SBF is just a young Bernie Madoff (and anyone worth their salt would have told you to avoid FTX like the plague)
Please do tell what do you think is possible with a 51% attack (in reality would need more than 51% to sustain for any significant amount of time).
As for the rest...
I just asked what you think a 51% attack can achieve …
There is a good post which explains the subtleties/nuances of 51% attacks here: https://dankradfeist.de/ethereum/202…t-attacks.html
Yes, that’s more or less my understanding. Interfering with current transactions, blocking them, potentially double-spending coins.
However we see stories like this which make me far more skeptical of the security and anonymity of blockchain’s claims. The US government (and presumably others) has eyes on crypto, and has tools to peer into and alter what goes on in the blockchain backing BitCoin.
Of course, maybe they figured out who the blackmailer was and he got paid a little friendly visit…
If they do, then they can read all your whatsapp messages and can access your bank account. And so can criminals (especially those employed by rogue states like Russia).
But don’t confuse the security of blockchain with the security of bitcoin. Just like your OS might be secure from attack, but that handy little app might allow hackers access.
Or other social engineering to get the password. Or they had spyware installed like here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aza…crochat-hacked
Correct there is no privacy. Many privacy coins are still far from good enough (blockchain level privacy without network level privacy is vulnerable to active observer)
In this respect, I am looking forward to https://dark.fi/ release (some very interesting privacy developments)
Also correct that endpoints are points of vulnerability (this has always been the case and is also true offline)
The slow pace of Switzerland, physical paper and stamps and ink signatures, at first drove me nuts. Now I'm getting to think it's yet another thing the rest of the world could learn from.
Oh, and kill social media before my kids are old enough to want to use it, because that shît's toxic.
Interesting article, thanks!
Yesterday the SEC sued Binance, the biggest global crypto exchange, and its founder Changpeng Zhao, for operating an illegal securities exchange.
Today the SEC sued Coinbase Inc., the biggest US crypto exchange, for operating an illegal securities exchange.
The SEC can't have upstarts doing things their own way, without being under their thumb. Nowhere is the Federal Government granted the power to control stock markets or currency exchanges.
The US has a long list of busts and suffering caused by people doing things their own way. Regulation coming from 1933 aims to minimize fraud.
The laws are not to control exchanges, it’s about making them transparent for anyone to review. “Being under their thumb” is just the duty to publish information, and ensuring market integrity (no wash trading among other dirty tricks). This may look “oppressive” but it’s also the reason whey the US is a major financial center: you can do business with a certain degree of confidence that not every deal offered is a fraud. There are more free countries around the planet with much less regulations, none of those is a major financial hub.
If you thing think these guys are your friends and that you should defend them, then yes you definitely do need supervision.
And if they had succeeded in preventing busts, crashes, fraud, collusion, and corruption, I'd be more willing to grant that point. They don't answer to the People, they answer to the insiders.
Oh, I don't think the folks running crypto exchanges are the good guys. I just don't think the SEC are the good guys either.
This is clearly a mission to disrupt the crypto industry. The SEC has never been very perseverant (Madoff fraud, Musk's market manipulation via Tweets, etc.).
But, even with imperfect regulation, people around the world chooses to do business under US regulations. SEC's actions like this make the US financial system to look less messy. Better for business.
I agree with the stated goals, and agree that regulation is generally an appropriate and good thing if done well. One of the things I like about Switzerland is that even though it's also imperfect, it seems to do these kinds of things much better, with much less corruption.
Viva la Schweiz!
Once there was a little company that lots of folks loved, or at least had great nostalgia for. The market changed, they weren't doing very well, and were probably not going to make it.
A big company came along, short-sold the little company, and used all kinds of ethically questionable tricks to short-sell more than would normally be possible. The big company leveraged themselves mightily, however they knew it wouldn't be a problem, because they started working in the background to manipulate the market, driving little company into a quicker demise and its share price down even further.
Then came the little people who saw what was happening, and they were unhappy. They fondly remembered the little company and wanted to help. They got together and started buying the stock of the little company, driving the stock price way up. This put the big, highly leveraged company, at risk of folding.
Along comes the SEC, the completely fair and neutral arbiter of the markets. They looked at what had happened, and said to the big company, "you've over-leveraged yourself, you took a risk, and now you're going out of business. We will assist in selling the remainder of your assets once you've paid your debts."
JUST KIDDING!
Along comes the SEC, and instead of siding with the little people, they sided with the big company, the company they're supposed to regulate, and they started reversing the stock purchases of the little company, blocking further purchases, and ultimately propped up the big insider company.
The SEC knows who they represent. It ain't you, it ain't me, it ain't the People. It's the insiders, the very businesses they're supposed to be regulating.