was that 50BTC wasn't even worth a penny back then lol
rationalist 21 hours ago||||
Wasn't there an offline wallet that used a poor algorithm to develop seed phrases, and thus someone stole all of those coins a couple of months ago?
weird-eye-issue 20 hours ago||
Aren't you thinking of a hardware wallet?
rationalist 20 hours ago||
Yes
weird-eye-issue 20 hours ago|||
That's why I went with a paper wallet it seemed way simpler which is what you want for something like this
gnabgib 20 hours ago|||
Definitely Ledger Ledger confirms spy chip implant behind wallet crypto thefts (796 points, 18 days ago, 515 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50054092

Possibly Trezor (35 points, 16 days ago, 3 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50078423

kalleboo 20 hours ago||
He's thinking of Coldcard, which accidentally switched their RNG from the hardware RNG to a predictable PRNG https://www.cryptotimes.io/learn/what-is-coldcard-hack/

> Coldcard’s software is built on MicroPython, and Coinkite supplies its own hardware-RNG wrapper for the device’s STM32 chip. To avoid conflicts, Coinkite deliberately disabled MicroPython’s built-in RNG path by setting a configuration flag, MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG, to zero. The problem: the underlying library checked only whether that flag was defined, not whether it was enabled (set to a non-zero value). Because a flag set to zero is still “defined,” the build silently compiled against the wrong code, and seed generation fell back to a deterministic software pseudo-random number generator called Yasmarang

rationalist 20 hours ago||
Yep, Thank you
paulpauper 20 hours ago|||
bitaddresses .org? If the JS code was defective, the coins can still be stolen later if the hacker can recreate the keys by going through the small key space, despite the coins being created being offline.
weird-eye-issue 20 hours ago||
Ah yes that's the one, although the domain name isn't plural
xmcp123 22 hours ago||||
I keep a modest amount in Cake Wallet, not on an exchange. No hardware needed.

Tbh the biggest problem is platforms deciding you’re buying drugs because you purchase and transfer out (thanks Venmo)

extraextra 21 hours ago||||
Technically you can literally memorize your secret key

A paper wallet works as well

A hardware wallet is just a tradeoff between convenience and an extra security risk

paulpauper 20 hours ago||
insufficient entropy is the real problem. this is why coldcard was hacked
extraextra 11 hours ago||
Care to explain?

Let's say I use an open source wallet, generate the keys, send there a few Bitcoin and then I print the wallet

Now the Bitcoin is on a paper wallet, where's the vulnerability here? (except a crazy ex burning it down, but that's besides the point haha)

NoidFonsense 22 hours ago||||
idk the whole point of hardware wallets is that they are supposed to be a simpler stack. But if you're using a closed source hardware wallet...

An old laptop with the wifi card taken out is more transparent and auditable. It just runs the ordinary open source code

But I just keep all my funds in a hot wallet, no multisig. And if I get hacked I lose it all. I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked. The risk of losing cryptocurrency will encourage security advances across the whole ecosystem. I think I will set up multisig eventually

lxgr 21 hours ago|||
How do you update that open source code without network connectivity? How do you securely input long transaction data to sign?

> I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked.

So you proposed a way to be more secure, only to discard it yourself in favor of “just having good security”?

trollbridge 20 hours ago|||
You don’t. It’s not networked. It doesn’t need updates.

In fact, updates are only a risk. You physically remove anything that can allow updates to happen + anything that allows wireless networking.

lxgr 13 hours ago|||
Then your scheme falls apart as soon as a backwards incompatible update is adopted by the blockchain.
georgeecollins 18 hours ago|||
How do you actually use funds like this? I mean, I know this is set aside for later. But if you had an emergency, how fast could you actually spend it?
idiotsecant 16 hours ago||
Trivially. You can simply read the keys on the offline machine with your eyeballs and set up a software or hardware wallet elsewhere to access the account.
lxgr 13 hours ago||
What is the offline machine even doing then? Seems like you could replace it with a sheet of paper.
idiotsecant 8 hours ago||
How do you do the math of generating the wallet keys with a piece of paper? Such a thing is technically possible but you wouldn't want to.
NoidFonsense 19 hours ago|||
USB flash or QR code to transfer data

I agree my approach is not great, I dont own a lot

razodactyl 20 hours ago|||
I wonder if wallet is not a good or bad analogy considering it would make sense to have many wallets to distribute potential damage instead of being taken out in a single hit... UX issue?
jwpapi 22 hours ago|||
You can have crypto without hardware wallets
method_capital 22 hours ago||||
Code is law!
razodactyl 20 hours ago||||
This is highly insensitive and highly logical. I am very conflicted.
cryptoegorophy 22 hours ago||||
not your keys not your coins...
pkulak 22 hours ago||
Or if it is your key and your air-gapped hardware wallet gets hacked because someone didn't use the right RNG. Crypto is apparently never yours; you're just holding on to it for some future criminal or nation state.
cryptoegorophy 22 hours ago|||
hardware waller is NOT your key too. YOUR key is the paper wallet generated OFFLINE on a clean laptop that was never connected to web. There is a giant difference.
rationalist 21 hours ago|||
Your method does not protect against what the person you replied to, posted.

