Youbit Shuts Down Cryptocurrency Exchange After Second Hack, Files For Bankruptcy (bbc.com) 68
phalse phace writes: After experiencing another hack, South Korean crypto-currency exchange Youbit has closed their doors and is filing for bankruptcy. BBC reports: "Youbit, which lets people buy and sell bitcoins and other virtual currencies, has filed for bankruptcy after losing 17% of its assets in the cyber-attack. It did not disclose how much the assets were worth at the time of the attack. In April, Youbit, formerly called Yapizon, lost 4,000 bitcoins now worth $73 million to cyberthieves. South Korea's Internet and Security Agency (Kisa) which investigates net crime, said it had started an enquiry into how the thieves gained access to the exchange's core systems. Kisa blamed the earlier attack on Youbit on cyber-spies working for North Korea. Separate, more recent, attacks on the Bithumb and Coinis exchanges, have also been blamed on the regime. No information has been released about who might have been behind the latest Youbit attack. In a statement, Youbit said that customers would get back about 75% of the value of the crypto-currency they have lodged with the exchange."
Re:The paradox of money (Score:4, Insightful)
tl;dr, Bitcoin is only useful for money laundering? Oh and fleecing rubes.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but you can trace that transfer, it is public
LMAO (Score:1)
step 1: open a random internet coin exchange
step 2: sell random coins for real money or just tell people they own random coins in exchange for real money
step 3: claim you are âoehackedâ
step 4: walk away with real money
how do people not understand this
Screw Bitcoin, invest in GoatseCoin (Score:1, Funny)
Not even trolling.
But wait! I thought....... (Score:5, Funny)
Bitcoin's Rise May Reflect a Monumental Transfer of Trust From Human Institutions Backed By Gov't To Systems Reliant on Well-Tested Code, Says Tim Wu (see a couple of posts down)
Re: (Score:3)
Tim Wu has just stuck his foot in his mouth in front of the entire Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care that much if the exchange goes under for security reasons or whatever.
What I do care about is that my money does not go *poof* so I can continue to live.
If your money is guaranteed by the state you know you're not going to be abandoned just because a bank somewhere made poor choices you did not know about.
Re: (Score:1)
...which is instantly abused by banks to gamble with your money, knowing that they either win and make a fortune or lose and get bailed out by YOU again.
Re: (Score:2)
That _is_ a problem with Bitcoin, because first, security requirements for normal banking are significantly lower as it is far harder to steal electronically from a normal bank. It requires deep insider knowledge, the right timing and getting the money out in some form that cannot be traced. And second, all these trading platforms are new, unregulated and hence cheaply and insecurely built. And if you do not believe that, check in a real bank what amount of security systemd, reviews, etc. they are merely do
Re: (Score:2)
The statement is incorrect because we are still placing our trust in institutions (albeit not government) to keep our bit coin safe.
Yes you could keep that bitcoin on your own hardware, but you have to trust the producer of the hardware and software you run are not either stealing or allow bugs that will let other people steal that money.
Another reason I'm not a Bitcoin thousandaire (Score:5, Insightful)
From the onset, I wanted to like the idea of a non-governmental currency that had a cash-like anonymity, even though a lot of informed folks likened it to a Ponzi scheme.
Beginning with the Mt. Gox [wired.com] debacle though, this now rather routine loss of millions by an exchange is where I lost faith in the Bitcoin as an investment option and an alternative to government issued fiat currency.
This is why we can't have nice things
Re: (Score:3)
For security reasons, move your coins off the exchange right away. However, whenever people bring up the difficulty of cashing out when bitcoin goes into a freefall, the response is always that your coins will always be on the exchange so you won't have to wait in line to get coins out to transfer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard to run a wallet and make backups. Don't leave your money in an exchanger...
The average person isn't able to make backups on a PC. They won't do any better managing their bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
backups will not help you if someone can get your private key, you can have a million backups but once the bitcoin is gone it is gone.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, MTG cards could be used as a currency, (or for the placeholders in a pyramid scheme) too!
Hype or Something Else? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have now seen multiple stories of crypto-currencies getting stolen or exchanges hacked. Then I read about how blockchain is supposed to be the end all, be all, of transaction security. Aren't these things connected at some level? What am I missing? How can something that is supposed to so hack resistance as blockchain allow for the common theft of crypto-currencies?
This is not a facetious question. It seems like the press (old man here, so using an old man term for everything in the public I read) is either breathlessly in awe of this stuff or telling me that someone just lost millions of dollars. I honestly don't know what to believe.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what I struggle with; if altering the ledger is difficult, how does Youbit get 4k bitcoins removed from their ownership without it being trackable?
I can understand a bank robbery: masked men (or women, I saw Baby Driver) stick up a bank and the bank losses reserves. The money itself is untraceable. But bitcoin is supposed to be traceable at all times is it not?
I guess until someone easily connects the dots between "everything can be traced" to "your money can be stolen" I'm going to stick to ink on
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they get access to you private key then they can transfer the money out, just like you can.
They cannot be tracked because they transfer it to their wallet, which is just number, you do not know who that number belongs to and you cannot transfer that money back from that number without their private key.
I don't actually think it is that untraceable as people say though, because if that wallet (or linked wallets) ever makes a transaction that sends goods or services to a person it can then be traced.
I am n
Re:Hype or Something Else? (Score:5, Informative)
I have now seen multiple stories of crypto-currencies getting stolen or exchanges hacked. Then I read about how blockchain is supposed to be the end all, be all, of transaction security. Aren't these things connected at some level? What am I missing? How can something that is supposed to so hack resistance as blockchain allow for the common theft of crypto-currencies?
