If you're going to fetch important quantitative data using a client-side Ajax query, then you really shouldn't default that value to "0". That results in a delay of several seconds or more when the page displays "0" even if the actual value is say, "12". It would be much better to default to either the empty string, or "-", or "fetching..." or something like that.<p>In my case, there was a "0" on the page as the main value for at least 5-10 seconds (probably due to HN load) before the correct value was displayed ("12").
Can't argue if many of them are inside jobs for early retirement.<p>"Hacked" is such a convenient word to cover the story of any losses.<p>That crappy vulnerability could just have been placed to make people convinced how it was "hacked".
Testing with client-side JavaScript if the withdrawal amount is less than the account balance? Classic!<p>That had to be a known hole to the designer, presumably whoever wrote that code just bought tickets to a non-extradition country.
The site doesn't work for me, but apparently these are the tweets it refers to:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/bascule/status/962740918053888000" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/bascule/status/962740918053888000</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/ofnumbers/status/962149781400305664" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/ofnumbers/status/962149781400305664</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/patio11/status/957514764011298816" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/patio11/status/957514764011298816</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/patio11/status/938519280240357376" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/patio11/status/938519280240357376</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/patio11/status/760627527450624002" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/patio11/status/760627527450624002</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/patio11/status/731733049847599104" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/patio11/status/731733049847599104</a>
All this bubble speculations, inadequacy of current platforms, taking risks to not miss the trend...<p>I had been all in favor of blockchain and cryptocurrencies for a decentralized approach to local applications, closed markets. To be fair, I never believed blockchain could reach global scalability and there are still concerns on that part.<p>We all saw the future value and possibilities before everybody started branding their deficient products with blockchain. I hope the bad taste surrounding this technology will wither in a short amount of time.
Currency exchanges existed long before cryptocurrencies. As far as I know they are heavily regulated, more or less reliable and trustworthy. Hasn't the Forex added cryptocurrencies to its listing by now? Is the cryptomarket still the far west these days and if so, why?
It looks like it could do with some more data rather than just<p>Days Since A Cryptocurrency Exchange Has Lost More Than $100 Million:
</div>
<div style="text-align:center;font-size:100px">
<span id='counter'>0</span>
I don't think the Nano hack counts because when they were stolen it was worth a lot less and the exchange tried to hide the loss for awhile. The exchange was hacked in Nov. I think, when Nano was worth pennies. Rai Blocks was unique in that is went up so much, so that's why the figure is so big.
<i>BitGrail lost $170 million worth of Nano XRB tokens because... the checks for whether you had a sufficient balance to withdraw were only implemented as client-side JavaScript</i><p>That was just one bug and was not the cause of all the losses. Other users reported issues with withdrawals and deposits , especially pertaining to litecoin and etherem over-credits. I think there was a bug that caused people to get too much.
It peeves me a lot to see virtual currencies described as being "worth" something in a USD or some other real currency equivalent. By the same token, why isn't open source code described as being worth a certain amount of money? I think we can all agree that useful code that powers much of today's enterprise - entirely gratis, too! - is actually worth a lot more than some imaginary string of bits that gets traded back and forth for arbitrary sums of money.
I don't understand people who constantly make fun of new technologies that we're only recently about to figure out how to make right. Like people obsessed with making fun of IoT (I don't own any IoT besides a smartphone) or cryptocurrencies (I own a bit). Isn't it normal for new techs to be failing at the beginning? Do we really need to ridicule these nascent techs just because they're not perfect for now?<p>It's like people making fun of first airplanes 150 years ago (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp7MHZY2ADI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp7MHZY2ADI</a>). First attempts to fly were full of huge failure, many leading to deaths. Many people ridiculed the very idea we would one day do mass travel by plane.<p>I thought of anyone, we should know better than making fun of new tech having some failures, this is how tech works. Because one day, one of these techs may take off like these planes eventually did and you will be the one looking like a fool then.