If your paper wallet, generated offline, used a bad RNG, it is just as vulnerable.

addaon 20 hours ago|||
> YOUR key is the paper wallet generated OFFLINE on a clean laptop that was never connected to web.

That sounds like your housekeeper's key...

nkrisc 19 hours ago||
Commit it to memory, the original kind.
wlesieutre 19 hours ago||
And then make sure to never have any memory loss or you’ll lose all your money too.
nkrisc 10 hours ago||
That’s the risk. You can write it down or otherwise store it, but you’re trading one risk for another.
idiotsecant 16 hours ago|||
It's bizarre how this is the new thing everyone has to echo whenever they see a crypto thread.

You can store crypto with zero risk of electronic access just using offline wallet generation and an offline wallet. It's not even hard.

skinfaxi 20 hours ago||||
If someone steals your wallet, it wasn't your money, just the free market working as intended.
UltraSane 18 hours ago||||
Controlling your own crypto keys is like having your net worth in cash or gold stored in your house. It could easily be lost or stolen or destroyed in a fire unless you take extraordinary precautions and then it is all gone.
idiotsecant 16 hours ago||
It's not at all like storing gold, since you can have multisig wallets. You can make it arbitrarily difficult to lose or get stolen, depending on how thinly you want to slice your secrets and how many friends you have.
UltraSane 16 hours ago||
"you can have multisig wallets"

This falls under "extraordinary precautions" that few people do and is an enormous error prone hassle.

idiotsecant 8 hours ago||
It's not an enormous error prone hassle there are third parties that make it pretty intuitive. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it is impossible.
UltraSane 2 hours ago||
Can you really imagine the average person ever doing this? Or even understanding how multisig actually works? When you need to start engraving wallet addresses in titanium you have to step back and ask about usability.

https://cryptotag.io/

wrenanastasia89 20 minutes ago|||
[dead]
throw101010 18 hours ago|||
> If your crypto was stolen in this, atleast you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use.

You could put it in USD and you'd be financing the bombings of schoolgirls in Iran in a pointless and no-end-in-sight war... not saying either is better, but one of them is optional for US citizens, while the other isn't. And the optional one also lets you avoid third-party custodians like Binance.

tootie 17 hours ago||
Holding assets in USD isn't the same as paying taxes.
throw101010 9 hours ago||
That's why I've mentioned being a US citizen, but don't worry the same kind of moral dilemmas applies to most other fiat currencies/citizenships.
paulpauper 20 hours ago||
who is the buyer though? North Korea has to sell it somewhere to buy stuff
zaik 20 hours ago||
Someone is certain to buy dirty coins at the right price point.
ourcat 22 hours ago||
"Not your keys?

... Not your coins."

6thbit 22 hours ago|
implying the keys were the hacker's ?
Zambyte 22 hours ago||
Well at some point they were.
avazhi 16 hours ago||
lol

EDIT: lmao even

glimshe 23 hours ago||
At least they are safe from governments and their "fiat money"!
growingentropy 21 hours ago||
Yeah, but not the fact that 99.9% of people in the crypto space are soulless scammers.
trentor 21 hours ago|||
they aim for four nines nowadays.
razodactyl 20 hours ago||
99.99999% is five nines too many?
baby_souffle 20 hours ago||
> 99.99999% is five nines too many?

Some of the crypto scammers use github

chambored 19 hours ago||
Shots fired
lifeisloving 20 hours ago|||
My btc isnt stolen, and isnt stored in some cloud exchange..
throwawayfifo 17 hours ago|||
Hope it's not stored in a Ledger wallet...
lifeisloving 17 hours ago||
Why, because you read a single Youtube title that said ledger got hacked, that you didn't even watch and dont know the specifics?

Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.

A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...

throwawayfifo 15 hours ago|||
>Why, because you read a single Youtube title that said ledger got hacked, that you didn't even watch and dont know the specifics?

No, because there was global news and retailers in Germany taking devices off the shelves:

https://x.com/0xJohannes_/status/2109240472933671125

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Crypto-thieves-sell-hardware-wa...

>Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting hijacked via an infostealer or some other method is about 100x more likley than me buying a tampered ledger device.

Sorry, the likelihood of my banking creds, or other important accts getting refunded via any bank or some other method is about 10000x more likley than me getting my buttcoins back.

>A hardware supply chain attack is easily mitigated by inspecting your hardware and buying from a reputable source and not a singular random malaysian shopify site selling hardware wallets...

People bought compromised devices from reputable sources and still lost all their buttcoins.

lifeisloving 15 hours ago||
Ive been hearing the same cope since 2016, bud. Its so tiring.

Im not saying its for everyone, its definately not for normies like yourself

Ive had more money stolen, and not refunded in traditional bank accounts (thousands) than Ive ever had stolen in crypto (none).

nicd 14 hours ago|||
Because everyone knows how to inspect hardware against future supply chain attacks, right?
johnnyApplePRNG 20 hours ago|||
It's worth still dropped by 5% though and counting.
lifeisloving 20 hours ago||
And your point?

