Jump to content


Bronze Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by T8493

  1. Ok, I also remember seeing full amount of XRPs in my GateHub wallet. So there are two separate issues: GateHub wallet doesn't show correct balance someone stole XRPs from GateHub wallet (allegedly)
  2. Maybe GateHub wallet subtracts reserve from the net worth. This last transaction left 61 XRP in his account: https://xrpcharts.ripple.com/#/transactions/93FA4CFB92BF61B9B0CF7B8EEF669F5283CE2674054E14589BBD91BB7D4AE31A
  3. First link redirects me to https://www.cloudflare.com/ The second link doesn't contain the name of the company that is behind this wallet.
  4. @Pointbreak pointed out GateHub has currently probably much more pressing issues (hack, non-functioning user support, "read only wallet", etc.) and implementing anything related to Interledger is probably not on the top of their to-do list. GateHub team is probably very small and they simply can't work on X different projects at the same time.
  5. You should read the Ripple protocol specification before using it. All "disclaimers" are there. No one forced you to use RCL. Your account and associated transactons will forever consume resources (e.g. disk space) on servers in the Ripple network. You're complaining because of $4, but people who use Bitcoin pay $15 for every transaction (not for account): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/paying-15-to-send-25-has-bitcoin-users-rethinking-practicality
  6. Coverage in mainstream media: https://live.finance.si/39297/Hekerji-GateHubu-ukradli-za-pet-milijonov-dolarjev-kriptokovancev-ripple Google translate:
  7. Currently yes, but even in the previous days it was pretty small. Around 1-2% of total RCL (without exchanges) trading volume, maybe 4 or 5% on good days.
  8. Their trading volume (especially JPY/XRP pair) on RCL is very small...
  9. If you think XRP can be worth so much in the future, just buy 100 extra XRPs and you'll cover all your "losses" accrued when you created these accounts.
  10. Yes, Ripple (or someone else) can change the protocol. But $4 that are locked in your account are probably irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
  11. Is this their website www.tokyojpy.com ? This website is also gone (it is redirected to Japanese version of Yahoo). Maybe this has something to do with licenses: https://www.coindesk.com/japans-finance-regulator-issues-licenses-for-11-bitcoin-exchanges/
  12. According to what @tulo says, this attacks sounds more like an unjustified enrichment of an attacker and not necessarily a criminal act (as @gatehub announcement suggests - "The criminal exploited").
  13. You claim that the bug was in the service that processes transactions that transfer BTC IOUs to one of the RCL addresses, owned by GateHub? I thought this "deposit processing service" works in the opposite direction. If this is true, then this is very problematic because: GateHub devs maybe didn't read the documentation and their internal review processes are iffy, GateHub likely didn't implement any "invariant checking" of the BTC IOU amounts on RCL in their accounts (basically, actual amount of BTC IOUs in our Ripple address (as reported by rippled) = sum of BTC IOU in all transactions that sent BTC IOU to/from this Ripple address) - similar to what Ripple implemented in rippled (EnforceInvariant amendment).
  14. Yes, I'm familiar with this. But the described attack goes in direction XRP Ledger->BTC ledger. However, I think that this "deposit processing service" maybe works in the opposite direction (BTC Ledger->XRP Ledger) because this is the "deposit" from the point of view of GateHub users. Why would someone call a "withdrawal processing service" a "deposit processing service"?
  15. It is far from clear how their "deposit processing service" uses partial payments (and why would such service even need partial payments).
  16. GateHub announcement: http://blog.gatehub.net/post/165832617292/gatehub-ltd-announcement I. What does this mean? Who provided capital? GateHub? Shareholder of GateHub? How did they get it? It looks like there was no new funding round or something. How do you "backstop your *working* capital"? The word "backstop" is usually used in relation to shares, not "working capital". What exactly do they mean by "capital facility"? II. What do they mean by volume? Trading volume? Deposit volume? Amount of deposits ("deposit volume") is maybe an order of magnitude higher than the amount in "offline cold storage" because - generally speaking - "offline cold storage" equals to deposits minus withdrawals (and they claim they had a lot of withdrawals in this period). III. Does this mean that GateHub is currently insecure (or at least less secure than it could be)? How will this multisig system prevent bugs related to 'partial payment' feature (or in fact any bug) in their backend deposit processing systems? IV. Shareholders have just "absorbed" an enormous loss (according to this announcement). How can this be profitable? Maybe they mean their *operating* profit is greater than zero? GateHub is growing fast? Quick search on LinkedIn doesn't reveal any significant jump in the headcount over the last years. They weren't able to fill several engineering positions (according to their website). There is still no e.g. mobile wallet.
  17. Maybe they required just reports (and not exactly "proofs") of their reserves.
  18. Yeah, but most (all?) gateways just paid the fee but they didn't follow IRBA guidelines. How many gateways (e.g. Bitstamp) published proofs of their reserves, etc.?
  19. We don't know if it was exactly the same problem.
  20. Yeah, but exactly this was the problem with IRBA. @celticwarrior72 had to (blindly?) trust gateways. He had no power to e.g. audit gateways, etc.
  21. I doubt IRBA had any real power or insight. Gateways simply ignored their guidelines if I remember correctly.
  • Create New...