This is not a facetious question. It seems like the press (old man here, so using an old man term for everything in the public I read) is either breathlessly in awe of this stuff or telling me that someone just lost millions of dollars. I honestly don't know what to believe.
Crypto-currencies are secure at a mathematical level, regarding payment which is the transfer of funds from one wallet to another.
However payment involves compensation for the transfer of real-world assets, goods, and services, which is not covered (out-of-scope) of crypto-currencies, since regardless of how elegant the math is, there is simply no generic method to have any type of decentralized means of validating these real-world transfers. So we end up with a situation where "trusted" and "secure" 3rd party brokers are needed which act as crypto-currency intermediates between the buyer and seller, that can temporally hold the buyers purchase funds, in order to validate the transfer of real-world stuff from the seller to the buyer, before releasing the purchase funds to the seller.
Everything falls apart at "trusted" and "secure". Any 3rd party brokers will need to hold a large pool of crypto-currencies for purchases, and will need to have some type of online presence and infrastructure, which makes it a prime target for online attackers wanting to rob it. (In the same way that thieves target banks, because that is where the money is.) However time and time again we see that these 3rd party brokers are untrustworthy or incompetent, typically without even providing the minimum of security measures.
At the end of the day, this is where some government body (maybe from a different neutral country like Switzerland) will need to step up and implement some type of accreditation/certification of 3rd party brokers, that conform to the necessary regulation/protection and provide insurance protection, before crypto-currencies can really be trusted for transactions.
Re:Hype or Something Else? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps each country could certify their own brokers, but they'd all be connected through international agreements and treaties. Implement a system for transferring funds, owned and run privately but regulated by those same international agreements. You could call them, I don't know, banks or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps each country could certify their own brokers, but they'd all be connected through international agreements and treaties. Implement a system for transferring funds, owned and run privately but regulated by those same international agreements. You could call them, I don't know, banks or something.
Great mic drop.
Except for the fact that even as banks, this would do what another bank or two could not - which is to destabilize the central banks' strangelhold and provide competition for the existing oligopoly players.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The currency system itself is secure and if you keep it in your own wallet and your system is secure. The problem is with places that hold your coins for you (exchanges and the like). Their systems are huge targets and not very secure. That's why coins get stolen.
When coins get stolen from a cryptocoin exchange it's the same thing as if hackers broken in to Goldman Sachs and stole money from your brokerage account. The difference is there are strict regulations and laws on brokers regard what they can and c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hype or Something Else? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have now seen multiple stories of crypto-currencies getting stolen or exchanges hacked. Then I read about how blockchain is supposed to be the end all, be all, of transaction security. Aren't these things connected at some level?
Yes, it is telling you this kind of cryptocurrency doesn't really work.
The most basic function of a "currency" is to settle payments, but transaction rate actually achievable (at least with the existing the Bitcoin) is so damn low that you simply cannot complete a transaction in reasonable amount of time, such as less than a minute.
So, to actually do transactions effectively, people have to store their Bitcoins in exchanges, so any transaction within the exchange will simply result in a change of record in the exchange's accounting system, completely bypassing the use of blockchain transaction.
Now, let that sink in for a moment.
A supposed "currency" cannot support the most basic transaction of its users, to the extend people have to setup exchanges so they can transact that "currency" effectively. Is that not a big enough flashing sign saying Bitcoin simply doesn't work as a currency at all?
And the people betting on Bitcoin continuing to rise? Just think about it, as the price of a Bitcoin rise to $50K, $100K, $1M, etc. Won't it eventually make more financial sense for every exchange to simply sell their coins and disappear? If they didn't get hacked first.
Think about, if you were operating such an exchange, wouldn't YOU start secretly selling the Bitcoins you kept for your users, and just wait for the perfect moment to disappear with the money?
Or if you are lucky, you might get hacked (so you blame all loses to the hacker) and declare bankruptcy (while hiding the money), or Bitcoin might just crash tomorrow so you can buy back all the coins with a tiny fraction of the money you took, then close off the exchange fair and square.
Think through this, and then realize how much of a fool you need to be to bet on making money buying Bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep bitcoins in exchanges temporarily because they want to convert it to other currency.
As if. If that's the real reason, there wouldn't be *millions* of dollars worth of Bitcoin stored in a single exchange to be stolen by hackers. The fact is people keep Bitcoins in exchanges because doing Bitcoin transactions otherwise is simply not practical.
You are talking as if banks don't have similar problems. In fact, the main problem of the banking system (and arguably, the reason behind the bitcoin development) is exactly their breach of trust. Think about it, if you were operating a bank, with *no obligation to have an equal amount of gold in your vaults to match the credit you have outstanding*, wouldn't it make sense to lend out more money than you have? After all, it's just some numbers in a computer.
Bank HAD the same problem, and that's exactly why banks are heavily regulated and there is this thing called FDIC. My money in the bank would be safe even if someone took all the money and ran away.
Read up on the history of bank runs in American befo
Too bad the deposits weren't insured (Score:2)
In the US the FDIC would cover losses up to 250K
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it was a bank. Which it wasn't.
And there was no theft at the institution. Which there was.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I probably should've clarified. That was my point. Also banks carry theft insurance.
So? (Score:2)
So their customers are back to where they were a week ago?
Probably just the usual bad IT security (Score:3)
Seriously, most targets, including banks, do not get successfully compromised only because nobody competent tries. All these bullshit hype exchanges were built fast, cheaply and motivated primarily by greed going strong and are very juicy targets, because unlike with basically all other targets, you can actually steal things directly over the Internet from them that are a (not very good, but still) approximation to money.