Do you price your savings based on 12hours of market volatility, or do you look at it cumulatively over a duration?

hyperadvanced 18 hours ago||
I certainly don’t look at my savings gaining or losing 30% to 50% of its value every year. In fact, it’s actually more than that, as bitcoin has traded sideways compared to USD, which has lost 30% of its value in the past year. Catastrophic use of spare funds compared to the S&P 500
lifeisloving 17 hours ago||
Been told this every bear market since 2017. Who said I dont have own the S&P?
anonym29 22 hours ago||
The purchasing power of one US dollar is 64% of what it was in 2008 when BTC was invented, and is on track to be worth half of what it was in 2008 by 2032, the same year that the social security trust fund is on track to go insolvent and see benefits automatically cut by 22%, which surely will not be papered over with more money printing :)

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2008?amount=1

echoangle 22 hours ago|||
So 3% yearly Inflation? The target is 2% so not too bad. You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting.
BuyMyBitcoins 22 hours ago|||
I understand the rationale around targeting inflation and seeking to actively avoid deflation. That being said, I wish the inflation target was less than 1%.

Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.

echoangle 22 hours ago||
> Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.

Is the problem the number or the concept?

Your salary should also go up so the only thing affected is the cash you hold. Would it be better if the currency would be version-bumped every 10 years and rescaled to remove the inflation?

Den_VR 21 hours ago|||
Salary should go up, you say… how well is that holding true?
wmf 20 hours ago||
In the US wages have outpaced inflation. Obviously that's an aggregate measure so it's not true for everyone.
BuyMyBitcoins 21 hours ago||||
That last comment was more of a reflection on how old I’m getting. I did a poor job of conveying that.

I am curious if I’ll live long enough to see the United States issue higher denomination bank notes again.

codedokode 21 hours ago|||
What if you are too old and cannot work?
wmf 20 hours ago|||
Pensions and social security are indexed to inflation. 401ks should beat or match inflation.
baobabKoodaa 16 hours ago||
Pensions in Finland are not "indexed to inflation" in the sense that you mean. Our pensions are wildly underfunded and people of working age generally expect to get back LESS than the NOMINAL VALUE of what they've paid towards their pensions during their working life (*when we count "employer contribution" into "employee contribution", which is what it is in reality).
lastyearman 7 hours ago||
Pensions in finland are indexed to inflation. Employee pension fund is not underfunded and actually grew a few years ago. It is predicted to start growing again on 2030.
verteu 20 hours ago|||
Investments outpace inflation even more than wages (r>g).
zarzavat 21 hours ago||||
That's why it's not safe to hold fiat money, it's by design. Governments don't want people to hold it, they want them to cycle it, spending it, investing it, and lending it out.

The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.

baobabKoodaa 16 hours ago|||
Why do you think "holding fiat money" is something that is inherently good or desirable in the first place? Such a weird premise. Money is for the purpose of exchanging goods and services; you're supposed to hold a minimal amount of it. The rest you invest.
skinfaxi 20 hours ago|||
> The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.

Can you expand here? Governments don't want to incentivize storing value in order to encourage spending, but people want to be able to store value because that's what we've been doing since farming.

Is it because money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value?

zarzavat 11 hours ago||
Governments may want as much economic activity as possible but we've learned the hard way that this is detrimental to the financial system, because it creates damaging boom and bust cycles.

So we empower central banks to intervene in various ways in the monetary system in order to achieve low inflation and system stability.

Activity is only the secondary objective. System stability is the first. Stability doesn't mean that markets cannot go up and down even violently. It means that when they go violently up and down, there remains faith in the currency and people are not suffering from mass unemployment, etc.

When a currency is healthy and has low inflation, hard assets are not a threat. Gold doesn't pay any interest, it doesn't have any earnings. You don't need to convince people to buy stocks and bonds instead of gold, they do that by themselves.

When a currency is unhealthy, hard assets can become a threat to it, but notably it's usually other fiat currencies that are the biggest threat.

Hard assets are useful tools for the financial system because they are less correlated with the market. You can criticise Bitcoin in various ways but the criticism that it is a hard asset with a fixed supply that by not inflating somehow damages the financial or monetary system doesn't land. Fiat money is intended to facilitate the existence of markets in other things, including hard assets.

OJFord 20 hours ago||||
> You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting.

Relative to what? Talk of BTC gaining value is primarily wrt USD; I'd be perfectly happy with my actual currency (GBP) gaining value wrt USD.

I suppose BTC can only 'deflate' in the long-run (and with an assumed supply of goods and services available in exchange for it) since the mintable volume is fixed. But perhaps it exposes that talking of currencies inflating is a bit sloppy, as it doesn't really make sense for BTC, and it's the economy or banking system that inflates really..

listenallyall 21 hours ago||||
It kinda is too bad because every inflation miss compounds, permanently. The 6 and 7% annual rates the US experienced a few years back are permanently embedded in price levels - it's not like the Fed adjusted its target down for a few years to counteract past years of high inflation, nor is it even evident that current policies are working, given that inflation hasnt actually been at 2% since 2018 (excluding 2020) and inflation is rising again in 2026. Obviously the late 70's were worse, statistically, but the Fed took enormous steps while the current Fed seems far more hesitant to ignore the government and Wall St.
anonym29 22 hours ago|||
>You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting

You might not, I do.

