285
Monero Project admits thieves stole 6-figure sum from a wallet in mystery breach
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
285 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
59161 readers
2091 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The linked article (and so AutoTL;DR) is not very accurate. If you’re interested in this incident, read the original post, which is short and compact. General media articles are only quoting or re-quoting this thread, typically with some misunderstanding.
Specifically (about this post): Among other things, multisig is only suggested; nothing has been decided yet.
Generally (in many similar articles): Probably a specific local machine was hacked, though no one really knows yet what happened. It’s unlikely that the Monero network itself was hacked.
Since I’m a Monero supporter, obviously I tend to say good things about it, but frankly, the ironical fact here is, Monero is so privacy-focused that when something like this happens, it’s difficult to identify the attacker—i.e. by design Monero also protects the identity of the attacker. Some Monero users are having this weird, paradoxical feeling: it would be nice if we could catch this evil attacker, but being able to catch the attacker would be in a way very bad news for Monero (if you know what I mean) 😕
As you yourself out it, the issue with monero is that it is designed to protect attackers.
I think I know what you’re trying to say, and that’s actually a difficult point. Privacy is double-edged.
By that logic, you’d have to support chat control, e2e backdoor, eIDAS 45, etc. and ban Tor, Tails, VPN, BitTorrent, or encrypted communication in general because sometimes criminals can (and do) abuse such technology too. While such logic is understandable, I’m a privacy advocate and can’t agree with that. Most libre people, EFF, FSF, etc. have been fighting against that very logic for more than 20 years. I’m one of them.
It's designed to protect anyone using it - even attackers.
That's the price to pay for having privacy.
The alternative is an Orwellian dystopia.
Really?
Please show me in which of Orwell's writings he suggested that economies should be based off allowing financial criminals to commi their crimes against citizens, unimpeded.
The thesis of 1984 is that when totalitarianism takes hold, we will turn on those we love to protect ourselves. Which specific portion of that novel do you believe told you that true freedom is getting your money stolen with no recourse?
This is primarily the issue with libertarians. You guys are constantly applying a book you haven't read to every situation you don't like. It's weird and I think people see through it.
I don't need to and I won't, because I never said so.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I was thinking of 1984, too; obviously.
I see it in a more abstract way though.
The consequences of mass surveillance, which are the basis of repressive regimentation of people are what makes lack of privacy dangerous and in my book not desirable - even if it has certain drawbacks, because abandoning privacy just has way more and more severe drawbacks.
This is primarily the issue with people who think they know others because they've read one comment.
It's weird and I think people see through it.
edit: typos
It's designed to protect "users".