…aaaand another hack… love the language in the “official” statement…
umm, how is being hacked a problem with the crypto community?
I would say that it was using the standard cop out excuse, but the language does make it unique. I have to remember this.
What gets me is why does the older message say that the wallet(s) got emptied and the newer message states that the damage done is being assessed. Imho the wallet(s) are either empty or not.
Sounds very empty to me
Right now, some 14 year old genius is sitting in front of his computer trying to figure out what Gucci watch he likes best. And this is why non-reversible transactions is a problem. Nothing will ever be 100% secure.
That’s an interesting thought. Seems almost all cash transactions are in some sense not easily reversed, do you see any correlations to a possible solution? Armed guards? Escrow? Receipts?
EDIT the words “a double blockchain” just popped into my head…
I think there should be a double confirmation process. I generate a withdrawal and the exchange holding the coin must confirm the withdrawal as legitimate. Seems like a lot of work, but confirmations can be based on IP address recognition. If the account holder’s IP address is identical, the withdrawal is confirmed automatically, if not, it requires another level of confirmation. On hacking issues, the double confirmation must occur from the blockchain before the transaction is actually transferred.
That’s where my brain is going too @Allen1980s like an ORB with end-to-end handshake.
I “buy” something by sending BTC which triggers the primary blockchain. The merchant sends something triggering the secondary blockchain. When receipt by the buyer is established the secondary blockchain unlocks the primary blockchain.
That seems doable.
EDIT where do these three posts really belong, because we’re so far OT on the OP now
Not really, we are on topic because such a program would have prevented the theft of BTC.
Multiiiiiiiii-siiiiiiiig all the way!