Tell you what: you go short btc/usd, I'll go long btc/usd, and let's circle back in 10 years and see who did better.

lxgr 21 hours ago|||
>> You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting

> You might not, I do.

Then you don't want a currency. For something to be money it needs to (among other things) be a medium of exchange, and nobody really wants to trade away a thing today if they know it will be more valuable tomorrow.

Arnt 21 hours ago||||
Yeah, I want the assets I hold to increase in value, too, or at least not decrease.

Suppose you have some control over currency. You run a country. I'm that case, so you still want the currency to gain value compared to the alternatives?

Your choice is basically: holding currency is more profitable than building a house or running a business (or lending to those who do), or else less profitable. If you run a country, do you want houses and jobs and all that kind of thing, or do you want people to do better if they choose to hoard currency?

hackernudes 20 hours ago||
What about when the US dollar was backed by gold? Were there no houses or businesses?

If I need a house today I'll buy it. I might not invest in real estate or stocks as much if my currency will be worth more tomorrow but I'll still buy stuff I need or want badly enough.

Arnt 12 hours ago||
The price of gold was fixed in the US in that period. Gold lost buying power as the years passed.
echoangle 22 hours ago||||
I mean as someone managing a state. If there’s a guaranteed way to make money by holding your currency, you’re not really incentivized to invest your money in semi-risky endeavors. Why would I fund a company to make me some single digit returns if I can just hold the money? If the central bank would actively enforce a deflationary currency, nobody would invest anymore.
gabruoy 21 hours ago|||
This justification never makes any sense to me. There’s already a safe way to make a percentage back that will generally be higher than inflation: government bonds, offered by the very same government that supposedly wants inflation. There are even TIPS bonds in the US that match inflation directly. And people do measure whether or not a risky investment will make more than just holding bonds. Inflation just screws over people who don’t have the ability to invest their money into other assets.
lesuorac 21 hours ago||
If you buys bonds you’re not sitting on money.

The bond seller is intending to put it to productive use to generate the yield.

This differs from deflation where people will (more the before) actually sit on money and not buy bonds. Then people who need liquidity cannot get it as the money supply drys up.

gabruoy 21 hours ago||
This is true for corporate bonds, but governments plan on generating their bond revenue by taxing citizens (which I guess could be a whole separate conversation on whether or not that’s productive) and by printing more currency, which seems rather circular in logic.
lesuorac 2 hours ago||
You're conflated stocks and flows though.

It's bad for the economy when money is turned into a stock and just literally sits.

It's fine for the economy if the government forces a flow from it's citizens (taxes) when it then spends that money.

Printing money also produces a flow so that's fine for the economy too. The issue with printing money is not whether or not the US economy will continue to exist, it's whether or not the government will (in more of the USSR -> Russia sense and not anarchy sense).

throwawaythekey 22 hours ago|||
There's still relative rates of return i.e. 100% of money isn't in gov bonds even though it should outperform inflation
ForHackernews 22 hours ago|||
Why do cryptobros always refuse to admit investing exists? Forex and crypto trading are always zero sum, but you don't have to choose between dollars under your mattress or bitcoin on a thumb drive, you can actually invest in productive assets.

SPY has outperformed BTC over the last 5 years, and with far less volatility.

anonym29 7 hours ago|||
Cherry picked window. BTC has grossly outperformed SPY over the last 3 years (+129% btc, +64% spy), last 4 years (+271% btc, +95% spy) and last 6+ years (6y: +457% btc, +115% spy), and the gap only grows the further back you go.

last 1 year, last 2 years, and last 5 years are the only "last n years" windows in which SPY has outperformed BTC. There are 19 of those windows to choose from, and only 3 where SPY wins, and that's near the bottom of the trough of the current halving cycle, no less. At the peak of the halving cycle, there are no windows in which SPY beats BTC.

ForHackernews 6 hours ago||
Speaking of cherry-picking, props for avoiding the entire point of my comment and instead pulling out some carefully-chosen NUMBER GO UP examples.

With apologies to Mr. Buffett[0] if you, @anonym29, could wave a magic wand and choose to own either...

A) All 21 million bitcoins or

B) All farmland in the United States.

I submit that only an idiot would pick A.

[0] https://ivanhoff.com/2013/04/15/warren-buffett-on-gold/

ajjahs 21 hours ago|||
[dead]
glimshe 22 hours ago||||
Sure, but you could also have used this dollar to buy oil, gold, stocks, bonds etc
method_capital 22 hours ago|||
Sure. Since the invention of say Bitcoin, which of those assets would you have preferred to own and why?
nl 22 hours ago|||
> Since the invention of say Bitcoin

Convenient date to pick there.

> which of those assets would you have preferred to own and why?

NVDA.

