Re: RAWX altcoin exchange (former mcxNOW) to reopen soon | see a preview here
I understand your anger very well and I won't defend RS here.
But I want to point out that I wouldn't call that a hack of the exchange.
First of all, only one altcoin was affected. Secondly, there was no bug in the exchange code. The problem was an incorrect handling of the fork and running the node.
What's important is that I will be the new operator and the only thing I will continue to use is the backend. Not the frontend, not the choice of altcoins and not the way of operating the exchange.
But I want to point out that I wouldn't call that a hack of the exchange.
First of all, only one altcoin was affected. Secondly, there was no bug in the exchange code. The problem was an incorrect handling of the fork and running the node.
What's important is that I will be the new operator and the only thing I will continue to use is the backend. Not the frontend, not the choice of altcoins and not the way of operating the exchange.
What's important is you've already lied by stating mcxNOW closed down on good terms, you clearly tried to gloss over the fact that mcxNOW closed down due to lost funds - whether you want to call it a "hack" or not barely matters.
I have no anger, profits withdrawn from mcxNOW over the years bought me a house
- I'm just more interested in people knowing the truth of course (plus I do love the lols).Could you not argue there indeed was a serious exchange code flaw...I mean I'm no coding loser but doesn't the QT broadcast messages that can be used to halt trading?
As for the "only one coin therefore not a hack" comment...I mean wtf...so when BTER lost all that NXT it wasn't a hack? lolwut
I do not really care for the past as long as it does not influence the future too hard but for me a hack is actively modifying the behaviour of a system. New to me is that mcxnow had wallet nodes on the 1.8 chain running.
If so the 1.8 hardfork influenced the the wallets exchange backend unintenionally which is no hack. If this has been the case I call it a design flaw of the exchange backend since it trusted the wallet node too much.
However, if I hardfork a coin which I maintain I would make really sure that all system relevant entities have moved to the new chain before I broadcast the magic message to the network to invalidate the old chain.
did doge had such mechanics on the 1.7 chain or has it them even on the current?
if not this is what you have to expect from almost any copyclones you invest into in the cryptoscene today.