The way I read the article, the “worth millions” is the sum of the ransom demand.

The funny part is that the exploit is in the “smart” contract, ya know the thing that the blockchain keeps secure by forbidding any updates or patches.

  • stoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You seem to misstakenly believe that I support this, I don’t, I just argued against a dumb reason as to why it wouldn’t work.

      • stoy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I recomment that you read my earlier comment to read my argument.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You claim that “governments order companies to do stuff all the time”, but how does that apply to an entry in the blockchain, which we’ve agreed is the authority on who owns property. The hint is: a company couldn’t change an entry in the blockchain, even if the government ordered them to do it.

          • stoy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would they change an entry on the blockchain?

            To make the dumb idea of tracking peoperties on the blockchain there needs to be admin tools to restore the NFT to the proper owner.

            If the NFT gets transfered to someone else illegally, there needs to be tools to add another entry to the chain with a note saying that the NFT was stolen, and this new change restores the ownership to the lawful owner.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              there needs to be admin tools to restore the NFT to the proper owner.

              The whole point of the blockchain technologies is that they’re (supposedly) immune to state interference. What’s on the blockchain is the “truth”. The state wouldn’t have any power to restore the proper owner of the NFT / house because they chose to trust blockchain instead of having control over the database.

              If states can “restore ownership to the lawful owner”, they can also seize people’s cryptocurrencies.

              That’s why no state would ever have house registries on a blockchain that they didn’t control. And if they did control it, there’s no point in using a blockchain when they could just use a traditional database.

              • stoy
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which is exactly what I have been trying to say