It's a productive use of resources, not a last-fool-standing pyramid scheme.

rozap 22 hours ago||||
hindsight is the best hedge fund
echoangle 22 hours ago|||
You know that you can’t just judge an investment by past return, right? Would it be rational for a lotto player to tell you how great lotto is as an investment? Or people winning at the casino? Success doesn’t mean it was the rationally optimal decision.
anonym29 22 hours ago|||
Compare a purchase of any commodity, bond, precious metal, or ETF/mutual fund in 2008 to BTC's performance since 2008. Or 2009, or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or 2015, or 2016, or 2017, or 2018...
joshuahedlund 21 hours ago||
It’s a bit cherry-picking, but right now BTC’s 5-year growth is 28% while the S&P is 67%.

To be fair bitcoin’s initial years were extraordinary. By any metric you use though the rate of increase has clearly slowed.

anonym29 7 hours ago||
To call that "a bit cherry-picking" is a serious understatement.

BTC has grossly outperformed SPY over the last 3 years (+129% btc, +64% spy), last 4 years (+271% btc, +95% spy) and last 6+ years (6y: +457% btc, +115% spy), and the gap only grows the further back you go.

last 1 year, last 2 years, and last 5 years are the only "last n years" windows in which SPY has outperformed BTC. There are 19 of those windows to choose from, and only 3 where SPY wins, and that's near the bottom of the trough of the current halving cycle, no less. At the peak of the halving cycle, there are no windows in which SPY beats BTC.

cowsandmilk 21 hours ago||||
BTC has ~26% less purchasing power than it had at the beginning of 2026. I’m not sure its volatility is a win.
krackers 22 hours ago||||
>$1 in 2008 is worth $1.56 today

That's an odd way of phrasing it, since the $1 is still worth $1, and a naive reading would make you think it's "worth more" when the buying power has actually reduced.

Wouldn't it be clearer to say $1 today only buys you 64% of what you could have bought in 2008.

mihaelm 22 hours ago||
Tbh both ways of phrasing are fine to me. $1.56 today will get you as much as $1 in 2008, looking at it simplistically.
baobabKoodaa 16 hours ago||
It may be technically correct, but one phrasing can be easily misunderstood while the other can't.
triceratops 21 hours ago|||
The US dollar is worth less than it was in part because the US economy has grown.

This is mathematically provable:

1. A dollar in 2008 could buy 1/14tn of the value created by the US economy (the GDP) in 2008.

2. A dollar today can only buy 1/32tn of the value created by the economy in 2025.

It's obvious a 2025-2026 dollar is worth less than a 2008 dollar. That's just math.

But. A dollar in 2008 could buy 230% more of the economy than it can today. And you say its purchasing power has only eroded 64%. That means the dollar is actually worth more today, compared to the size of the economy it's in. Weird, I know.

EDIT: I'm fine with downvotes but tell me why I'm wrong.

triceratops 18 hours ago||
Like I said, prove me wrong.
daveguy 19 hours ago||
Welp, I guess crypto is still like if you let banking services be run by amateur tech bros.
ReptileMan 22 hours ago||
Please let it be rogue AI agents for maximum lulz.
emsign 22 hours ago|
The beast eats itself.
anonym29 22 hours ago||
Yet another reminder of the first rule of crypto: Not your keys, not your coins.
gukov 22 hours ago|
About that (Coldwallet)...
anonym29 22 hours ago||
A big problem for anyone who trusted their security to a commercial provider with a less audited codebase than the BTC core wallet software.
rwmj 23 hours ago||
I thought the point of crypto was no takesies-backsies?
michaelt 22 hours ago||
That hasn't been true for years.

Back in 2016 a then-huge Ethereum smart contract called "The DAO" [1] had a loophole that let an attacker extract a third of all the funds.

But a lot of the developers and miners had either lost money themselves, or had friends who'd lost money, or felt the embarrassing incident was devaluing their own Ethereum holdings. So they decided to allow takesies-backsies.

There's probably a philosophical lesson there about power and who the rules really apply to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO

chao- 21 hours ago|||
I vividly remember a number of discussions/debates during that time (including on HN). I was more favorable to cryptocurrency in those days, and one of the things that contributed to my disillusionment was watching the people deepest and closest to it rediscover financial regulation from first principles, now that it was in their interest.
throwaway132448 21 hours ago|||
Witnessing the same people discover philosophy from first principles in the face of AI has been similarly farcical, as if we’re the first people to try and wrestle with a definition of intelligence.
cheraderama 21 hours ago||
Philosophy, unlike financial regulation, isn't generally forced on people.
narrator 20 hours ago|||
Yeah it is. It's called law. For example: when is intent important or a mitigating factor in a crime? When is it not important. Very philosophical.
nonethewiser 19 hours ago||
By that logic financial regulation is philosophy too but that makes the original comparison of financial regulation to philosophy non sensical. You’re shifting the terminology beneath out feet.

Law is downstream of philosophy. Youre forced to deal with conclusions that may be based in philosophy (or they may be arbitrary or self interested). Nobody makes you hold a position on mens rea. In that way you can ignore the philosophy.

throwaway132448 21 hours ago||||
I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to say.

