1. Find a bug in this library and write up a proof of concept
2. Shortsell $COIN
3. Publish 1
Which I don't think is even illegal? It's all open source and public information so you're not trading on material nonpulic information that I know
A counter example would be Ubiquity that did drop, after the article by Krebs was released.
Generally, bugs, even catastrophic ones can be an excuse to sell a position but never cause a sell-off.
At least that has been my observation.
If cryptocurrencies have a security issue, the entire asset can be irreversibly destroyed with _nothing_ of value left over. Imagine a cryptocurrency called $41TC01N (ShitCoin) has a zero-day that allows any wallet to be trivially compromised, by the time people take action or even understand the nature of the issue-- the attacker could have emptied and exchanged nearly every wallet on the network. The ones left with funds would be worth nothing, because the value has been irreversibly transferred outta the asset. There was a cryptocurrency of some kind recently that is only in existence because the hacker graciously gave it back.
Like, I'm pretty sure, long-term decentralized currencies aren't going to end up as cool as people think they are... distributed ledgers might be, for archival purposes, but like... I ain't seen anything even mildly useful but crappy-DRM, err my bad, I mean NFTs be executed on the blockchain.
The real value is in the code, the minds of the users, and the ledger itself.
That is what would happen if there is a huge security hole (like private keys were generated by a broken RNG… This has actually partially happened in bitcoin [not in a grand scale, but for individual users with some wallets], some coins have been stolen and others given back by white hat hackers like /r/joehoe, … It could be given back, because the errors were either in RNG or similar, and the crypto used was not fundamentally broken. But the day this would happen, a battle tested crypto completely broken overnight… which is very seldomly the case, then no way to know who was the rightful owner… if anyone can sign an equal valid message).
But yes you are right, in other cases that are more likely to happen, things would not break for everybody all at once
But that’s the idea…SWI was overvalued, and when the hack came, they sold off.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that any overvalued company will sell off on bad news but “good” companies will hardly budge.
P.S. I do believe that Coinbase would sell off on similar news, for a myriad of reasons. But I’ve been wrong enough times that I wouldn’t put money on it.
After all, you can't make it illegal for people to yell prime numbers. That is all stealing bitcoin amounts to, is expression/possession of a very specific set of numbers, and a system that incentivises hearing, verifying, and repeating those numbers.
Idk about your morals or ethics but the "internet crime isn't real crime!" bandwagon crashed decades ago.
> After all, you can't make it illegal for people to yell prime numbers.
Sure you can. Michelle Carter just digitally transmitted some prime numbers.
I personally can't tell the difference between any given cryptocurrency and a gold brick scam in the first place. It's not to say you're wrong, but to me the fix is regulating cryptocurrencies, not complaining that someone outsmarted an algorithm that controls millions of dollars of tokens in an unregulated market.
Further, should the government step in and prosecute crimes in said unregulated market? Who's to say what a crime is or whether it's just a feature of the software? If crypto currency is nothing but a gold brick scam, why should they exactly?
> Sure you can. Michelle Carter just digitally transmitted some prime numbers.
So Michelle Carter transmitted 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 ....? I don't think that's what she was convicted of.
But at the same point it seems weird that solving math problems online would somehow be made illegal. Now using said math problems to achieve ill gotten gains from a bank, would clearly be.
So perhaps it is better to think of code as 'intent'.
Making graft visible is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, you probably could formulate an employment contract in Rust – just like you could write a graphics driver in Rockstar .
And yes, many legal systems in the world are slow, inefficient, and prone to be gamed by the wealthy and powerful. I'd really rather we don't add a second layer of indirection and gatekeeping on top of or beneath that.
The refrain I keep hearing is “I’d rather we didn’t”, but all the incentives are aligned such that it is clear that we almost certainly will, if we don’t already behind closed doors.
I’d rather we didn’t have lethal autonomous weapons systems too, but we do, and I’m willing to bet they’re not going away.
So, while we have the chance, should we develop the laws by which they operate in cleartext in public, or hidden inside of existing bureaucracies and autocracies?
Also code more reliable, unless you have a bug and someone siphons off millions of dollars of your customers money, irretrievably?
... actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_primes
>Which I don't think is even illegal?
Probably not illegal. A lot of the crypto stuff that gets nailed has an implicit attempt to deceive/pyramid scheme it. Straight up short sellers...hell that's legal even on stock exchange...assuming the info is solid enough that you don't get sued to oblivion.
Just want to point out that there is a lot that happens in the SEC regulated stock exchange that appears to not even be attempted to be corrected. Naked shorting is still happening all the time, for example.
The material nonpublic information I'd expect is that the the write up is going to be published.
It’s no different than any other kind of analysis of public information, the only risk is stock market manipulation. But the SEC has already decided that short sellers can do this kind of analysis and publish it.
I personally would not want to pay the legal bill necessary to convince the SEC of this fact, if it is even true.