[ad_1]<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
Getty
Insiders prefer to describe Blockchain as a distributed Immutable Ledger technology. They love being distributed and a "ledger" rather than a database. But above all, they seem to like it to be "immutable". For fans, this means that indestructible cryptography and other technological elements make the software unreliable and hacker-proof. In a world full of shoddy software that is completely "changeable", hackerable, fragile and full of other criminal and harmful things to the consumer, this is a wonderful thing. It is no wonder that so many people and companies jump on the Bandchabagon Blockchain. The smell of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) fills the air.
FOMO is really strong on Blockchain. So strong that it seems to prevent fans from paying attention to the fact that it has been established in recent years: Blockchain can actually be distributed and a ledger (more on those in subsequent posts), but it is not practically immutable. In fact, it is just as hackerable as any other software, not least because nobody has the job of keeping it safe!
The last loss is small compared to some of the previous ones. L & # 39; One announced January 8, 2019 amounts to "only" $ 200,000 of the classic ethereum. What's worse is that the attack was at the heart of & nbsp; the blockchain. Apparently the attack was carried out by miners, the servers that are at the center of the operations and security of the blockchain, those that perform the magic encryption that presumably prevents bad things from happening. The same hack has involved the absolutely worst thing that can happen in a cryptocurrency: about 40,000 ETCs have been spent in two.
If this were the first loss, I will understand blockchain people by minimizing its importance. It is certainly not the first loss. Who speaks of Mt. Gox hack, where almost half a billion dollars were lost? It happened about 5 years ago! Mt. Gox was followed by an endless stream of other attacks and losses of success (for criminals). One of the most famous was the $ 50 million lost in the DAO hack. Less famous hacks resulting in losses of more than $ 10 million took place in 2018. The model of criminal success shows no signs of slowing down.
How can a sane person continue to block the blockchain as a transformation technology due (in part) to its immutability and implies greater security in the face of this evidence? Obviously, what's happening is that people are simply ignoring the evidence. That's all!
Let's put this in context. What would be the stories if something like this happened with banal old banks, with their apparently obsolete software and security, which is primitive in comparison? While many normal banks are robbed every year, these are small-scale events and many of the authors are captured. For example, here is the The latest news from the FBI on bank robberies. You will see that there are a lot of convictions and prison sentences. Here is a story from December 2018 on a man who robbed a local bank of $ 536 to pay rent. He has just been sentenced to 46 months in prison.
Are there bank robberies in which large amounts are stolen? Check out the list of them in Wikipedia. The list dates back more than a century. The biggest robberies do not approach the criminals of the blockchain world. The most recent listed was 20 years ago, when the Bank of America was robbed of less than $ 2 million. Peanuts!
OK, you could say, but what about cybercrime? There's actually a good deal. But digging into the exact nature of the crimes and how they are committed is quite interesting. It could exist, but I could not find any cases where core bank systems were violated. And NONE of the central database (the equivalent of blockchain)! In all the cases I saw, it was clear that the old network hacking systems and / or criminal employees were the problem. Yes, some large quantities have been involved, for example in the Robbery in Bangladesh. But in that case, as in many others, corrupt insiders were involved. It had nothing to do with the security of the banking software itself!
If the normal banks had been violated in the way the blockchain was hacked, it will be discovered that the main banking system has been hacked, or the central database itself. In no case can I find this happened. This means that the blockchain, in its short existence and with its relatively small fraction of money, has been hacked more successfully and in depth than any normal banking software. "Immutable", eh? Explain again, please. But stick to the facts this time.
The conclusions we can draw from these facts are simple, clear and difficult to challenge:
- Blockchain is very likely to be hacked in a wide variety of ways.
- This has been proven by events for more than 5 years; hacks are under way.
- Large amounts of money are lost in hacks.
- Hackers are not taken, much less punished.
- While there are a lot of physical theft of old-fashioned banks, the amounts involved are small, the perpetrators are often taken and consumers are not injured.
- While there are hacks on old-fashioned banks, they have had little success in US banks and the same kind of cyber security breaches that happen everywhere are involved.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER PUBLICITY
- In no case have hacks been as profound in software as many blockchain attacks have been.