In the literal sense, people have been forcing their philosophy on other people for at least as long as we’ve had societies, so I assume it’s not that.

nonethewiser 19 hours ago|||
Arent you disagreeing with yourself? You say these people are just now wrestling with the question of what intelligence is despite it being a longstanding philosophical question. So it clearly wasn’t forced on them.
throwaway132448 7 hours ago||
No I’m not because the philosophy of intelligence is a tiny subset of philosophy more broadly, which is what the above comment said. And what makes the current discussions farcical is not that the philosophy wasn’t forced on them, nor that their reasoning is invalid; it’s that when they did decide to consider it, they don’t have the awareness to first seek out the prior art.
nonethewiser 6 hours ago||
Right but the philosophy regarding what intelligience is wasn't forced on them.
michaelt 21 hours ago|||
I myself was held prisoner by John Searle for 20 years, my only contact with the outside world by notes slipped under the door written in Chinese - a language I do not speak.
jojobas 18 hours ago||||
You take not being subjected to say Marxism-Leninism at every stage of your life for granted.
ex-aws-dude 21 hours ago|||
That is the tech bro circle of life

Invent Notion then keep adding features enterprise customers want until you're re-inventing JIRA/Confluence

Who left this stupid fence here?

phire 21 hours ago||||
The DAO incident was a special case. It was only sane to do the rollback because the stolen funds were time-locked up for 28 days.

Ethereum never did it again, rolling back hacks didn’t (and couldn’t) become normal policy. IMO, they shouldn’t have made an exception, as it set a bad example.

I’ve seen a few other small projects attempt to do rollbacks since, but it usually turns into some kind of mess. In most hacks, the coins aren’t time-locked and quickly get laundered through smaller exchanges (and other services) which act as mixers. The stolen coins end up in the hands of a bunch of innocent people, and the rollback then causes way more harm as those users lose their coins.

ahmetson 15 hours ago||
Perhaps because in all following hacks none of Ethereum members as a whole participated unlike DAO incident.
vvillena 21 hours ago||||
The unforked variant of the network was kept alive for years. Why didn't it prevail over the forked variant?
ahartmetz 17 hours ago||||
Laws and contracts are just words unless there is someone willing and able to enforce them. Which is how constitutions are regularly ignored and perverted by dictators.
monk_grilla 20 hours ago|||
I don't think this counts as takesies backsies. This incident clearly followed the code is law principle, the whole point is that a majority forms the chain of truth. In this case, a majority decided to splinter and use a different chain where the incident never occurred.

As far as I understand blockchain, that is the system working as intended. Some nodes choose to run Ethereum Classic and some choose to run Ethereum. Isn't that the whole point? Decentralisation?

toyg 23 hours ago|||
Those who cannot understand the monetary system are doomed to reimplement it.
bell-cot 20 hours ago|||
Or, as Upton Sinclair noted, what a man can understand is closely aligned with his current self-interest.
crtified 21 hours ago||||
...while, generally, being thoroughly fleeced by whichever set of wolves (who do understand monetary systems very well indeed) gets wind of the situation and manages to snag the best seats at the feeding trough filled with naive money.
dmitrygr 19 hours ago||||
in lisp
manofmanysmiles 22 hours ago|||
Do you understand the monetary system? If so, what specific steps do you suggest I take to acquire a similar understanding?

Edit: the downvotes are suggesting I'm missing something. I think my communication style could be improved.

danielmarkbruce 21 hours ago|||
Talk to chatgpt about how a checking account works, and really understand what happens when you put some money in the bank, and when you transfer that money to another person at another bank, how it's accounted for, how the banks actually do that transfer.

That's 80% of the thing right there.

trollbridge 20 hours ago||
The banks and government go out of their way to make fraud difficult and prevent accountholders from being defrauded of their deposits.
cheraderama 21 hours ago||||
Reply to the edit: the parent comment was making a joke (though maybe there is some depth to it) and your reply sounds like a rhetorical question by a spoilsport. Unfortunate!

ETA: it's a joke because the original saying is "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"

manofmanysmiles 21 hours ago||
Thanks!
collinmcnulty 21 hours ago||||
MIT opencourseware has an intro to finance course that was taught as the financial crisis was unfolding. I highly recommend it.
toyg 22 hours ago||||
Going to school and reading up on how and why we got where we are...?

Some people (particularly criminals and oligarchs) might not like them, but most of the structures around financial movements exist for very practical reasons, often stemming from the will to uphold the rule of law. Obviously nothing is perfect (the US have an excessive level of control, VISA/Mastercard are de-facto monopolies, etc etc), but one cannot seriously think that the way to fix things is to reimplement everything from scratch in a wild west of shady unaccountable operators...

iugtmkbdfil834 22 hours ago|||
<< one cannot seriously think that the way to fix things is to reimplement everything from scratch in a wild west of shady unaccountable operators

One absolutely can, but I think things have to first get sufficiently difficult for ordinary folks to even notice. Fortunately ( sarcasm tag here for otherwise perfectly normal individuals, who may be missing some caffeine in their organism ), given that the war is coming along with various related national security restrictions, we may soon be able to experience that particular slice of fun.

manofmanysmiles 22 hours ago||||
My intuition is saying: the system arose naturally and intelligently over a long period of time, and even with its flaws has a lot of "load bearing legacy code" that few people understand, and new "engineers" think they'll just rewrite the whole thing from scratch and delete the "junk DNA" to use another metaphor. A little time passes and the beautiful clean rewrite collapses because of "totally unforeseeable circumstances" and the "old broken legacy system" is used to save the day. Somewhere a senior "monetary engineer" rolls over in his grave...

