Bybit Hack – The difference between digital securities theft versus Crypto – Bedger Insights

If you missed, on Friday, the encrypted currency exchange He suffered from penetrationLosing 401,000 in the ether cryptocurrency, at a value of about $ 1.1 billion. It is believed that the North Korean Lazaros group is responsible. If we look at a few years in the future, if someone sells a large amount of digital securities, is this a problem?

The answer is not really.

There is a big difference between decentralized cryptocurrency such as ETHEREUM and digital securities with a specific source. Most symbolic or digital securities that are released maintain in a manner compatible with a type of control. This means that if there is a big mistake, fraud, or theft, it is possible for the source to interfere in the right mistake. They can prevent the original or may transfer the symbols to another person.

Depending on the distinctive symbol design, this is as much as possible on Blockchain without permission as in special design. The “without permission” side applies to Blockchain itself, not necessarily the assets that sit over it.

Therefore, the concerns of breakthroughs are not really a final reason for resisting panel groups without permission for traditional securities. This does not mean that the penetration will not be very comfortable, and it can involve lawsuits given the move. But in most cases it should not be a major disaster.

What about censorship resistance?

Decentralization lovers hate the fact that freezing is possible because they prefer the assets of “anti -censorship”. On the contrary, the largest stablecoins like Tether and USDC is fully central and freezing.

In the case of bybit, a small percentage of theft was converted into stablecoins tether, which immediately frozen.

He has created Stablecoins decentralization, making it more difficult for this type of intervention. Dai and his successor were originally between this group, and the M protocol did not contain a freezing in its basic functions, although it allows others to build this optional at the top.

Decentralization supporters, they do not necessarily support the Lazaros group or thieves. Most of them do not want to see what happened in Canada during Covid, when the demonstrators were banned on their bank accounts.

Meanwhile, if you want to know how to hack, when bybit is transferring the money to his cold portfolio, the infiltrator enables the user interface to falsify, so the money went to the wrong wallet. More details here. Without admitting a mistake, the safe wallet provider put a New version From its program, remove the way it used byBit to sign its transactions.

What will happen to the stolen eth?

There was some gossip about the possible retreat to the Ethereum Blockchain group to a pre -hacking point, in order to return money. But this is unrealistic. It fell in 2016 in the early days of Ethereum after Dao penetration. It was very controversial after that. Now it is likely to be practical in view of all the transactions that occurred later.

Before identifying the Lazarus group as infiltrated, there were hopes for returning most of the money.

Snements are likely to use mixers for new symbolic addresses to cover their paths.

However, there is a way to make it difficult for the lazarus group use of money, even if this does not help.

During the past 24 hours, 85 % of the blocks came on Ethereum Blockchain from only three products. In the settlement layer, if the mass producers refuse to include transactions from these wallet addresses, the infiltrators will not be able to use symbols, not even through mixers.

Among these three major producers, one of them does not control transactions, no one, and a partial observer. However, to stop Lazaros, all the producing blocs will have to control the headlines.

Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve was published in New York A. mail On this topic, exploring producers include transactions from some mixers. They concluded that even the episodes such as Ethereum “it does not seem to be immune to the possibility of excluding some transactions due to external pressure.”