There's a lot more that can be said about this, but here's the bottom line: if you want to keep your money safe, put it in a traditional bank, whose software systems are truly immutable. Any storage blockchain is more susceptible to attack and loss than the software used by traditional banks.
">
Insiders prefer to describe Blockchain as a distributed Immutable Ledger technology. They love being distributed and a "ledger" rather than a database. But above all, they seem to like it to be "immutable". For fans, this means that indestructible cryptography and other technological elements make the software unreliable and hacker-proof. In a world full of shoddy software that is completely "changeable", hackerable, fragile and full of other criminal and harmful things to the consumer, this is a wonderful thing. It is no wonder that so many people and companies jump on the Bandchabagon Blockchain. The smell of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) fills the air.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER PUBLICITY
FOMO is really strong on Blockchain. So strong that it seems to prevent fans from paying attention to the fact that it has been established in recent years: Blockchain can actually be distributed and a ledger (more on those in subsequent posts), but it is not practically immutable. In fact, it is just as hackerable as any other software, not least because nobody has the job of keeping it safe!
The last loss is small compared to some of the previous ones. The one announced January 8, 2019 is equivalent to "only" $ 200,000 of the classic ethereum. What's worse is that the attack was at the center of the blockchain. Apparently the attack was carried out by miners, the servers that are at the center of the operations and security of the blockchain, those that perform the magic encryption that presumably prevents bad things from happening. The same hack has involved the absolutely worst thing that can happen in a cryptocurrency: about 40,000 ETCs have been spent in two.
If this were the first loss, I will understand blockchain people by minimizing its importance. It is certainly not the first loss. Who speaks of Monte. Gox hack, in which almost half a billion dollars have been lost? It happened about 5 years ago! Mt. Gox was followed by an endless stream of other attacks and losses of success (for criminals). One of the most famous was the $ 50 million lost in DAO hack. In 2018 there were less known hacks that caused losses of over $ 10 million. The scheme of criminal success shows no signs of slowing down.
How can a sane person continue to block the blockchain as a transformation technology due (in part) to its immutability and implies greater security in the face of this evidence? Obviously, what's happening is that people are simply ignoring the evidence. That's all!
Let's put this in context. What would be the stories if something like this happened with banal old banks, with their apparently obsolete software and security, which is primitive in comparison? While many normal banks are robbed every year, these are small-scale events and many of the authors are captured. For example, here is the latest news from the FBI on bank robberies. You will see that there are a lot of convictions and prison sentences. Here is a December 2018 story about a man who robbed a local bank of $ 536 to pay rent. He has just been sentenced to 46 months in prison.
Are there bank robberies in which large amounts are stolen? Check the list of them in Wikipedia. The list dates back more than a century. The biggest robberies do not approach the criminals of the blockchain world. The most recent listed was 20 years ago, when the Bank of America was robbed of less than $ 2 million. Peanuts!
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER PUBLICITY
OK, you could say, but what about cybercrime? There's actually a good deal. But digging into the exact nature of the crimes and how they are committed is quite interesting. It could exist, but I could not find any cases where core bank systems were violated. And NONE of the central database (the equivalent of blockchain)! In all the cases I saw, it was clear that the old network hacking systems and / or criminal employees were the problem. Yes, some large quantities have been involved, for example in the robbery in Bangladesh. But in that case, as in many others, corrupt insiders were involved. It had nothing to do with the security of the banking software itself!
If the normal banks had been violated in the way the blockchain was hacked, it will be discovered that the main banking system has been hacked, or the central database itself. In no case can I find this happened. This means that the blockchain, in its short existence and with its relatively small fraction of money, has been hacked more successfully and in depth than any normal banking software. "Immutable", eh? Explain again, please. But stick to the facts this time.
The conclusions we can draw from these facts are simple, clear and difficult to challenge:
There's a lot more that can be said about this, but here's the bottom line: if you want to keep your money safe, put it in a traditional bank, whose software systems are truly immutable. Any storage blockchain is more susceptible to attack and loss than the software used by traditional banks.