Any recommendations for books? Or even podcasts?

I don't have zero understanding. It sounds like you have a deeper understanding than I do.

kube-system 22 hours ago||
I can't think of a specific episode relevant here, but this is a good economics podcast in general:

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510289/planet-money/

TheOtherHobbes 21 hours ago|||
The entire financial system is a chaotic boundary between thieves and opportunists, and people who want to keep thievery and opportunism under enough control to keep the system nominally workable.

It's always been like this. Which is why financial systems blow up and/or collapse regularly.

12_throw_away 17 hours ago||||
> If so, what specific steps do you suggest I take to acquire a similar understanding?

School! Teachers! Classes!

Seriously, the traditional higher ed system is still a very good place to learn things like this. (I honestly tend to forget about it since academia hasn't really caught up at teaching software engineering, but that's really the exception rather than the rule ...). For traditional subjects like finance/economics, you can absolutely find inexpensive extension courses taught by people who care about pedagogy.

HFguy 22 hours ago||||
If you want to quick primer to read tonight I suggest “The Economic Organization of a POW Camp by Radford”. Will be free download.
manofmanysmiles 3 hours ago||
Thank you!

I was transfixed as I read the first half this morning. I look forward to finishing it later today.

ashkankiani 17 hours ago|||
Watch Yanis Varoufakis videos on youtube.
Jhsto 22 hours ago|||
Doesn't apply for USDT and USDC which can freeze funds with a court order.

And like the DAO hack on Ethereum showed, if most people who run blockchain software decide that something never happened, they can revert transactions that way.

Hamuko 22 hours ago||
>And like the DAO hack on Ethereum showed, if most people who run blockchain software decide that something never happened, they can revert transactions that way.

Isn't that a pretty integral part of the blockchain? 51% attacks were even featured on the HBO show Silicon Valley.

wmf 21 hours ago||
Fixing the DAO hack wasn't done via a 51% attack. In most/all blockchains protocol changes aren't done by simple majority vote.
baobabKoodaa 17 hours ago||
Yes it was done by 51% attack. The chain split into ETH and ETC.
wmf 17 hours ago||
Not every chain split is a 51% attack.
baobabKoodaa 16 hours ago||
Sure, some chain splits fail to get any significant support, so they don't reach anywhere near 51% of mining power. This one did. Hence, it's called a "51% attack".
wmf 15 hours ago||
Nope. None of what you're saying is correct.
baobabKoodaa 15 hours ago||
Offhand dismissal of some very uncontroversial statements. Cool. Maybe you should stop spreading intentional misinformation and instead do something positive with your life.
jml7c5 22 hours ago|||
The value in USDT and USDC comes from the fact that they can (theoretically) be redeemed for real US dollars. One thing the issuers can do is announce "we will never accept redemption requests for these particular stolen coins", making them more or less worthless.
grey-area 21 hours ago|||
Oh so you're saying a central authority can declare your currency worthless at any time? Good to know. Sounds very like a central bank issued currency though?
codedokode 21 hours ago|||
It's literally in USDT contract [1], see line 264. USDT is implemented as a contract in several other networks like ETH and has a blacklist. So every USDT operation is a record in ETH blockchain that calls one of the methods (like "transfer" or "add to blacklist").

[1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xdAC17F958D2ee523a220620699459...

dlubarov 18 hours ago||||
This is a purely optional part of the crypto ecosystem, so I don't see how it's an argument against crypto in general.

One can also burn tokens, just as one can burn cash, but we don't tend to hold that against either systems since it's purely optional.

cowlevel 21 hours ago|||
Stablecoins are literally central banks. Decentralised coins are literally decentralised central banks. Bitcoin's algorithm is a central bank.
grey-area 21 hours ago|||
Well I don't think they're very decentralised, which was the original premise.

Any rules can and have been changed by those with leverage to do so (be that exchanges, miners or devs), in the end any system like this storing value is captured and controlled.

broken-kebab 19 hours ago||
They are decentralized cause they operate on a sort of consensus between nodes as was original premise. Are they "very decentralized" depends on your definition of "very", of course, and techical realities of a particular situation.
icepush 20 hours ago|||
Decentralized central banks - are these the finance equivalent of dehydrated water ?
iagiagiag 22 hours ago|||
[dead]
xaksnTMu2 22 hours ago|||
That was already proven false after ETH fork on 2016-07-20, that rolled back funds stolen in DAO hack.
NoidFonsense 22 hours ago||
don't bet against the house. eventually you have to cash the chips out for real money, and the house might throw out the old chips.

Unless the house is monero or something and you want a lifetime supply of drugs.

eagerpace 22 hours ago|||
Centralized decentralization
hgoel 22 hours ago|||
Turns out that even crypto's rules only apply if you're poor.
basch 22 hours ago|||
It’s always been that the voters determine reality.
lossolo 19 hours ago|||
Stablecoins like Tether and USDC can freeze funds held in their contracts, they can even destroy funds in blacklisted accounts:

> function destroyBlackFunds (address _blackListedUser) public onlyOwner

stackghost 22 hours ago|||
The idiots that wanted no takebacks are the same ones who lacked the critical thinking ability to foresee this exact situation.
iugtmkbdfil834 22 hours ago||
No takebacks make perfect sense UNTIL you hand over your keys to a third party;p
qwbar 22 hours ago|||
Well, Tether was started by an Epstein friend and first handled by the CIA Deltec bank in the Caribbean. Now it is handled by Lutnick's Cantor & Fitzgerald and is in Bukele's El Salvador.

Don't mess with Tether, it is practically state owned.

bflesch 22 hours ago|||
Interesting, so it ties into the NSA vs CIA war? Some nerds from NSA/MIwhatever launched crypto, then the CIA trust fund nepo kids hijacked/weaponized it through tether
FireBeyond 21 hours ago|||
There's an amazingly hilarious interview with the Deltec's "Deputy CEO" and CNBC back in the day:

- was conducted from his gaming rig

- about Deltec's (and therefore Tether's) money movements being several times larger than all the banking in their country was due to people misunderstanding the country's two banking licenses, the names of which HE "couldn't remember right now" (the Deputy CEO of a bank who can't remember the name of the banking licenses where they operate?!?), and he "wasn't sure which [banking license] the bank has, but we might (emphasis mine) have both"

- oh yeah, said Deputy CEO's "resume": 33 years old, by his LinkedIn claimed to have graduated HEC Lausanne in Switzerland with a Master of Science at the age of 15... celebrating his graduation by immediately being named Professor of Finance at a university in Lebanon. While dividing his spare time between running hedge funds in Switzerland (called Indepedance [sic] Weath [sic] Management) and uhh... Jacksonville, FL.

Once CNBC's viewers started ridiculing and questioning both Deltec Bank and Tether and when that looked hilariously bad, they removed his info from the bank's website.

And when that looked bad, they added it back.

And when that looked bad, they removed the bank's whole website, and replaced it with a broken WP template with no working links.

Hey, look, several years after that, go to Deltec's website. "Ultra sophisticated private banking" running on a different WordPress site. "Client login"? "This site can’t be reached Check if there is a typo in ebanking.deltecbank.com. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN". Just as has been the case for years.

... and then the entire bank website was replaced with a low-effort WordPress template. Their online banking was Javascript hard coded to refuse all login attempts.

"Sounds legit to me", said the crypto bros. "Fuck the regulatory system. This is the new era."

m348e912 21 hours ago|||
Is this the interview you were referring to? (It's not a CNBC interview, so I wasn't sure)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3nQ8-KY28

FireBeyond 19 hours ago||
It may be - there was also a CNBC interview, but this feels very similar, and I remember this host.
razodactyl 20 hours ago|||
Shhhh. If we keep closing the book and staring at the cover the whole illusion of shared societal norms breaks.

Let's continue reading...

aidenn0 22 hours ago||
Most crypto is "majority rules" where the majority is either "majority of the currency" (proof of stake) or "majority of the mining power" (proof of work).

In this case, iFinex has the explicit ability to freeze funds in Tether.

honkycat 22 hours ago||
it's almost like crypto's stupid for this reason.
privacyishuman 21 hours ago|
I expect Monero to be a good investment going into this LLM era.

It always pumps after hacks when they swap to clean it. But it is also just the only crypto that makes sense to be used by regular people.

iambateman 20 hours ago||
What makes it make sense?
SXX 20 hours ago|||
Cryptocurrencies that are transparent to government tracking are also transparent to whatever criminals want to beat you up and take everything from you.

Your usual non-crypto millinare likely have less money to steal on them than average grandma. Fiat millionare likely have two credit cards and $100 in a pocket. Or useless iPhone with Apple pay. So there is zero profit in trying to rob fiat millionare or billionare and tons of downsides.

And moving any amounts of transparent crypto over $100,000 just paints huge "rob me" target on your person.

razodactyl 20 hours ago|||
https://xkcd.com/538/ I've never been so honoured to be able to link one of these.
SXX 20 hours ago|||
That's classic, but whole point with Monero is that no one cant really tell who sent money and who get them.

It doesnt exactly solve on-ramp / off-ramp, but it hides very well how much you actually have in total.

With nornal crypto you create direct track from a CEX to every place where you spend the money.

skinfaxi 20 hours ago|||
How would anyone know you have monero if it can't be linked to other transactions like bitcoin?
jeremyjh 19 hours ago||
They can't help but brag about it.
privacyishuman 19 hours ago||
I vaguely remember actually the number 1 and 2 "rule" of Monero to not say how much you have. We're lucky how dumb many cybercriminals are.
y-curious 19 hours ago||||
It’s hardest to track so a lot of these heists go into Monero
razodactyl 20 hours ago|||
Ironically that people use it to buy drugs. If it's anonymous, it's closer to the original intention of BitCoin: the masses of CPUs then GPUs can be considered a "paperclip moment" - runaway effects are real.
zaik 20 hours ago||
But where do I invest when I want my capital to generate something of economic value?
More comments...